The bells, whistles & *confetti* Ryan was supposed to bring to the Willard ticket, still haven't found the party yet!

If the President is leading by 4 points going into the freak show in Tampa, he should have a double digit lead by the time that hot mess is over!

Ryan/Akin 2012 - Representing compassionate, conservative, Christians, one vagina at a time!

Update on Reps. Todd Akin and Paul Ryan, H.R.3 bill -
Legislating women against their will, to bear their rapists' babies:
Yesterday, the GOP party voted to embrace a constitutional ban on ALL abortions - with no explicit exceptions - in their 2012 convention language.

Pretzel Alert: While claiming to be at odds with said party vote, turns out the GOP platform on abortion was "written at the direction of Romney's campaign". (L.A. Times)

Paul Ryan said, "If it's illegal, it's illegal".
Imagine the Personhood Amendment going into law under RomneyRyan, and all the women get busted for using birth control. Where would they put all those women ~ into for-profit prisons? Will it be a good idea to put half the women in America of child bearing age in prison, along with their care providers?

A real war against American women is underway, c/o Republican candidates Paul Ryan & Mitt Romney.
RomneyRyan-No choice-No exceptions.

Fair Warning: Before reading this post, lefty liberals are advised to make sure their vast right wing conspiracy tinfoil hats are securely fastened on their heads.

There was an article in yesterday’s WSJ, buried in the back pages of the Money and Investing section, about rising gas prices. Conspiracy nuts might think Big Oil may be looking to punish Barry for trying to take away their so-called “unnecessary tax breaks”.

A few facts cited in the article:

• Gasoline futures have risen 19% over the past few months

• Crude oil futures are up 27% since late June

• Inventories of gasoline and diesel in the US are at their lowest levels for this time of year since 2008

All this means that pump prices, which have already been on the rise recently, are likely to continue to rise in September and October.

Yeah, yeah, I already know lefty liberals will whine and complain that Barry doesn’t control these prices. But, the simple fact is that, fair or not, the President gets the blame from the public when pump prices go up.

Of course, Barry could save the day if his intrepid Inspector Clouseau, that moron Eric Holder, who has been investigating oil and gas price manipulation and price gouging for about two years now can show some results.

Yeah, right. Like THAT’S gonna happen.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nobama 2012 Really, Things Could Be Worse-

Give Me Four More Years and I’ll Prove It

Clouseau is the bumbling and incompetent police inspector of the French Sûreté, whose investigations are marked with chaos and destruction that he himself largely causes. His clumsy attempts at solving the case frequently lead to misfortune for himself and others; in the 1976 film The Pink Panther Strikes Again, he cannot even interview witnesses to a crime without falling down stairs, getting his hand caught in first a medieval knight's gauntlet and then a vase, knocking a witness senseless (and voiceless), destroying a priceless piano or accidentally shooting another officer in the backside. Clouseau is also not particularly intelligent, and will frequently follow a completely idiotic theory of the crime, solving the case only by accident.

Parallel Translations

For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in. Where do the greedy so-called Christians follow this biblical quote?

Nowhere!

Today's GOP is a party of extremists, from the Romney-Ryan ticket on down, and women are going to reject their anti-woman agenda this November at the ballot."

According to Open Congress, the following House members have voted with Akin consistently, including on H.R. 3. And every single one of them is being challenged by a strong pro-choice Democratic woman who will fight for the priorities that protect women across America.

Bobby Schilling (IL-17) has voted with Akin 90% of the time

Jon Runyan (NJ-03) has voted with Akin 88% of the time

Joe Walsh (IL-08) has voted with Akin 89% of the time

Mike Fitzpatrick (PA-08) has voted with Akin 78% of the time

Frank Guinta (NH-01) has voted with Akin 93% of the time

Charlie Bass (NH-02) has voted with Akin 82% of the time

Steve King (IA-04) has voted with Akin 94% of the time

Bill Young (FL-13) has voted with Akin 87% of the time

Daniel Webster (FL-10) has voted with Akin 93% of the time

Mike Turner (OH-10) has voted with Akin 86% of the time

Bob Gibbs (OH-07) has voted with Akin 93% of the time

Jim Renacci (OH-16) has voted with Akin 89% of the time

Vicky Hartzler (MO-04) has voted with Akin 95% of the time

Similarities extend to the top of the ticket, where Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan enjoys a 93% score voting with Rep. Akin.

To see shared votes, here is the link to the Open Congress head to head comparison tool:

http://www.opencongress.org/people/compare?utf8=%E2%9C%93&representatives=true&person1=400005&person2=412463

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

Ryan/ Romney are mere straw men.

4 more for 44
Obama/Biden 2012

Backhouse

Update on Reps. Todd Akin and Paul Ryan, H.R.3 bill -
Legislating women against their will, to bear their rapists' babies:
Yesterday, the GOP party voted to embrace a constitutional ban on ALL abortions - with no explicit exceptions - in their 2012 convention language.

Good morning Backhouse

Great job on exposing these lying hypocritical sanctimonious, so-called Christians

Obama/Biden 2012

The GOP legislative war on women:

http://www.politicususa.com/proof-war-women.html

Patients Would Pay More if Romney Restores Medicare Savings, Analysts Say

WASHINGTON — Mitt Romney’s promise to restore $716 billion that he says President Obama “robbed” from Medicare has some health care experts puzzled, and not just because his running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan, included the same savings in his House budgets.

The 2010 health care law cut Medicare reimbursements to hospitals and insurers, not benefits for older Americans, by that amount over the coming decade. But repealing the savings, policy analysts say, would hasten the insolvency of Medicare by eight years — to 2016, the final year of the next presidential term, from 2024.

While Republicans have raised legitimate questions about the long-term feasibility of the reimbursement cuts, analysts say, to restore them in the short term would immediately add hundreds of dollars a year to out-of-pocket Medicare expenses for beneficiaries. That would violate Mr. Romney’s vow that neither current beneficiaries nor Americans within 10 years of eligibility would be affected by his proposal to shift Medicare to a voucherlike system in which recipients are given a lump sum to buy coverage from competing insurers.

For those reasons, Henry J. Aaron, an economist and a longtime health policy analyst at the Brookings Institution and the Institute of Medicine, called Mr. Romney’s vow to repeal the savings “both puzzling and bogus at the same time.”

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

Here you have them folks Ryan/R-money: the original BANkstas

http://www.newscorpse.com/Pix/Campaign2012/OriginalBankster.jpg

Chris, Feisty, Bev, good morning, you speak true -

Todd Akin and Paul Ryan have been on the same page with women's issues for a long time:

""It is an agenda that has enjoyed the support of House leaders, including Speaker John A. Boehner and Representative Eric Cantor, the majority leader, who has called anti-abortion measures "obviously very important in terms of the priorities we set out initially in our pledge to America."

It became inextricably linked to the near-shutdown of the federal government last year when an agreement to keep the government open was reached only after it was linked to a measure restricting abortion in the District of Columbia."" (NY Times)

One only needs to review the behavior of republican congressmen and senators for the past four
years to arrive at the unavoidable conclusion that the cause of the constant sequence of legislative impasses that have been plaguing both the House and the Senate during the Obama administration--and especially since the 2010 congressional elections--must be laid directly at the feet of the Republican party.

This conclusion shouldnot come as a great surprise to anyone who has been following politics for at least the last couple of years. Senate minority leader, republican Mitch McConnell,clearly stated the GOP goal at least until the 2012 elections: to make surethat Obama would be a one-term president! There was no mention of solving thecountry's serious economic and social problems. To cooperate in any way with Obama or the Democrats might result in credit being given to Obama. Instead,
the Republican strategy has consistently been to block any legislation that would be beneficial to the country or its citizens. Ironically, this strategy has required the GOP to oppose ideas that they themselves have endorsed and initiated in the recent past. Since the Republicans are in a slight minority in the Senate, they have resorted to that antiquated tool, the filibuster, to block every serious piece of legislation, including popular proposals that have the approval of the majority.

The GOP obstruction effort has been even easier in the House of Representatives. Since 2010, when
intransigent Tea Party fanatics were elected and invaded the institution, theRepublicans have held a substantial majority. They have used that majority to block virtually every piece of substantive or helpful legislation, while fostering endless bills addressing their extreme views on social issues. While
driving the nation to the brink of default on our national debt, resulting in a lowering of our credit rating for the first time in history, they have introduced endless bills to abolish abortion rights and overthrow Obama's signature health care legislation, the Affordable Care Act.

The current crop of Republicans are people who have little understanding of how government functions, who have no respect for the needs of the broader spectrum of their ethnically diverse fellow citizens, and who are extremely intolerant of anyone who disagrees, however slightly, with their inane politics and long-nurtured hatred of everything that is not white, evangelically religious, and ready to
kill for a cause, however ignoble and partisan

no joe, no bo, nj

Too bad NBC STILL cannot get the polling right. Did the poll "tighten" from last month?

Not hardly. Last month, the democratic skew was worse than this month.

The electorate typically looks like democrats +4- not +6, or eleven, or whatever crazy number your polling firm pulls out of a hat.

The race is, therefore, still tied.

NO, NO,NO,

no joe the only thing that is tied statistically is your brain. Where's that ounce to the bounce Ryan was supposed to give R-money? LOOK at this pew research poll.

Medicare Voucher Plan Remains Unpopular

Plurality Views Ryan VP Choice Negatively

http://www.people-press.org/2012/08/21/medicare-voucher-plan-remains-unpopular/

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

Guess what else NO NO NO Joe? The more people get to know about the lies and distortions of R-money and Ryan the more they' ll both fall down!!

4 more for Obama

Akin is President Obama's best friend. He's going to help deliver a State to our President as well as a Senator. Gosh, can't ask for more.

Looking at the Woman's continuing increase in favor of our President, throw in 90% of the Latino vote and ALL of the Black vote, and I say the President may just have a "walk in the park" come election day. So goodbye Romney/Ryan. Worse luck next time.

OBAMA IN 2012.

No Joe,

So the "Liberal Media" is over sampling Democrats so that what …

Democrats will think the election is in the bag for Obama not work to GOTV or if this continues Democrats will just stay home on Election Day.

Is this what you are really suggesting?

One week ago today, Ron and Feisty referring to the Ryan pick prematurely proclaimed:

No Bump for Romney and Not only has there NOT been a bump for Willard...

Really? Well, imagine my surprise when I pulled up the Real Clear Politics "Latest Polls" page and saw all of that RED.*

Some of you may recall that just prior to the Ryan pick, Obama was enjoying an inexplicable movement in the polls that was continuing to increase heading into the weekend. After months of polls showing the race to be a dead heat, the RCP average of the spread for the recent polls of the General Election was an astonishing +4.7 points for Obama. This is likely what precipitated an inpromptu strategy meeting by Republican heavy hitters and ultimately the roll-out of Ryan as Romney's choice for VP on August 11th.

This morning just for giggles, I calculated the average of the six General Election polls taken since the Ryan selection and found that the spread had decreased to only +0.7 for Obama indicating that there was indeed a "bump for Romney" (BTW, this average includes yesterdays NBC/WSJ poll of registered voters that oversamples Democrats by 6-7 points). This indicates that the new Romney/Ryan ticket has blunted whatever momentum Obama was gaining in the earlier part of the month and has made the race once again, a statistical dead heat.

Additionally, there has been movement in the swing state polls towards Romney as well. Couple this with the fundraising gap between Republicans and Democrats ( last month $101 million vs $75 million respectively) and if I were a Democrat/liberal I'd be starting to worry. There is little that can change the dynamics of the race between now and the conventions where traditionally the challenger enjoys a slight advantage in poll action. Also, remember that after the convention, Romney can finally tap in to his General Election fund which will help him maintain any momentum he gains from the convention.

* I just wanted to note here that one of the "red" entries on the "Latest Polls" page was the PPP poll of the Akin/McCaskill race which shows Akin leading by one. At first I was puzzled by that result until I dug into the numbers and realized that the poll oversamples Republicans by nine points.

Why are the issues with Akin and similar Republicans such a big deal? Because if people stay home during the election this is what you get! Get out the VOTE!

OK, another poll and it says that nothing has changed since April of this year. I for one tend to disagree. It shows Obama going down recently and Romney going up. Yes I, know these are just polls and November is what counts, but it does tell you a story.

Take a look at this graph over a time period and you will see what I mean.

Good try NBC, please explain your differences.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/22/13413404-first-thoughts-not-your-ordinary-august-poll#comments

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio

No Joe,

So the "Liberal Media" is over sampling Democrats so that what …

Democrats will think the election is in the bag for Obama not work to GOTV or if this continues Democrats will just stay home on Election Day.

Is this what you are really suggesting?

Actually, that's what NO NO Joe is dreaming!

No r-money/ryan

4 more 4 44

Obama/Biden2012

You know why Romney keeps fumbling, because the Republicans are locking him down. He's already outerspace and there is ZERO possibility of him moving to the middle. We need a president (administration really) that will look out for the middle. GET OUT THE VOTE!

“The election has moved from a referendum to a choice,” co-pollster Peter Hart (D) said.

Wishful thinking on the part of a Democrat. The election is actually both with the "referendum" taking precedence.

Too bad NBC STILL cannot get the polling right. Did the poll "tighten" from last month?

Not hardly. Last month, the democratic skew was worse than this month.

The electorate typically looks like democrats +4- not +6, or eleven, or whatever crazy number your polling firm pulls out of a hat.

The race is, therefore, still tied.

Ah, yes, because it just wouldn't be an NBC/WSJ Poll without the monthly kvetching by the Conservatvies about oversampling!

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

Amanda: "I'll be the victim!"

Wednesday: "...all your life."

- Addams Family Values

Backhouse, Beverly, Steve C, great reading your informative posts this fine "odd August" morning. Chris, Dorr, ditto; and Feisty did a great job adding some humor to the topic.

Albany Joe is still HAHAHAing himself to tears while the rest of us will HAHAHA him come November 6. I see Snookie Joe's undies are in a bunch over the WSJ/NBC poll--those right-wing poll dancers only prefer reading polls that favor them, otherwise, they are subject to doubt; Snookie prefers Etch-a-Sketch polls.

Dennis, nicely done rebuttal to the poll doubter.

Backhouse

Will it be a good idea to put half the women in America of child bearing age in prison, along with their care providers?

On the plus-side, the Unemployment Rate would go down.

'Legitimate' rape is what our country will endure if we allow the R&R boys to win. 'Forcible' rape is what the GOP is doing to the country now. So it is just as important to oust the Akins' of the GOP state-by-state also.

Remember, the GOP rode the wave of a false promise of JOBS. But there were no jobs forthcoming from these people as they ignored their duty to the people of this country in order to thwart the President at every turn to instead force their False Christian ideology upon us.

Vote 'em out, vote em' out, vote all the GOP out! And vote NO HOW NO WAY to Romney and Ryan!

The economy is still stuck because today's Republican Brand is forbidden to work with the President.
How can you be forbidden to reach across the isle?

At one point the President indicated he "liked" Paul Ryan back in the early days of the Health Care debates but he joked he didn't mean it because he didn't want to hurt Ryan with the Republicans running someone against Ryan.

During the budget negotiations last year, Boehner was minutes from striking a deal on the budget with the President, but Eric Cantor and Specifically Paul Ryan told Boehner not to do it or there would be "consequences".

Lest us not forget folks...who slapped who's hand when reaching across the isle. The President got his fingers bitten. I really hate that...It is OUR Economy, not YOURS, not MINE. OUR

Wow, the (R)s are really putting in a plank for a full ban on ALL abortions? Even fourteen year olds who have been molested by their fathers their entire lives? Even rape victims of all kinds?

And to think that might have been buried in the platform nice and quiet like.

Akin just made sure it's going to be front-and-center. He is literally the gift that keeps on giving. He (and his supporters) are trying to spin it to "one wrong word", that being the word "legitimate", but anyone with two functional brain cells knows it's not about the word "legitimate" (as bad as it is in that situation), it's about his backwards-ass, totally ignorant, zero scientific validity belief that a woman who is raped has a subconscious way of preventing the rapist's sperm from fertilizing an egg.

He sits on the House Science Committee, but he knows nothing of science, only superstition and conjecture.

*** Injecting race into the campaign:

Oh Nooooo,

How could those two doofuses go there. Anybody that just watches the campaign ads and the reception R-money and Ryan have received not just poor African Americans rejecting their negativity so do women, Latinos, gays and many independents.

Who can tolerate the bitrhers & T-Bangers or Santorum's: "I don't want to give 'BLACK' other people's money"?

Romney has yet to reject these racist comments or FOXTAIL head Donald Trump.

4 more 4 44

Obama/Biden 2012

Citizen

You are correct! If you accept only the most recent Likely voter polls used and limited to the last 10 days, Romney has edged ahead. It would be 30 days, but there are enough polls stuffed with oversampled Democrats that Obama is ahead.

Gallup uses Registered voters in the national poll. That poll turned red after Ryan was named to the ticket. Obama's chances of winning are drying up, and given the long term trend has been that way for 6 months now, i don't see anything stopping that any time soon.

Fool's Gold- I seem to recall Hart saying the same thing in 2010- when the NBC poll showed that the electorate preferred a democratic controlled congress by two points. Republicans won by seven.

They have, in fact, adjusted their pool- the wrong way, but they did adjust it.

Funny thing-AP/GfK is out today, and show a one point race. They, also, over sampled democrats- democrats +6.

Exit polling, (in and of itself pretty flawed), shows the electorate to be, typically, democrats +4. I bothered doing the regression modeling last month, and got a 46-46 tie, using the proper weighting. Too busy right now, but I'm betting that, if and when I do, I will get a similar result.

He sits on the House Science Committee, but he knows nothing of science, only superstition and conjecture.

That is the truly scary part!

Like Michelle Bachmann sitting on the Intelligence Committee!

It's being grossly under-reported by the MSM...

Who can tolerate the bitrhers & T-Bangers or Santorum's I don't want to give "BLACK" other people's money.

Morning GF!

Speaking of race, I wonder how Paul Ryan dating a black girl in college will play with the Redneck Riviera?

There's already a mormon on the top of the ticket!

Hmmmm....

Joe-

I put my tin-foil hat on straight, and thought about what would cause gas prices to rise.

There are three main factors that drive the price of oil and gas: Supply/Demand, the value of the dollar, and speculation.

If you analyze those three fctors, two fothem should be leading to LOWER gas prices: Global oil output and supply is outpacing demand due to the weak global economy, and the value of the dollar is stronger than during other gas price increases.

This leads to the third leg of the stool, speculation.

Speculation was tightly controlled until 1999, when Republican Sen. Gramm spear-headed a bill that loosened controls on speculation. Prior to the bill, speculation could not take place without justification of need. After the bill, no justification was required. Also, over 30% of US oil commodity contracts are allowed to be traded traded outside of the US without any US control.

How big a factor is speculation? A Goldman-Sachs expert says it can be responsible for up to 40% of the price.

Wall Street speculation drives up the cost of oil and gas; Goldman Sachs experts say it pushes prices up by 40%.

..there's another reason for the wild rise in gas prices. The culprit is Wall Street. Speculators are raking in profits by gambling in the loosely regulated commodity markets for gas and oil.

A decade ago, speculators controlled only about 30% of the oil futures market. Today, Wall Street speculators control nearly 80% of this market. Many of those people buying and selling oil in the commodity markets will never use a drop of this oil. They are not airlines or trucking companies who will use the fuel in the future. The only function of the speculators in this process is to make as much money as they can, as quickly as they can.

...Even those inside the oil industry have admitted that speculation is driving up the price of gasoline. The CEO of Exxon-Mobil, Rex Tillerson, told a Senate hearing last year that speculation was driving up the price of a barrel of oil by as much as 40%. The general counsel of Delta Airlines, Ben Hirst, and the experts at Goldman Sachs also said excessive speculation is causing oil prices to spike by up to 40%. Even Saudi Arabia, the largest exporter of oil in the world, told the Bush administration back in 2008, during the last major spike in oil prices, that speculation was responsible for about $40 of a barrel of oil.

It doesn't have to work this way. The current spike in oil and gasoline prices was avoidable. Under the Wall Street reform act that Congress passed in 2010, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission was ordered to impose strict limits on the amount of oil that Wall Street speculators could trade in the energy futures market. The regulators dragged their feet.

Finally, after months and months of law-breaking delays, the commission in October adopted a rule. It was a weak version of a proposal that might have put meaningful limits on the number of futures and swaps contracts a single trader could hold. Even the watered-down regulation adopted by the industry-friendly commission was challenged in court. The Financial Markets Association and the International Swaps and Derivatives Association wanted free rein to continue unregulated gambling in the oil markets.

www.cnn.com/2012/02/28/opinion/sanders-gas-speculation/index.html

I guess this means that it is NOT a left-wing conspiracy to blame the House Republicans for the high gas prices. They could have controlled the speculation, but once again answered to Wall Street instead of Main Street.

Paul Ryan- The Deficit? I Built That!

Wow, that was frustrating. I was trying to type a comment and a great big McDonald's ad covered almost the entire space. I couldn't see what I was typing. ARRRRRGH!

Back on topic....Those poll number are BAD if you happen to be GOP, the RED WHITE AND BLUE HE-MAN WOMAN-HATERS party.

And now GOD is sending a hurricane to rain on their parade in Tampa. I wonder what Pat Robertson will make of all this?

It must suck to be GOP!

Obama/Biden 2012

The AP on Romney's race-baiting lies about welfare:

It could open Romney up to criticism that he is injecting race into the campaign and seeking to boost support among white, working-class voters by charging that the nation's first black president is offering a free pass to recipients of a program stereotypically associated with poor African-Americans.

Ya think? Romney's race baiting is as toxic as Todd Akin's misogyny. And a lot more people will believe Romney's lies than believe Akin's idiotic ravings, because Romney is pouring millions of dollars into ads that spread this crap.

We have the same Liberal posters hailing Obama on this site everyday. Obama has done nothing in his 3 & 1/2 years for this country except drive us deeper into debt. At least Romney worked with a Democratic Legislature and Senate while he was Governor. Obama refuses to work with Republicans and vice versa.

He had every opportunity to get the economy moving during his first 2 years when the Democrats were in control. Instead of focusing on the economy he was laser focused on the ACA or Obamacare. It is my gut that tells me the Republicans will control the House and Senate. Romney will work with either party to get the job done. Obama won't. He does everything by executive fiat and that equates to dictatorship and tyranny.

You vote him in again and this country is done and over with. I don't like either party but Romney is a better bet than Obama.

soundbite_monopoly

...GET OUT THE VOTE!

that's all i read from your post.

You know it, i know it. God knows it (err Obama). 100% of those who voted for McCain will vote for Romney. if 90% of those who voted for Obama again vote for OBAMA your guy loses.

Yall spend so much time talking Romey tax returns. Who you trying to convince with that? McCain voters? your base wanted free healthcare, close Gitmo end the War in Afghanistan, solve global warming, 0% student loans, a bunch of wall street CEO's in handcuffs.. what did they get.

Romney will have nothing to do with why you lose this election... it will solely be because YOUR base just didn't show up.

Let me guess, Noid- when you failed math tests, you told your parents it was because the teacher didn't like you.

There is a right way, and a wrong way, to collect data and weight polls. NBC, among others, continues to do it the wrong way.

Put plainly, they are selling flawed information. They could do it properly, but choose not to do so. In school, it gets you a failing grade.

In the newsroom, it's called propaganda- not fact.

And as they galloped off into the sunset a voice was heard, "Who were those masked men?"

Why doncha know, that's the Vagina Vigilantes!

prying eyes, outright lies, and stainless steel probes.

And when they've turned women into cattle,

They'll burn their crosses in their snow-white hooded robes.

This election campaign is not your average every four year cuff fight. This campaign is a down in the gutter cut throat fight. It is no wonder the August polls are unusual. I can't think of an election year where all three subjects that were not meant to be discussed in public discourse sex, religion, and religion has become the instigator of this "cut throat" fight. Add accusation of racism into the flay and its a war. Who is paying to keep the this ugly fight going Citizen United and Super PACs. The specific purpose of an election is to decide who will become the leader of the greatest nation on earth has gotten lost in the battle. It has come down to who has the deepest pockets and get as many people as possible on the side of money. Mitt and Ryan the wealthy contenders vs Obama and Biden the not so wealthy champions. If the contenders believe as long as they can keep throwing money on the issues of sex, religion, and politics they can win this "cut throat" fight. Obama and Biden believe that its all about people who want to be employed, keep their homes, educate their children, and let them have an environment whereby they can drink the water, breathe the air, and eat the food to keep them healthy; than sex, religion, and politics will not be the cause to have an ugly fight. The fight will be about politics just as it was meant to be in any election year. Racism should never be allowed to enter into the fight because the contenders think it belongs in this ugly "cut throat" fight.

Isaac!

Isaac!

Isaac!

Go go GO!

Would that be funny or what (hope no one gets hurt though).

And now GOD is sending a hurricane to rain on their parade in Tampa. I wonder what Pat Robertson will make of all this?

Skip,

I'm not sure their imaginary woman in the sky has forgiven them for praying for rain in Denver in 2008 yet? lol

@David Walker - LMAO! YIPPEEKYAA!

Let me guess, Noid- when you failed math tests, you told your parents it was because the teacher didn't like you.

There is a right way, and a wrong way, to collect data and weight polls. NBC, among others, continues to do it the wrong way.

Put plainly, they are selling flawed information. They could do it properly, but choose not to do so. In school, it gets you a failing grade.

In the newsroom, it's called propaganda- not fact.

First of all, for the record, had I ever gone to my parents and complained to them that a teacher didn't like me because I failed a math test, my Dad would have told me I was stupid (he would have been correct) and made me write an apology letter to the teacher.

Secondly, for the record, I never failed a math test.

Finally, I have many times tried to provide a legitimate explanation for what you and your ilk claim to be deliberate over-sampling on the part of NBC/WSJ but none of you seem to want to listen so I'm not going to waste my time and energy repeating myself. So, please go on believing that your the victims of some grand conspiracy.

GOP 2012 - "Just because you think everyone's out to get you doesn't mean they aren't!"

(I'm "Da Noid" and I approve this message!)

I love how the progressives on here use all the tried and true scare tactics of the democratic party for every race. Ryan is going to steal from the poor, he hates black people, seniors etc. Have any of you looked at what Obama's policies for the poor, middle class and minorities have done to them over the last 4 years. How is it that any minority could vote for the democratic ticket when they see what economic damage has been bestowed on them from years of their progressive policies and Obama has only made their plight worse. Unemployment is far worse, number of people on food stamps, government assistance, a trillion dollars of government welfare across 70 programs and he is asking for more. This at the same time many of you talk about Obama's virtues and say how he has brought unemployment down, brought us out of recession etc but who benefited from that? Certainly not the poor, minority or middle class. All Obama has created is a generational entitlement class that I need some explanation as to how its possible that Romney/Ryan do could do any worse?

No Joe:

Or how about the exit polls from the Wisconsin recall? All of them showed that the vote was too close to call. The actual vote count showed that either voters were outright lying (a distinct possibility) or that the polling methodology used by all of the pollsters was flawed. I also am pressed for time, but have been working on a theory that polling during this election cycle parallels the polling during the Carter/Reagan race in 1980. Unfortunately, while there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that the polling from that election was indeed flawed, there is little statistical evidence available on the web for me to prove it and make the necessary correlation.

NJNB-

There is a right way, and a wrong way, to collect data and weight polls. NBC, among others, continues to do it the wrong way.

Put plainly, they are selling flawed information. They could do it properly, but choose not to do so. In school, it gets you a failing grade.

In the newsroom, it's called propaganda- not fact.

You are accusing the Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal of liberal propaganda?

I suppose Fox News is also in the tank for President Obama?

Never let the facts get in the way of a good argument......

Paul Ryan - The Deficit? I Built That!

The idiocy of the Romney campaign is apparent. Lying is BAD, yet he continues to spout such easily exposed LIES.

This is an important election. People will tune in to watch the evening news. Some will even pick up a newspaper or news magazine. His reliance on the BIG LIE may fool people who watch Fox News, but they're already in his pocket. When his lies about the Welfare work requirement and Obama's Medicare Plan are exposed by the mainstream media, it has to hurt his credibility.

I certainly would not vote for such a LIAR. I'm voting for OBAMA, and I will encourage everyone to vote for him while also exposing Romney's LIES.

His campaign of LIES not only labels him as a man who cannot be trusted, but it also calls into question his JUDGMENT which has been LOUSY.

Put plainly, they are selling flawed information. They could do it properly, but choose not to do so. In school, it gets you a failing grade.

In the newsroom, it's called propaganda- not fact.

Coming from someone who the other day was trying to convince people that Obama was golfing during the bin Laden raid?

All Obama has created is a generational entitlement class that I need some explanation as to how its possible that Romney/Ryan do could do any worse?

Raising taxes on the middle and lower class, for starters.

The press has become EXTREMELY presumptive in their reporting during elections. You would think they would have learned after the mess THEY CREATED by PREMATURELY broadcasting that George W Bush won FL during the 2000 election. The press outlets have lost all credibility since then as their goal is incite emotion in readers/viewers to gain ratings rather than reporting truth.

In the words of Edward R Murrow;

"To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; credible we must be truthful."

Coming from someone who the other day was trying to convince people that Obama was golfing during the bin Laden raid?

Or that rape disrupts ovulation...

All of them showed that the vote was too close to call. The actual vote count showed that either voters were outright lying (a distinct possibility) or that the polling methodology used by all of the pollsters was flawed.

In any decent Statistics 101 class one of the first things they teach you is that opinion polls should always be taken with a grain of salt because unless you really care you're not going to respond to the poll.

There's nothing wrong with the methodology if Walker voters didn't bother to respond to the exit polling.

Kirk -

Almost the same post as yesterday - and every other day? Cut and paste much?

I love how the progressives on here use all the tried and true scare tactics of the democratic party for every race. Ryan is going to steal from the poor, he hates black people, seniors etc.

Meanwhile the Republicans use their same old divisive/deceitful tactics - the President is a Socialist/Muslim/Kentan Colonist/Communist/Facist who needs to "learn how to be an American". The gays are out to get you, the people on welfare or in public unions are stealing your money.....

Have any of you looked at what Obama's policies for the poor, middle class and minorities have done to them over the last 4 years. How is it that any minority could vote for the democratic ticket when they see what economic damage has been bestowed on them from years of their progressive policies and Obama has only made their plight worse. Unemployment is far worse, number of people on food stamps, government assistance, a trillion dollars of government welfare across 70 programs and he is asking for more.

So you are blaming Obama's policies for all of this? What Obama policy caused the economic collapse, massive job losses and 10% unemployment?

All Obama has created is a generational entitlement class that I need some explanation as to how its possible that Romney/Ryan do could do any worse?

One, I fail to see any new policies President Obama has put in place that "created a generational entitlement class".

Two, since the economic collapse "bottomed out" the economy has improved under President Obama. Unemployment is better, GDP is better, stock market is up, and home values are finally increasing again.

You act like President Obama inherited a robust economy and destroyed it The fact is he inherited a shattered economy and has slowly rebuilt it. The policies that Romney/Ryan promote are the same failed policies that created most fo this debt and led to the economic collapse, why would we want to return to that?

Paul Ryan - The Deficit? I Built That!

Chris, Dorr, MI

Vote for President Obama like your life depends on it.

because it does if robmehood & lyin, slither into the White House.

4 more for 44!

Chris, I almost forgot. Your post is the best to start the day off.

4 more beers; 4 more years

Obama/Biden 2012

I find it interesting that the fundamentalist tent of the Republican party is trying to write into law the concept that "person hood," begins at conception, thus giving a human fertilized egg the same constitutional rights of an adult. But isn't the word "person" based on "persona," a concept of instinctual and learned traits an individual acquires over many months and years? A persona and the characteristics that accompany it is not easy to describe, but like pornography you know it when you see it. Every cat I've owned has had unique personalities, but they aren't human so can I say that having a persona is not unique to human beings?

The fertilized egg of a living creature, be it animal or insect is a biological instruction set, software so to speak, it has no persona only the instructions for growing it. The real reason the religious right wants to get this into law is because the concept of persona and soul are similar, except that soul is a religious concept while persona rides a more secular horse. As I've said before, saddling the American experience with the concept of "person hood" is a bad idea akin to the prohibition movement a century ago.

Joe in Albany

• Gasoline futures have risen 19% over the past few months

• Crude oil futures are up 27% since late June

• Inventories of gasoline and diesel in the US are at their lowest levels for this time of year since 2008

hey, Joe, show me how the president has to do anything with gas prices. Isn't the oil industry private and global?

The principal reason behing rising oil prices is global demand, and ou know this. Especially the growing demand in China, India, and the Middle East.

So stop pretending that you don't know it. Your oil friendly duo Bush/Cheney could ot keep oil prices down, and the only reason why it went down in the summer of 2008 is due to the brewing of the financial meltdown.

The demand is low globally and even if we icrease our production, you are naive that the prices would go down since the oil industry would NEVER sell it cheaper here if they can sell it for more somewhere else.

Tell me Joe, are you for taking over the private oil industry to control pices? If not, STFU already!

Obama 2012/Romney 1040

Kirk-2957282

I love how the progressives on here use all the tried and true scare tactics of the democratic party for every race. Ryan is going to steal from the poor, he hates black people, seniors etc. Have any of you looked at what Obama's policies for the poor, middle class and minorities have done to them over the last 4 years. How is it that any minority could vote for the democratic ticket when they see what economic damage has been bestowed on them from years of their progressive policies and Obama has only made their plight worse. Unemployment is far worse, number of people on food stamps, government assistance, a trillion dollars of government welfare across 70 programs and he is asking for more.

Kirk,

I'm very close to putting your retarded dribble on ignore because you have just "BLACKED OUT"!!!

Get a new pit stop troll.

4more 4 44

Obama/Biden2012

I find it interesting that the fundamentalist tent of the Republican party is trying to write into law the concept that "person hood," begins at conception, thus giving a human fertilized egg the same constitutional rights of an adult.

Would that mean a fertilized egg that failed to implant would make the woman a murderer? Or would that mean the fertilized egg committed suicide and thus must be going to Hell?

Feisty Redhead Roselle.

Morning GF!

Speaking of race, I wonder how Paul Ryan dating a black girl in college will play with the Redneck Riviera?

There's already a mormon on the top of the ticket!

Hmmmm....

Woooooow, Vagina riot in Tampa in addition to cyclone Issac!!!

BTW: do you want to go to IOWA, Saturday? The bus leaves downtown Chicago Saturday morning. You can spend the night with me Friday.

Obama/Biden 2012

no joe, no bo, nj

Too bad NBC STILL cannot get the polling right. Did the poll "tighten" from last month?

Not hardly. Last month, the democratic skew was worse than this month.

The electorate typically looks like democrats +4- not +6, or eleven, or whatever crazy number your polling firm pulls out of a hat.

Don't worry, nojonobo. The Republicans' new voter suppression laws will keep the number of Democrats who actually vote more in line with where you want them to be.

Devonshire11

At least Romney worked with a Democratic Legislature and Senate while he was Governor.

yes, because Romney's 800+ VETOS would be considered "working" with the Democratic Legislature. And that's in 3 years - yes I said 3 years - because the last year in office, Gov. Romney spent on making connections for his 2008 presidential bid. The presidential bid he lost to McCain and later lost to PALIN for VP.

Romney failed as the governor of Massachusetts, and his 30 something approval rating when he left the office proves it.

Romney and the Republicans and even Fox News know that Romney has no chance of winning Massachusetts - shouldn't that tell you something?

Obama refuses to work with Republicans and vice versa.

show me how the Republicans were/are willing to work with president Obama. Starting with day 1 - the Inauguration Day - where the Republicans had their little dinner to come up with a plan on how to sabotage Obama.

Obama 2012/Romney 1040

Houston!

And a lot more people will believe Romney's lies than believe Akin's idiotic ravings, because Romney is pouring millions of dollars into ads that spread this crap.

people believe in the get-rich-quick informercials so they will believe in Romney's infomercials as well. And that is sad!

Beverly--so in other words you have no substantive response? Truth hurts? Tnsevl--no cut and paste as they are my own words replying to the same old class warfare garbage being spewed at Ryan. I agree Obama inherited a mess and as I have said over and over, I am not going to defend Bush. That said, Obama's economic policies just havent worked and maybe we have seen some very small GDP growth but it certainly hasnt benefited the lower to middle classes or minorities. So my point is that Obama has done nothing to help this group even though the constant rhetoric and perception remains that he is for the "people". Well if true prove it. How has he helped the people besides government assistance? Certainly has created more poverty, lifted no one out of poverty and keeps the unemployment rate in the minority communities much worse than the country as a whole. So tell me how he has helped the "people"

Xabre--give me a break. The poor and middle class dont pay federal income tax besides their contributions to their future retirement plans now. Any plan that reforms the tax code to eliminate loopholes and deductions to be fair and equitable is likely to raise taxes across the board. Dont you think anyone that works should help pay for their government?

Ovulation? Isn't that illegal in the Red States?

A quote from the NEW New Testament..."...and the Lord thy GOD shall send a mighty wind to blot out the sunshine (state) and punish the wicked for they sinned against Her and She is displeased...."

A-men...er women!

Obama/Biden 2012

It doesn't have to work this way. The current spike in oil and gasoline prices was avoidable. Under the Wall Street reform act that Congress passed in 2010, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission was ordered to impose strict limits on the amount of oil that Wall Street speculators could trade in the energy futures market. The regulators dragged their feet.

I guess this means that it is NOT a left-wing conspiracy to blame the House Republicans for the high gas prices. They could have controlled the speculation, but once again answered to Wall Street instead of Main Street.

How are regulators, who are part of the Administration, under the control of House Republicans? How is this continued speculation not the responsibility of the Administration?

show me how the Republicans were/are willing to work with president Obama. Starting with day 1 - the Inauguration Day - where the Republicans had their little dinner to come up with a plan on how to sabotage Obama.

How about you show me some Democrats willing to work with Obama. Didn't candidate Obama promise that "you should not be forced to pay for health insurance" and then turn round and sign a bill created by Democrats that mandated you pay for health insurance?

Was Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu at that dinner?

Xabre--give me a break. The poor and middle class dont pay federal income tax besides their contributions to their future retirement plans now. Any plan that reforms the tax code to eliminate loopholes and deductions to be fair and equitable is likely to raise taxes across the board. Dont you think anyone that works should help pay for their government?

You have absolutely no clue, do you? I am middle class and I pay about 30% in state and federal income tax. No wonder you think supply and demand are the same thing, and that raising taxes on the middle and lower classes during a recession / recovery is a great idea.

Feisty-

Like Michelle Bachmann sitting on the Intelligence Committee!

Isn't that an oxymoron? :)

Great post Feisty!! (1.1) The ending was the best!!!

Polls are polls and this is August. As much as I would like to see Obama with a greater lead in the polls, at least he he is leading and by a margin that I doubt Romney will ever make up.

But what I find interesting are the cons who say that this poll is 'flawed' or 'skewed' to favor the democrats. When the same polling firm had Romney leading by a point or two in certain individual states a month or two ago, the cons defended the accuracy of the polls.

It will also be interesting to see if the RR team (RR as in railroading the country off the cliff) picks up any steam at their national convention. If not, they are sunk. I say that with confidence because the democratic national convention will follow and Obama will gain more momentum.

Then the debates will start. That is when America will see Romney for the sham he is and Obama will vault beyond the 50% margin setting the stage for his second term as our president.

OBAMA/BIDEN 2012: The only choice for the sensible American

Kirk -

I think we can both agree that the economic recovery has slowed down to almost a crawl, and that there are way too many people out of work and relying on government assistance.

You seem to think this is creating "generational welfare", I strongly disagree. I believe that the majority of people on government assistance would prefer a decent job, and that government assistance will return to previous levels as the economy grows. Limiting or ending these benefits would have a negative impact on both the families and the overall economy - where these benefits get spent.

I know we disagree on the impact of President Obama's policies - we could argue all day whether they have been ineffective or whether they have prevented further/worse economic outcomes.

The point you did not address, and which to be honest I have never heard answered, is how any of the policies Mitt Romney has proposed will have a positive impact on our economy, or how they differ at all from the failed policies that helped cause the economic crisis.

Paul Ryan - The Deficit? I Built That!

Bayllie: hey, Joe, show me how the president has to do anything with gas prices. Isn't the oil industry private and global?

Senator Obama sure thought Bush had a lot to do with gas prices:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQb_4hXLx2Q

So did Senator Hillary Clinton.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz thought so too.

So did Speaker Pelosi.

Senator Barbara Boxer.

Senator Debbie Stabenow.

Senator Harry Reid.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen.

Rep. John Larson.

Senator Robert Menendez.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel.

Seemed to be quite the number of Democrats convinced Bush was responsible.

Is Obama responsible? For anything?

Bayllie:L If not, STFU already!

Angry are the liberals. And they should be. Things have not gone well under their leadership. Not well at all.

JoAnnaSmith1, I'm still waiting for your justification of trickle-down economics as per the Ryan Plan. After all, it's all about the economy, right?

Angry are the liberals. And they should be. Things have not gone well under their leadership. Not well at all.

Well how did it go the last time we gave the White House to the GOP? My memory is a little hazy...

BTW: do you want to go to IOWA, Saturday?

Sorry GF! I already have plans for this Saturday! Maybe next time! ☺

Isn't that an oxymoron? :)

Beth,

The wild-eyed MN dingbat is a moron alright! Along with her corn dog loving husband!

Great post Feisty!! (1.1) The ending was the best!!!

LosMan123,

Thanks! ☺ These nitwits hate "gubment" unless it involves women's reproductive organs!

They need to STAY THE HELL OUT OF MY BIZNESS!

Joe in Albany

Fair Warning: Before reading this post, lefty liberals are advised to make sure their vast right wing conspiracy tinfoil hats...blah blah blah

There was an article in yesterday's WSJ, buried in the back pages of the Money and Investing...blah blah blah

Gasoline futures have risen 19% over the past few months...blah blah blah

Yeah, yeah, I already know lefty liberals will whine and complain that Barry doesn't control these prices...blah blah blah

Is this the best you clowns can come up with??!! Gas prices??!! Really??!!! ROFLMAO!!

Xaber -

I find it interesting that the fundamentalist tent of the Republican party is trying to write into law the concept that "person hood," begins at conception, thus giving a human fertilized egg the same constitutional rights of an adult.

Would that mean a fertilized egg that failed to implant would make the woman a murderer? Or would that mean the fertilized egg committed suicide and thus must be going to Hell?

She could also be charged with reckless abandonment and if she was drinking or did something to prevent it from implanting then could she also be charged with endangering the welfare of a child? - also I wonder does mean each fertilized egg needs to receive it's own social security number prior to implanting? What happens in case of a miscarriage?? So many legal questions? So much for small government!!!

The country is going in a much better direction than it was going three and a half years ago... We were about to go off the cliff and into a depression. Does everyone forget that?

If this "Do Nothing Congress" would get off it's lazy butts and work together with our president we all woulld be a lot further down the road of recovery... But No... their main job is to make the first black American president a one term president...

That's not what I call, doing the work of the American people...

TNS: You seem to think this is creating "generational welfare", I strongly disagree. I believe that the majority of people on government assistance would prefer a decent job.

Generational welfare does exist, but I do agree with TNS, many of the people on public assistance would prefer to be employed. That won't happen though, the jobs do not exist. And as the government continues to take more hard earned cash out of the private sector to pay for more and more government entitlements, it will only get worse. The money is just not there for the growth of business in this country. Too much government largeness, too many regulations, too many rules, too many politicians that think they can spend the money better than the private business owner, too much corruption. Business growth will occur, but in countries other than the US, ones with a better tax structure, more demand for goods and services, and reasonable governments.

TNS: I know we disagree on the impact of President Obama's policies - we could argue all day whether they have been ineffective or whether they have prevented further/worse economic outcomes.

As the debt explodes with more people eligible for the entitlements and with more unfunded government programs and pensions both at the federal and state level, it gets to a point where no one will have any policy that will solve any of the problems, at least in the short term. As long as people vote in pols that promise them the world (with borrowed money) there is really nothing that will prevent the economic problems of the country from escalating. We see the problems starting in states like California and Illinois where the pension systems for government workers have literally bankrupt cities in those states. It will occur on the national level soon enough too.

TNS: The point you did not address, and which to be honest I have never heard answered, is how any of the policies Mitt Romney has proposed will have a positive impact on our economy

The spending and the debt certainly need to be reined in. Whether Romney is the one to do it remains to be seen. We know Obama won't.

Alan, NJ

How about you show me some Democrats willing to work with Obama. Didn't candidate Obama promise that "you should not be forced to pay for health insurance" and then turn round and sign a bill created by Democrats that mandated you pay for health insurance?

actually, you could say that Obama worked with the Republicans on this one since the individual mandate and mandatory health insurance WAS the Republican idea. It was called:

Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993

Among the supporters of the bills were senators Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who today oppose the mandate under current law.

so you can say Republicans were for it until president Obama was for it - then they were against it.

What happens in case of a miscarriage??

Life insurance payouts that's what. Be back later, I'm going to get pregnant, take out a massive policy and then throw myself down the stairs.

@JoAnnaSmith

As the debt explodes with more people eligible for the entitlements and with more unfunded government programs and pensions both at the federal and state level,

The spending and the debt certainly need to be reined in. Whether Romney is the one to do it remains to be seen. We know Obama won't.

You should ask Alan, NJ about the Constitution and who has the power to borrow money. I'll wait.

Self Educated Voter

also I wonder does mean each fertilized egg needs to receive it's own social security number prior to implanting?

SS number and a voter ID for sure

Hurricane Isaac is the first major hurricane to hit Tampa in over 90 years...

Do you think Mother Nature is trying to send a message to all of climate change deniers? lol

I am sick to death of these men who get rewarded with an election after humiliating their families, disrespecting women and taking advantage of women. It is disgusting. How will these men be rewarded?

Tampa was most recently hit in 2004 by hurricane Frances after it crossed over the state of Florida. Though diminished in intensity after its journey over land, Frances still packed high winds and heavy rainfall. The Tampa area includes the cities of St. Petersburg, Sarasota, and Clearwater.

actually, you could say that Obama worked with the Republicans on this one since the individual mandate and mandatory health insurance WAS the Republican idea. It was called:

So, if no Republican voted for it why was it included? I can't get a straight answer to this question. If it did not garner one Republican vote why was it even included. The reason is because the Democrats I listed and Joe Lieberman would not vote for the bill unless it was included at the expense of a public option.

Nothing to do with Republicans, all to do with internal fights in the Democratic Party.

Xabre: You should ask Alan, NJ about the Constitution and who has the power to borrow money. I'll wait.

Certainly Congress has a role. And Congress attempted to get real cuts to the budget (Budget? What budget?) enacted by using the debt ceiling for leverage, and we saw how that worked out. We had a President threatening seniors that the bad old GOP was going to prevent their SS checks from going out the door unless they raised that ceiling, the same ceiling he was so much against raising when he was a Senator. The GOP not only relented, but gave Obama the power to continue to raise the debt ceiling on his own. Nice job GOP.

And the President does have the option to veto spending bills, so he/she plays a significant role.

So lets just keep spending the money. What could possibly go wrong?

Certainly Congress has a role.

A role? Try 'the' role.

Xabre -

I'm going to get pregnant, take out a massive policy and then throw myself down the stairs.

That would be either manslaughter or murder - of course so would drinking alcohol or driving recklessly and crashing your car.

If you listen to Rush Limbaugh while in the early stages of pregnancy would that be child abuse?

The fertilized egg of a living creature, be it animal or insect is a biological instruction set, software so to speak, it has no persona only the instructions for growing it.

The fertilized egg of a human is also human. In the same sense that your fingers are human, your skin is human, etc. They are all part of you, and you get complete and uncontroversial ownership of them.

The fertilized egg is human. It derives its humanity from the person of the woman, who, if it became a baby person itself, would be his or her mother. The same way your eyes, ears, face, limbs derive their humanity from you.

At some point, the bundle of cells becomes a distinct human. I am no expert, I don't know where that is. But I can say with surety that at 1 month it is not a distinct human and that at 7 months he or she certainly is. This is a legitimate debate. Whether a woman should have final say on what goes on in her body is not a legitimate debate.

Xabre--you would have to break your rates down and give me your state before I would believe you. First, the 7.55% you pay in payroll taxes are your contribtuion to your future health and retirement plans so under progressive philosophy you get that back remember? Second, if you are middle class there is no way you pay an addition 20% in federal income tax. If you only pay 15% in federal income tax, you would still be paying over twice as much as the average middle class worker who pays only 7%. As for states, I cant help you if you live in a high tax state, I just hope you are getting your money's worth in paying into your state government. But no you arent paying 30% in federal income tax and middle class.

Tnsevl--I agree and I dont believe the vast majority of people receiving government assistance want to be part of a generational entitlement society but the longer it goes the more I would disagree. Second, my point was more that Obama's economic policies have particularly hurt this group more and that the progressive rhetoric on this board makes it sound like Romney/Ryan would hurt this group. My point is that how could the GOP plan be any more economically disadvantageous as the democratic economic policies.

I have never argued that Romney/Ryan plans are panaceas. Its like the fear that the teacher's unions always use against education reform which is basically they dont trust what they dont know and whatever it is they dont like it because it must be bad for them. Democratic response to Ryan's medicare bill is the same. They dont really know if it will work but they like to argue that it must be bad and they dont trust what they dont know and it must be bad. Sorry dont buy that. Would the Romney economic proposals bring us out of the economic doldrums? I dont know but I do believe that providing economic incentives for the private sector is far more likely to generate GDP growth than the class warfare rhetoric coming out of Obama. I think we need to go back to the policies under Clinton and celebrate success even when it means it benefits the rich too.

That would be either manslaughter or murder - of course so would drinking alcohol or driving recklessly and crashing your car.

Hm, didn't think of that one. So if I have an abortion, could I just claim it was kidnapped?

Xabre: A role? Try 'the' role.

You obviously have a reading comprehension problem.

Dismissed, again.

Feisty -- Let's hope HER message is loud and clear. The PARTY who champions POLLUTION for the sake of PROFIT needs a wake up call.

David and Skip -- Some men just get it. Thanks for the chuckles today.

Alan -

How are regulators, who are part of the Administration, under the control of House Republicans? How is this continued speculation not the responsibility of the Administration?

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is an independent agency that doesn't answer to the administration. The five member serve five-year staggered terms, can serve multiple terms, and are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. There are currently three Republicans and two Democrats.

The part that was inadvertently left out of my post was that House Republicans have killed several bills that would have reduced the role of the CFTC and re-instated tighter rules on energy speculation. Wall St lobbyists have of course been against this legislation, and have attempted to influence both Commission members and members of Congress.

The bottom line is the CFTC granted several "secret" waivers to the major banks they were supposed to be regulating, then hid the waivers until after the 2008 financial crisis. Just another example of how politicians from both parties can be "bought".

But no you arent paying 30% in federal income tax and middle class.

That's why I said state and federal. Re-read my post, then read it again. Then read an economics book that explains the differences of supply and demand.

You obviously have a reading comprehension problem.

Dismissed, again.

JoAnnaSmith, don't be angry the Constitution says that only Congress can borrow money. Just get your branches straight and come back. Then we can debate.

Kirk: The poor and middle class dont pay federal income tax besides their contributions to their future retirement plans now

Are you serious?! No wonder conservatives are so confused. Sigh...

irk-2957282

My point is that how could the GOP plan be any more economically disadvantageous as the democratic economic policies.

First you need to explain WHY the Democratic policies are disadvantageous. You cannot get away with asserting that merely because Obama is president, he's to blame for everything that goes wrong. At least, you can't get away with that unless you've got a super-PAC that will pay for catapulting that bull.

The truth is that the Bush Recession of 2007-2009 was the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression, and it's going to take almost as long to recover from Bush as it did from Hoover.

@Xabre & Houston! -- As to the Romney/Ryan plan for America and the economy, I refer you to over 500 of the top independent economists -- at least five Nobel Laureates -- in this country that back the Romney/Ryan plan over Obama's disaster. Over 500 -- that has to mean something and should resonate when voters enter the booth.

Kirk,

There is good reason to fear what we don't know about the Romney/Ryan economic plan. The only detailed policies are a reduction in top-tier tax rates, a reduction/elimination of inheritance tax and capital gains tax, and increased in miitary spending.

We are then told that unspecified tax reform will make this plan revenue-neutral, and unspecified cuts will reduce the deficit.

In the absence of details, any Tax Reform proposal that would make the specified tax cuts revenue-neutral would have to include several middle-class deductions like the Mortgage Interest deduction or the College Tuition credit.

Also, any unspecified cuts that would offset the increased military spending would have to come from entitlement programs - none of the other "buckets" are large enough.

It is not like Chicken Little saying "the sky is falling": either Romney/Ryan are lying, and their plan would increase the deficit, or their plan has to include middle-class tax increases and entitlement reductions.

The Paul Ryan Medicare plan is another issue - there are enough details available to know that it would dramatically change Medicare from a defined-benefit plan to a defined-cost plan, and transfer any cost uncertanties and cost differences to our future seniors. This is a legitimate difference of opinion, and I believe the Ryan approach is absolutely unacceptable.

Ben -

I refer you to over 500 of the top independent economists -- at least five Nobel Laureates -- in this country that back the Romney/Ryan plan over Obama's disaster

where is your link to these 500 economists? Every economist I have read, even Reagan's favorite David Stockman, have laughed at Paul Ryan's budget.

@Xabre & Houston! -- As to the Romney/Ryan plan for America and the economy, I refer you to over 500 of the top independent economists -- at least five Nobel Laureates -- in this country that back the Romney/Ryan plan over Obama's disaster. Over 500 -- that has to mean something and should resonate when voters enter the booth.

Which five? Give me names.

Because I can give you names of ones that supported the stimulus under Obama:

Quote is from Wikipedia:

Economists such as Martin Feldstein, Daron Acemoğlu, National Economic Council director Larry Summers, and Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences winners Joseph Stiglitz^[57] and Paul Krugman^[58] favored large economic stimulus to counter the economic downturn. While in favor of a stimulus package, Feldstein expressed concern over the act as written, saying it needed revision to address consumer spending and unemployment more directly.^[59] Just after the bill was enacted, Krugman wrote that the stimulus was too small to deal with the problem, adding, "And it's widely believed that political considerations led to a plan that was weaker and contains more tax cuts than it should have – that Mr. Obama compromised in advance in the hope of gaining broad bipartisan support."^[60]

^{Wait, I thought Obama didn't compromise?}

Alan, NJ

So, if no Republican voted for it why was it included? I can't get a straight answer to this question. If it did not garner one Republican vote why was it even included.

your question doesn't even make sense: "If no Republican voted for it why was it included?" what was included? what are you trying to ask? that's why you are not getting a straight answer.

To spell it out to you: "ObamaCare" was the Republican idea, and had the Republican support, and it was the Republican answer to the HillaryCare.

Republicans were for individual mandate PERIOD. so they can scream all they want that it's unconstitutional - THEY WERE FOR IT. Just like Ryan is pretending the Ryan Plan doesn't exist, and the Ryan's work with Akin on limiting rape victims to have access to abortion doesn't exist either.

Again, show me the Republican examples of working with President Obama.

Obama 2012/ Romney 1040

Tnsevol

Coming in late but good response, discussion with Kirk. If I may add you are exactly correct. A Romney plan to give more tax cuts to millionaires and cut government spending for the lower and middle class doesn't help Obama's base as Kirk calls them.

Kirk - How do cuts in a weak recovery energize employment? Won't funding cuts to social programs hurt those that are already struggling. Won't slashing to government spending (losing jobs) add to the unemployment number?

Kirk sometimes I don't understand why you don't truthfully give Obama a fair shake. With his policies it sure seems a conservative like you would like him more than a liberal like me. Regarding your general meme that Obama has been better for Wall Street and corporations I sort of agree.

Note all of the growth in the financial markets under Obama since Bush drove us off the cliff. Note the Democrats and Obama's weak and tepid response to the crash with Dodd Frank in lieu of reintroducing Glass Steagal - a nod to Wall street. Do you remember the tax cut laden stimulus plan that helped a bit but not enough because it was loaded with tax cuts for business owners who pocketed the money and didn't hire. Note Obama's reigning in the EPA on tighter regulations on air and water regulations to spur the energy sector. Note his use of a GOP idea centric health care reform in lieu of single payer or a public option system - a nod to the pharmacetical and insurance companies. Note his continuation of the War in Afganistan even after OBL was killed troops stay. Why they stay and what there mission is no one knows. Apparently the idea is to prevent countries from falling to terrorism despite the fact that the adversarial group is in dozens of other countries, the game plan smells of an antiquated domino theory. Last year you do remember the grand bargain the President offered to try to address the deficit, actual cuts that the GOP would have taken in any other election cycle, instead they balked and watched as our credit rating diminshed.

Kirk, I often see you say Obama is an ideologue but in the brief instances above I have shown how the President has bent over backward to promote discussion, compromise with the GOP. Sometimes at the expense of much frustration from me and other liberals. The choice is one of a moderate or an idealogue.

I believe that an Obama reelection will mean a continuation of a slow growth slog. A Romeny win and implementation of his policies will mean monumental change. Government spending will be slashed, jobs will be lost reversing an almost 40 plus month job creation streak, debt will soar, social services and entitlements for those under 55 will disappear.

I say go for the moderate (Obama) not the idealogue Romney/Ryan.

Content of the article confirms my belief. Only new factor is the mouth of "Todd Akin". He likely will assure the democrats control of the Senate. His mouth will though, strengthen the voting numbers in the South and most western GOP states, where Men already dominate Women to the point of fearful obedience, and where most were going to vote republican anyway. Otherwise, there has been little, and likely will be even less, change of voting preference among the electorate by the remainder of the Country, no matter how many ads are aired. Momentum, what little there really is, remains with the president, and likely will continue so. By this, I mean, more people like and hope the President wins re-election than there are those who don't. Since there are many more democrats at heart than republicans, logic says the President will win. Even so, effects of various new voter suppression laws, and the fact that many democrats simply don't vote could yet give the election to Romney. The key is to get the democrats prepared to meet the requirements of those laws, then get them out to vote. Anyone depending on the swaying of independents may as well be hoping for the groaning of ghosts. In reality, such voters are fewer than "chicken lips".

Xabre--supply and demand are not consistent with your arguments against trickle down so you arent winning this debate and you cant just ignore the things you dont like and continue to just harp on small details. As for tax rates, you still didnt respond. So your state rate should be discarded as it doesnt apply so give me your federal income tax rate and explain how you are paying so much as the middle class?

Xabre--supply and demand are not consistent with your arguments

No, they're examples of your lack of credibility on the subject of economics. I guess yesterday is that hard to remember.

your question doesn't even make sense: "If no Republican voted for it why was it included?" what was included? what are you trying to ask? that's why you are not getting a straight answer.

Republicans were for individual mandate PERIOD. so they can scream all they want that it's unconstitutional - THEY WERE FOR IT. Just like Ryan is pretending the Ryan Plan doesn't exist, and the Ryan's work with Akin on limiting rape victims to have access to abortion doesn't exist either.

So a Republican idea was included in a bill that no Republicans voted for. Can we agree on this statement? If not then we can longer have a debate.

My point is that the PPACA was passed with only Democratic votes. The PPACA included the individual mandate. Why was the individual mandate included in a bill that got no Republicans votes and the Democrats hated it? Either the Democrats are lousy legislators, negotiators or they had members who wanted the individual mandate in the bill.

And if the President was so against "forcing people to buy health insurance" then he could have vetoed it.

@Xabre -- Here are the five Nobel Laureates. They are independents and do not have a bias like Krugman.

Gary Becker, Nobel laureate
Robert Lucas, Nobel laureate
Robert Mundell, Nobel laureate
Edward Prescott, Nobel laureate
Myron Scholes, Nobel laureate

@Kirk

If you haven't realized it by now Xabre doesn't want to debate you, he simply wants to bait you.

Xabre = Troll

@TN -- Here is a recent press release and the website is included in the story:

Now More Than 500 Economists Back Romney Economic Plan

Washington, D.C.: Economists for Romney (E4R) announced today that 526 economists have now signed its statement in support of Governor Romney's economic plan.

The statement gained additional support from economists across the country, including those at Florida State, Carnegie Mellon, Michigan State University, Colorado State University, Marquette University, Wake Forest University, and the University of Dayton. It also gained support from several former Federal Reserve presidents and governors.

Today's announcement comes less than a week after E4R announced that more than 400 economists signed the statement.

The statement and its signatories are available at www.EconomistsforRomney.com. The statement begins, "We enthusiastically endorse Governor Mitt Romney's economic plan to create jobs and restore economic growth while returning America to its tradition of economic freedom."

The Economists for Romney statement concludes, "In sum, Governor Romney's economic plan is far superior for creating economic growth and jobs than the actions and interventions President Obama has taken or plans to take in the future. This November, voters will make a fundamental choice between differing visions of America's economic future."
Economists for Romney enjoys wide support.

Many of the economists signing the statement have received the profession's highest honors for their academic work. All have championed economic freedom during their illustrious careers, with some advising U.S. administrations for nearly a half-century.Economists for Romney is an independent, voluntary association of economists who support Governor Romney's economic plan for America. Economists for Romney is not an official arm of the 2012 Mitt Romney campaign, nor does it accept dues, fees, donations, or contributions.

@YellowDog

Kirk, I often see you say Obama is an ideologue but in the brief instances above I have shown how the President has bent over backward to promote discussion, compromise with the GOP. Sometimes at the expense of much frustration from me and other liberals. The choice is one of a moderate or an idealogue.

I believe that an Obama reelection will mean a continuation of a slow growth slog. A Romeny win and implementation of his policies will mean monumental change. Government spending will be slashed, jobs will be lost reversing an almost 40 plus month job creation streak, debt will soar, social services and entitlements for those under 55 will disappear.

I don't believe Obama is an ideologue. I do believe that his policies are all about wealth and income re-distribution. I do not argue whether this is a good or bad aim but I do believe this is the motivation. When Bush was president I thought all his policies were aimed to please businesses.

As to believing Romney to be an ideologue I don't see where the evidence is. Romney is fairly pragmatic, and if he gets through the election process I would still hope he would be a North-East republican.

I do believe a comprehensive reform of the tax system will do more to spur growth than the band-aid approach of the Obama Administration, where incentives for hiring have not been working.

As to cutting government sending. I'll believe it when I see it. Even 50B from defense has every affected congressman and senator running around trying to save their piece of the pork.

Ben-636050

@Xabre & Houston! -- As to the Romney/Ryan plan for America and the economy, I refer you to over 500 of the top independent economists -- at least five Nobel Laureates -- in this country that back the Romney/Ryan plan over Obama's disaster. Over 500 -- that has to mean something and should resonate when voters enter the booth.

Like most rightwingnuts you're not very good at providing references' are you? Here's an article on your 500 economists endorsing Romney's nonexistent "plan."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-21/economists-risk-labeling-as-political-hacks.html

Economists Risk Labeling as Political Hacks

Some 500 of my colleagues in economics, almost all academics, have signed a statement applauding former Governor Mitt Romney’s economic plan and condemning President Barack Obama’s handling of the economy. The statement amounts to an endorsement of Romney’s presidential candidacy. As such, it represents a disservice to the economics profession as well as to the statement’s signatories, five of whom are Nobel laureates.

Economics holds itself out as a science, yet here we have supposedly impartial scientists declaring that all of Romney’s proposed economic policies are good and that everything the president has done on the economics front has been misguided and flawed.

No impartial economist would make such blanket assertions. By their very nature, such statements represent political, not scientific, opinion. Yet the signatories not only identified themselves as professional economists; they also specified their university or other institutional affiliations, thereby implicating places such as the University of Chicago in their political pronouncements.

Having run for president on the Americans Elect platform before it was disbanded in May, I may be questioned about my own impartiality in objecting to the politicization of economics. But in my short campaign, I limited my public statements and Web postings to the policies I favor, and I almost entirely avoided any criticisms of either the president’s or former governor’s positions. I did this because I was running as an economist, not as a politician.

Professional Rot

The decision of the 500 U.S. economists, many from the leading ranks of the profession, to trade in their credentials as economists for that of campaign workers is just the latest sign that something’s rotten in economics. The documentary “Inside Job,” demonstrated how prominent economists failed to disclose, as standard ethics require, when they are being paid for their professional opinions.

Then there is the increasingly nasty op-ed war pursued by political economists, such as Paul Krugman and Glenn Hubbard, who have so closely aligned themselves with one of the two parties that it’s impossible to know where their politics stop and their economic analyses begin.

The worst part of all this is that the new political economics routinely diverges so far from economic theory and fact.

Take the very first statement in the Romney endorsement, namely that the Republican candidate’s economic policy would “reduce marginal tax rates on businesses and wage incomes and broaden the tax base to increase investment, jobs, and living standards.”

Any well-trained economist -- and the Romney 500 are certainly very well-trained -- knows that tax cuts produce both incentive and redistribution effects. We call these substitution and income effects. The Romney tax plan has relatively minor incentive effects and the income effects of its base broadening go in the wrong direction.

Here’s the point, absent the jargon. To invest more, we need to save more. But to save more, we need to consume less. In the 1950s, the U.S. saved 15 percent of national income. The net domestic investment rate was equally high. Today, America saves 1 percent of national income and invests only 5 percent of national income, with the four percentage-point difference being made up by the current account deficit -- by Chinese and other foreign investment.

Consumption Spree

The U.S. didn’t go on a six-decade spending spree because of changes in the share of national income consumed by federal, state and local government. Nor did the consumption spree reflect worsening incentives to save. Marginal effective tax rates on saving have dropped enormously during the postwar period. Most American households have long faced zero effective marginal tax rates on saving because they can set money aside within their 401(k) and other retirement accounts.

So if government isn’t consuming more and if people have much better incentives to save, why does the U.S. save and invest next to nothing? The answer is the income effect. Every administration starting with Dwight Eisenhower’s has expanded America’s Ponzi scheme, which takes resources from young savers (including those not yet born whose current spending is zero) and gives them to old spenders. This huge intergenerational redistribution has produced an enormous increase in the absolute and relative consumption of the elderly.

This is just what the life-cycle model of saving predicts. If you take money from the young and tell them they will get it back in spades when old, and then give this money to retirees, the following will, as a matter of theory and practice, happen: The elderly will go shopping, the young won’t bother saving, national consumption will rise, and domestic investment will fall.

Expanding Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits, shifting the structure of the tax system to lower the burden on retirees relative to workers, and cutting taxes have all saddled the U.S. with unsupportable obligations. Running two futile and incredibly expensive wars over the past decade have further contributed to the bills that America’s children face.

None of this, of course, is mentioned in the economists’ endorsement of Romney. Instead, the statement indicates that today’s elderly, including the likes of Warren Buffett, should experience no reduction in their Social Security or Medicare benefits. That is, the statement endorses leaving future generations to cover what now amounts to a $222 trillion fiscal gap between future expenditure and taxes.

Alan - Obama didn't veto it and signed it because he used so much political capital on it. To go so far and not get anything would have been the true sign of an idealogue unwilling to compromise or settle. As a moderate he accepted what he could get.

Those Democrats you mentioned Landreiu, Nelson etc should also include Lieberman, Baccus, Tester and Corbin? (sp) they wouldn't vote for single payer or a public option because you had the uninformed masses screaming about death panels wearing Medicare badges carrying signs reading "Get government out of medicare"

Those democrats voted the way they did because they were afraid to lose their elections. Sadly a few of those jokers didn't even run (gutless cowards). Meanwhile the progressives and Obama get left holding the bag.

Yellowdog and Tnsevl--if we could discuss things civilly like this, it would always be so much easier because generally on this board if you dont like even one small thing from Obama, you get labelled a right wing nut job, idiotic a moron and similarly if you say one thing positive about Romney/Ryan. I dont dislike everything Obama has done and certainly dont see Romney/Ryan as a panacea. First off, I agree with you both in that if the Romney/Ryan tax budget doesnt include eliminations of deductions and loopholes for the top income brackets that offset the rate reduction so it becomes a net tax cut to this group, I would be completely against it. I advocate a complete simplification and create a fair and equitable tax code where rates are lowered but their are no deductions. Social engineering in the tax code is not necessary. So if you really believe that these guys wont broaden the tax base while decreasing the tax rates, then I understand your concerns.

As for cuts to social programs or the federal budget, dont forget thats a zero sum because those same cuts come at the expense of someone else who paid taxes into the program to fund it. So you are already taking the money out of the system from taxes or borrowed debt. So I dont believe that the government is as efficient as the private arena, so I just think that becomes a net positive. I agree that Obama's 4 years and his small recovery have primarily benefited the working wealthy and its been worse for minorities, poor and middle class so I dont get the rhetoric against the the Romney/Ryan plans.

I dont believe that the GOP is perfect and think both parties have contributed to this mess. Remember I am a Clinton fan and want to go back to the collaboration from those days. I agree with you and would rather have had Glass-Stegall rather than Dodd Frank which is an abomination and jobs killer itself. I never said Obama was wrong on everything but I dont see him as a moderate nor a compromiser. I do believe he is a poor leader and more comfortable with leading from behind which helps cause the morass we have in congress. He is more comfortable playing golf and hanging with his advisors rather than colloboration with his own cabinet or congress.

As for Romney, government spending being slashed, just keeps that same money in more productive hands and I think the private capital market will offset and grow at rates much faster than the entitlement welfare (corporate too) state that Obama is creating. I do agree that entitlements will be changed (but any honest debate from either party knows this) for those under 55 but debt will only soar if you guys are right and he doesnt truly broaden the tax base.

Alan, NJ

@Kirk

If you haven't realized it by now Xabre doesn't want to debate you, he simply wants to bait you.

High praise coming from Alan, who's a master ...

@Houston -- You are citing a story written by a person who worked for a president and a man that actually was running for president until May of this year that criticizes economists at risk of being political hacks????? That is too fricking funny.

Over 500. Over 500. These are the experts. For this you label me and then accuse me of not referencing when in a post before yours I did reference the website. Why does the left get so agitated when faced with facts? Why so hostile?

@YellowDog

Those Democrats you mentioned Landreiu, Nelson etc should also include Lieberman, Baccus, Tester and Corbin? (sp) they wouldn't vote for single payer or a public option because you had the uninformed masses screaming about death panels wearing Medicare badges carrying signs reading "Get government out of medicare"

This is exactly what I've been trying to say whenever the individual mandate is branded Republican. It may have been their idea but they did not vote for it.

Personally, I think single-payer would have been a bridge too far, but losing the public option was the real disgrace of those names above. In particular Joe Lieberman protected the insurance companies from his state, and it is so sad that the Administration could not peal off the Maine senators to vote for a public option.

Alan, NJ

Well Obama ran as a progressive liberal and due to complex realities has tried to govern as a moderate. Romney has run as a liberal conservative during his Senate and Governor runs. Now as Pres. candidate he has run as a "severely conservative" republican so you could be right he could if elected govern as a moderate republican.

However, I think only an idealogue would think that the deficit can be addressed with only tax cuts forthe wealthy, without including tax revenue increases. A moderate Conservative we could perhaps both agree with is Alan Simpson - paraphrashing, Only an idiot or an idealogue can think you can address the deficit with only spending cuts or tax increases.

Both are needed. I think you said above, lets go back to the Clinton era where success wasn't punished as opposed to now, although I disagree with the assertion; yes, lets go back to the Clinton era tax rates for all.

So Akin's real sin, in the eyes of the repugnicans, isn't thinking it, it's saying it. And what I'm surprised at is that I haven't heard anyone yet address the real central issue, as I see it. The inference here is that if the woman becomes pregnant, it wasn't really rape. It was consenual and,therefore, her fault. Thank you, ex-Rep. Akin. I hope you enjoy your retirement. (Actually I don't. You're another filthy 'pug DB)

@Kirk -Yellowdog and Tnsevl--if we could discuss things civilly like this, it would always be so much easier because generally on this board if you dont like even one small thing from Obama, you get labelled a right wing nut job, idiotic a moron and similarly if you say one thing positive about Romney/Ryan.

@Alan - Personally, I think single-payer would have been a bridge too far, but losing the public option was the real disgrace of those names above. In particular Joe Lieberman protected the insurance companies from his state, and it is so sad that the Administration could not peal off the Maine senators to vote for a public option.

I don't always agree with you guys but we can always disagree, agreeably.Don't take this the wrong way, meant as a compliment, I see you two similarily to the Maine moderate republicans of First Read.

Kirk/Alan - I think Obama isn't perfect either, his approaches are small ball when addressing the deficit and entitlements. The SS tax holiday worsened the situation with SS. Only taxing the wealthy, won't do it. But, Obama is a politician and to win he has to push a populist theme. Aside from the debt issue and my greivances about foreign policy, there are many things I like and admire about Obama policies. He had done many important things been stymied on others...Don't worry I won't bore you with the 100 alphabatized Obama did this list.

My one thing positive about Romney, he did the right thing in asking that Akin guy to quit. By the way don't want to discuss that issue, being done to death already...

A few questions - What do you think will happen with the sequestered cuts? Will the winner of the POTUS race renew the Bush tax cuts?

A few questions - What do you think will happen with the sequestered cuts? Will the winner of the POTUS race renew the Bush tax cuts?

Cuts will be eliminated as it affects Virginia too much before the election.

Bush tax cuts (all of them) will be extended 6 months.

jim-1455434

Wow ! As usual, the First Read tries desperately to bring out all the negatives on Romney/Ryan with absolutely no discussion of what Obama plans for the next term if he is re-elected. Mr. Akin did cause a wave that has caused the Republican leadership to ask him to step down. I don't recall anyone asking the idiot Democrat Senator from Connecticut to step down when he "misspoke" about his service record .... several times.

Then again, that didn't offend 50.8% of the U.S. population, did it??

But then, IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID... and this website refuses to discuss the rapid run up in national debt of over $5 trillion dollars during Obama's first term. MSNBC refuses to discuss the 8.3% unemployment rate .... except where it looks like there is a slight uptick. There has been little if any discussion about Obama's reign as President, now in his 4th year, with NO BUDGETS passed as required by law.

Same right-wing fallacies. Debt under Obama has actually increased by around $4.5 trillion, and most of that is because of the RECESSION. In case you right-wing bastards were snoozing during Econ 101, DEFICITS INCREASE during a recession!!! Add that to the Bush deficits, and we are trillions in the hole. What the @!$%# did you expect??? And do you really want to cut spending now??? That would send us into a RECESSION. As for unemployment, it would be FAR LOWER had states not fired their employees and the feds pumped more stimulus into the economy, but those obstructionist Republicans said NO.

MSDNC has also paid little attention to Obama's arbitrary efforts to bypass existing immigration laws and his lawsuits against several states. Were Obama truly a leader, he would have the U.S. government working WITH them, instead of AGAINST them.

Yea, do you really think Obama can work with states that are trying to block the vote while being led by the same party that hates his guts and refuses to compromise??? Are you that stupid?? NO REPUBLICAN will work with the President, lest their Tea Party masters kick their asses in November.

For now, 40% or more of every tax dollar is going for debt service alone. Spending continues to exceed revenues and Obama refuses to cut spending, choosing to play the class warfare game instead ..... and the additional revenues to be gained from raising taxes on "the rich" will only pay for aboput 8.5 days of his deficits.

That's wrong; 40% of every dollar spent is BORROWED, not going to debt service. And how the @!$%# is raising taxes on the wealthy (who have seen decades of lower taxes and immense prosperity) class warfare???? CLASS WARFARE IS GOING ON RIGHT NOW; and the rich are winning. If Ryan gets his way, the rich will be fiddling while America burns. And Obama already agreed to $2.2 trillion in spending cuts; it's tax raising time.

When will MSNBC have the balls to face the economic issues of our country ?

The same day the GOP has the balls to speak the truth and actually work to HELP America instead of stabbing it in the back.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

@Kirk, Yellowdog and Tnsevl

Thanks for having your discussion so respectfully. I learned a lot from reading what you all had to say and appreciate you sharing your knowledge here for anyone to read. I wish more could debate these issues you like three did. We (the US) might actually get out of this mess if there were more of this civility going on.

Kirk-2957282

Yellowdog and Tnsevl--if we could discuss things civilly like this, it would always be so much easier because generally on this board if you dont like even one small thing from Obama, you get labelled a right wing nut job, idiotic a moron and similarly if you say one thing positive about Romney/Ryan. I dont dislike everything Obama has done and certainly dont see Romney/Ryan as a panacea. First off, I agree with you both in that if the Romney/Ryan tax budget doesnt include eliminations of deductions and loopholes for the top income brackets that offset the rate reduction so it becomes a net tax cut to this group, I would be completely against it. I advocate a complete simplification and create a fair and equitable tax code where rates are lowered but their are no deductions. Social engineering in the tax code is not necessary. So if you really believe that these guys wont broaden the tax base while decreasing the tax rates, then I understand your concerns.

Unfortunately, every tax code contains a bit of social engineering; consumption taxes encourage saving and investing; income taxes tend to discourage working, but their effects tend to be negligible. And to be exact, Romney/Ryan might, I say again, might broaden the base, but that might not happen due to the popularity of certain deductions. The ONLY way for Ryan and Romney to make their tax plan revenue-neutral is to effectively raise taxes on middle and lower income Americans WHILE cutting taxes for the wealthiest. Do I support raising taxes regardless of class: yes. Do I support a plan that cuts taxes for the rich and raises taxes on the poor: no.

As for cuts to social programs or the federal budget, dont forget thats a zero sum because those same cuts come at the expense of someone else who paid taxes into the program to fund it. So you are already taking the money out of the system from taxes or borrowed debt. So I dont believe that the government is as efficient as the private arena, so I just think that becomes a net positive. I agree that Obama's 4 years and his small recovery have primarily benefited the working wealthy and its been worse for minorities, poor and middle class so I dont get the rhetoric against the the Romney/Ryan plans.

Actually, social programs are NOT zero-sum. Social programs (like food stamps) help keep people above the poverty line, which makes many (although not all) eligible to pay taxes. Cutting these programs may have a long-term benefit of lowering the debt, but in the short-term, and perhaps in the long-term, you will increase poverty and hurt aggregate demand, and lead to a greater redistribution of wealth to the richest Americans. The reason behind the lackluster Obama recovery is, among other things, a lack of government spending. The private sector does not spend during a recession, either due to a lack of capital or due to a lack of confidence. That is where the feds ought to go in and pump money into the economy continuously until the private sector starts investing. That has not happened. And finally, income inequality is so high in the U.S that most of all new wealth created is going to those at the top.

I dont believe that the GOP is perfect and think both parties have contributed to this mess. Remember I am a Clinton fan and want to go back to the collaboration from those days. I agree with you and would rather have had Glass-Stegall rather than Dodd Frank which is an abomination and jobs killer itself.

I myself support Glass-Steagall, but Dodd-Frank is a necessary evil to get back to it. And technically, most of the blame (if not all) goes to the GOP, mainly due to the fact that deregulation of the financial industries came from them.

I never said Obama was wrong on everything but I dont see him as a moderate nor a compromiser. I do believe he is a poor leader and more comfortable with leading from behind which helps cause the morass we have in congress. He is more comfortable playing golf and hanging with his advisors rather than colloboration with his own cabinet or congress.

How the hell is Obama a radical and stubborn??? He compromised on debt by offering to cut $3 trillion in return for $1 trillion in revenue increases; he used a REPUBLICAN healthcare concept (yet the GOP was too stubborn to accept it); he even extended the bloody Bush tax cuts for 2 years!!! How the hell is that being radical and stubborn???? Congress will not work with him; it is evident in the fact that the GOP has used obstruction via the filibuster in the Senate on just about every Democratic plan. The GOP does not want to work with Obama; they simply want to obstruct him and make the country worse so that the electorate will unseat him and bring them back to power.

As for Romney, government spending being slashed, just keeps that same money in more productive hands and I think the private capital market will offset and grow at rates much faster than the entitlement welfare (corporate too) state that Obama is creating. I do agree that entitlements will be changed (but any honest debate from either party knows this) for those under 55 but debt will only soar if you guys are right and he doesnt truly broaden the tax base.

Unfortunately, if by "more productive hands" you mean the wealthy, they will not boost the economy. The rich have a small effect on the economy, due to the fact that 70% of our GDP is consumption and that the middle class and the working poor are the biggest consumers. If you are talking about the middle class, they are not spending because there are not enough jobs. The private market cannot and will not spend until they see a moderately-robust economy, and we are not seeing that right now. That means the government has to spend money to create jobs and spur demand, giving private investors the confidence and the capital to invest and fix the economy. As for entitlements, the best way to fix them is to simply eliminate the employer cap and raise the employee cap and the payroll tax rate (for Social Security). As for Medicare, you will have to strengthen the power of the IPAB, replace the fee-for-service payment mechanism with a fee-for-health payment based on patient's health, and stop doing business with for-profit care providers (and focus solely on non-profits) until they lower their prices to an acceptable level. And technically, Obama has not focused much on tax reform.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Well Feisty as we all know (at those of us who grew up in the late 60's) "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature!"

Dont-Carry-it-all

You are entirely welcome and I'm glad you enjoyed the posts. You have to understand I live in a household full of females (wife, daughter, two female collies). I had to get myself a male Shih Tzu just so I wouldn't feel so out-numbered. HAHAHAHA.

You go girls...er, women, I'm with you 100%.

Obama/Biden 2012

Ben-636050

@Houston -- You are citing a story written by a person who worked for a president and a man that actually was running for president until May of this year that criticizes economists at risk of being political hacks????? That is too fricking funny.

To rational people, whether he was involved in politics doesn't matter if his arguments are sound. But of course, you're not rational,, so you can keep squawking about the 500 people who think they see a "plan" that Romney doesn't actually have. Romney even admitted he wasn't going to release any details because the mean old Democrats might criticize them.

Why does the left get so agitated when faced with facts? Why so hostile?

Let us know when you find a fact, and we'll see how hostile that will make us. Not suffering fools gladly is not the same as hostility to facts.

Alan N.J.

I don't believe Obama is an ideologue. I do believe that his policies are all about wealth and income re-distribution.

So are Romney's. The only difference is that Romney wants to redistribute the wealth in the opposite direction. That's why the middle class will pay more taxes and the wealthy, who nearly brought the economy to total ruin during the Bush years, will pay less if Romney manages to buy his way to the White House.

Alan, NJ

So a Republican idea was included in a bill that no Republicans voted for.

100% yes

My point is that the PPACA was passed with only Democratic votes.

100% yes

The PPACA included the individual mandate.

so did the Republican version

Why was the individual mandate included in a bill that got no Republicans votes

even though they were FOR IT before they were against it because of ONE change so connect the dots, Alan. What made the Republicans change from WANTING the individual mandate? Come, I know you can do it - what made the Republicans not like something that they wanted themselve???? I'll give you a hint: it starts with O and ends with a. That's why Republicans didn't vote for it - just like they have been sabotaging everything else that had Obama's name on it.

Summary Of A 1993 Republican Health Reform Plans

Title I: Basic Reforms to Expand Access to Health Insurance Coverage and to Ensure Universal Coverage - Subtitle A: Universal Access - Provides access to health insurance coverage under a qualified health plan for every citizen and lawful permanent resident of the United States.

Subtitle F: Universal Coverage - Requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005. Provides an exception for any individual who is opposed for religious reasons to health plan coverage, including those who rely on healing using spiritual means through prayer alone.

@Houston! -- He is a political hack accusing others of being a political hack. Hypocritical. I'll take the voices and opinions of over 500 independent economists -- 5 Nobel Laureates -- over one political hack. Your argument carries no water. It is a shame you are in denial. Instead of listening to the left's talking points, you might want to study a bit and formulate an opinion based on facts and not conjecture. For example:

http://economistsforromney.com/

We enthusiastically endorse Governor Mitt Romney’s economic plan to create jobs and restore economic growth while returning America to its tradition of economic freedom. The plan is based on proven principles: a more contained and less intrusive federal government, a greater reliance on the private sector, a broad expansion of opportunity without government favors for special interests, and respect for the rule of law including the decision-making authority of states and localities.

Applying these principles, Governor Romney would:

• Reduce marginal tax rates on business and wage incomes and broaden the tax base to increase investment, jobs, and living standards.
• End the exploding federal debt by controlling the growth of spending so federal spending does not exceed 20 percent of the economy.
• Restructure regulation to end “too big to fail,” improve credit availability to entrepreneurs and small businesses, and increase regulatory accountability, and ensure that all regulations pass rigorous benefit-cost tests.
• Improve our Social Security and Medicare programs by reducing their growth to sustainable levels, ensuring their viability over the long term, and protecting those in or near retirement.
• Reform our healthcare system to harness market forces and thereby reduce costs and increase quality, empowering patients and doctors, rather than the federal bureaucracy.
• Promote energy policies that increase domestic production, enlarge the use of all western hemisphere resources, encourage the use of new technologies, end wasteful subsidies, and rely more on market forces and less on government planners.

In stark contrast, President Obama has failed to advance policies that promote economic and job growth, focusing instead on increasing the size and scope of the federal government, which increases the debt, requires large tax increases, and burdens business with many new financial and health care regulations. The result is an anemic economic recovery and high unemployment. His future plans are to double down on the failed policies, which will only prolong slow growth and high unemployment.

President Obama has:

• Relied on short-term “stimulus” programs, which provided little sustainable lift to the economy, and enacted and proposed significant tax increases for all Americans.
• Offered no plan to reduce federal spending and stop the growth of the debt-to-GDP ratio.
• Failed to propose Social Security reform and offered a Medicare proposal that relies on a panel of bureaucrats to set prices, quantities, and qualities of healthcare services.
• Favored a large expansion of economic regulation across many sectors, with little regard for proper cost-benefit analysis and with a disturbing degree of favoritism toward special interests.
• Enacted health care legislation that centralizes health care decisions and increases the power of the federal bureaucracy to impose one-size-fits-all solutions on patients and doctors, and creates greater incentives for waste.
• Favored expansion of one-size-fits-all federal rulemaking, with an erosion of the ability of state and local governments to make decisions appropriate for their particular circumstances.

In sum, Governor Romney’s economic plan is far superior for creating economic growth and jobs than the actions and interventions President Obama has taken or plans to take in the future. This November, voters will make a fundamental choice between differing visions of America’s economic future.

Signed (affiliations listed for identification purposes only),

Gary Becker, Nobel laureate
Robert Lucas, Nobel laureate
Robert Mundell, Nobel laureate
Edward Prescott, Nobel laureate
Myron Scholes, Nobel laureate

Burton Abrams, University of Delaware
James D. Adams, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Douglas Adie, Ohio University
Lee C. Adkins, Oklahoma State University
Richard Agnello, University of Delaware
James Ahiakpor, California State University, East Bay
William Albrecht, University of Iowa
Michael J. Alderson, Saint Louis University
John W. Allen, Texas A&M University
William Allen, University of California, Los Angeles
Fernando Alvarez, University of Chicago
Joe Antos, American Enterprise Institute
J. J. Arias, Georgia College
Scott Baier, Clemson University
Charles Baird, California State University, East Bay
Eric Baklanoff, The University of Alabama
Spencer Banzhaf, Georgia State University
Robert J. Barro, Harvard University
William Beach, Alexandria, VA
Howard Beales, George Washington University
Stacie Beck, University of Delaware
Larry Belcher, Taylor University
Don Bellante, University of South Florida
Michael Bennett, Curry College
Bill Beranek, University of Georgia
Richard Bernstein, Temple University
Sanjai Bhagat, University of Colorado
Andrew Biggs, American Enterprise Institute
Robert Bise, Orange Coast College
Michael Block, University of Arizona
Cecil Bohanon, Ball State University
Michael Bond, University of Arizona
Carlos Bonilla, Airline Forecasts
Donald Booth, Chapman University
G. Geoffrey Booth, Michigan State University
Karl Borden, University of Nebraska
George Borts, Brown Universiy
Michael Boskin, Stanford University
Edward H. Boss, Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability Illinois State Legislature
John Boyce, University of Calgary
Edward Boyer, Temple University
Gordon Brady, glbradygroup.com
Daniel Brandt, Chevy Chase, MD
Ike Brannon, American Action Forum
David Brat, Randolph-Macon College
Charles Breeden, Marquette University
Ivan Brick, Rutgers University
Alex Brill, American Enterprise Institute
Roger Brinner, The Parthenon Group
David P. Brown, University of Wisconsin, Madison
James N. Brown, Rice University
Jeffrey Brown, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Edgar Browning, Texas A&M University
Eric Brucker, Widener University
Lawrence Brunner, Central Michigan University
Peter Brust, University of Tampa
Phillip Bryson, Brigham Young University
William K. Buchanan, Valdosta State University
Todd Buchholz, Sproglit, LLC
M. Northrup Buechner, St. John’s University
Van Bullock, New Mexico State University
Richard Burdekin, Claremont McKenna College
Richard Burkhauser, Cornell University
Andrew Busch, BMO Capital Markets
Henry Butler, George Mason University School of Law
William Butos, Trinity College
Frank Caliendo, Utah State University
Charles Calomiris, Columbia University
Colin Campbell, Dartmouth College
William Campbell, Louisiana State University
Robert Carey, Clemson University
Thomas Cargill, University of Nevada, Reno
Darcy Carr, Coastal Carolina University
James Carter, Vienna, VA
Mark Castelino, Rutgers Business School
Gary Caton, Montana State University
Richard J. Cebula, Jacksonville University
Dustin Chambers, Salisbury University
Robert Chatflield, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Kenneth Chilton, Lindenwood University
John Chipman, University of Minnesota
Barry R. Chiswick, George Washington University
Lawrence Cima, John Carroll University
Richard Clarida, Columbia University
Jim Clark, Wichita State University
Kenneth Clarkson, University of Miami
Warren Coats Jr., International Monetary Fund, retired
John P. Cochran, Metropolitan State University of Denver
John Cochrane, University of Chicago
John Cogan, Stanford University
John Coleman, Duke University
Boyd Collier, Tarleton State University
Peter Colwell, University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign
John Connaughton, University of North Carolina, Charlotte
Michael Connolly, University of Miami
Michelle Connolly, Duke University
Cathleen Coolidge, California State University, Chico
Kathleen Cooper, Southern Methodist University
Russell Cooper, Pennsylvania State University
Lee Coppock, University of Virginia
Bradford Cornell, California Institute of Technology
Michael Cosgrove, University of Dallas
Robert Costrell, University of Arkansas
Jim F. Couch, University of North Alabama
Joshua Coval, Harvard Business School
James Cover, University of Alabama
Ted Covey, McLean, VA
Eleanor Craig, University of Delaware
Nicole Crain, Lafayette College
W. Mark Crain, Lafayette College
Wayne Crews, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Thomas D. Crocker, University of Wyoming
John R. Crooker, University of Central Missouri
Dean Croushore, University of Richmond
Mario J. Crucini, Vanderbilt University
Ward Curran, Trinity College
David Cushman, Westminster College of PA
Carl Dahlman, US Department of Defense and RAND Corporation, retired
Michael Daniels, Columbus State University
Albert L. Danielsen, University of Georgia
Larry Dann, University of Oregon
Michael Darby, UCLA Anderson School
J. Ronnie Davis, University of New Orleans
Ronnie Davis, Florida Institute of Technology
Steven Davis, University of Chicago
A. Edward Day, University of Central Florida
Harry DeAngelo, University of Southern California
Linda DeAngelo, University of Southern California
Stephen J. DeCanio, University of California, Santa Barbara
Clarence Deitsch, Ball State University
Robert Dekle, University of Southern California
Christopher DeMuth, Hudson Institute
David B. H. Denoon, New York University
Joseph DeSalvo, University of South Florida, Tampa
Allan DeSerpa, Arizona State University
William Dewald, Ohio State University
Phoebus Dhrymes, Columbia University
John Diamond, Rice University
Arthur M. Diamond, Jr., University of Nebraska at Omaha
Jeffrey Dorfman, University of Georgia
William Dougan, Clemson University
Christopher Douglas, University of Michigan – Flint
Floyd H. Duncan, Virginia Military Institute
Joseph Duncan, Political and Economic Reserch Council
Gerald Dwyer, University of Carlos III, Madrid
Richard Eastin, University of Southern California
John Eckalbar, California State University, Chico
Robert Orland Edmister, Bowling Green State University
John Egger, Towson University
Isaac Ehrlich, State University of New York, Buffalo
Martin Eichenbaum, Northwestern University
Kathryn Eickhoff, Eickhoff Economics Inc.
Jeff Eisenach, American Enterprise Institute
Charles Elson, University of Delaware
Elyas Elyasiani, Temple University
Stephen Entin, Arlington, VA
Richard Ericson, East Carolina University
Dorla Evans, University of Alabama, Huntsville
James S. Fackler, University of Kentucky
Dino Falaschetti, Florida State University
Frank Falero, California State University, Bakersfield
Eugene Fama, University of Chicago
Dorsey D. Farr, French Wolf & Farr
W. Ken Farr, Georgia College and State University
Michael Faulkender, University of Maryland
Christopher Fawson, Utah State University
Allen Featherstone, Kansas State University
Susan Feigenbaum, University of Missouri, St. Louis
Martin Feldstein, Harvard University
Paul Feldstein, University of California, Irvine
David Findlay, Colby College
Eric Fisher, California Polytechnic State University
Garry Fleming, Roanoke College
Christopher Flinn, New York University
Harold Flint, Montclair State University, retired
Bill Ford, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, former
Ralph Frasca, University of Dayton
Douglas Frechtling, George Washington University
Kenneth French, Dartmouth College
Luke Froeb, Vanderbilt University
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research
Esther Gal-Or, University of Pittsburgh
B. Delworth Gardner, Brigham Young University
John Garen, University of Kentucky
Dave Garthoff, The University of Akron
Ted Gayer, Brookings Institution
Gregory Gelles, Missouri University of Science and Technology
Aaron Gellman, Northwestern University
Robert Genetski, Classicalprinciples.com
Joseph Giacalone, St. John’s University
Adam Gifford Jr., California State University
David Gillette, Truman State University
Peter Gioia, Connecticut Business and Industry Association
James Giordano, Villanova University
Micha Gisser, University of New Mexico
William Glade, University of Texas, Austin
Amy Glass, Texas A&M University
Charles Goetz, University of Virginia
Joao Gomes, University of Pennsylvania
Rodolfo A. Gonzalez, San Jose State University
Marvin Goodfriend, Carnegie Mellon University
John Goodman, National Center for Policy Analysis
Lawrence Goodman, Bergen County, NJ
Barry Goodwin, North Carolina State University
Richard Gordon, Pennsylvania State University
Eric Graber, University of Maryland University College
Bob Grady, Cheyenne Capital Fund
Daniel Graham, Duke University
Phil Gramm, Former U.S. Senator, Texas
Wendy Gramm, Mercatus Center, retired
Richard Grant, Lipscomb University
Philip Graves, University of Colorado, Boulder
Anthony Greco, University of Louisiana, Lafayette
William Green, Sam Houston State University
Kenneth V. Greene, Binghamton University
Paul Gregory, University of Houston
Thomas Gresik, University of Notre Dame
Rachel Greszler, Bethesda, MD
Earl Grinols, Baylor University
Dan Gropper, Auburn University
Tim Groseclose, University of Southern California
Edward Guay, Wintonbury Risk Management
Darrin Gulla, University of Kentucky
Frank Gunter, Lehigh University, Colonel U.S. Marines, retired
RW Hafer, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville
Simon Hakim, Temple University
Dennis Halcoussis, California State University, Northridge
Tom Hamilton, University of St. Thomas
Gary Hansen, UCLA
Eric Hanushek, Stanford University
Stephen Happel, Arizona State University
Scott Harrington, University of Pennsylvania
Jerome Hass, Johnson School, Cornell University
Kevin Hassett, American Enterprise Institute
Arthur Havenner, University of California, Davis
Joel Hay, University of Southern California
Daniel Heath, Georgetown University Law Center
Gilbert Heebner, Eastern University
Scott Hein, Texas Tech University
Robert Heller, Former Member, Federal Reserve Board
Robert Helms, American Enterprise Institute
Mike Helvacian, New Jersey Institute of Technology
James Henderson, Baylor University
Wallace Hendricks, University of Illinois
Dana Hoag, Colorado State University
Robert J. Hodrick, Columbia Business School
John Hoehn, Michigan State University
Arlene Holen, Technology Policy Institute
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, American Action Forum
Thomas Howard, University of Denver
Glenn Hubbard, Columbia University
Thomas Hubbard, Northwestern University
Forrest Huffman, Temple University
James L. Huffman, Lewis & Clark Law School
J. Christoper Hughen, University of Denver
L. Dwight Israelsen, Utah State University
Mark Jamison, University of Florida
Dennis Jansen, Texas A&M University
Sherry Jarrell, Wake Forest University
William P. Jennings, California State University, Northridge
Gerald Jensen, Northern Illinois University
Dennis Johnson, University of South Dakota
Douglas Joines, University of Southern California
Jerry Jordan, Pacific Academy
G. Donald Jud, University of North Carolina, Greensboro
Richard Just, University of Maryland
Tim Kane, Hudson Institute
Alexander Katkov, Johnson & Wales University
Michael Kaylen, University of Missouri
Joe Kennedy, former Chief Economist, Department of Commerce
Carl Kester, Harvard Business School
Naveen Khanna, Michigan State University
Richard Kilmer, University of Florida
Kent Kimbrough, Duke University
Don Koch, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, former
Meir Kohn, Dartmouth College
Betty Kouo, Caterpillar Inc.
Melvyn Krauss, Stanford University
Marie-Josée Kravis, Hudson Institute
Robert Krol, California State University, Northridge
Anne Krueger, Former World Bank Chief Economist
Ben Kyer, Francis Marion University
Richard La Near, Missouri Southern State University
Francis Laatsch, University of Southern Mississippi
Arthur Laffer, Laffer Associates
William Laird, Florida State University
Deepak Lal, UCLA
Douglas Lamdin, University of Maryland Baltimore County
Daniel Landau, University of Connecticut
Nicholas Lash, Loyola University Chicago
Edward Lazear, Stanford University
Don Leet, California State University, Fresno
Norman Lefton, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville
Kenneth Lehn, University of Pittsburgh
Thomas Lenard, Technology Policy Institute
Adam Lerrick, American Enterprise Institute
David Lesmond, Tulane University
Irving Leveson, Leveson Consulting
Philip Levy, University of Virginia
Peter Lewin, University of Texas, Dallas
W. Cris Lewis, Utah State University
Stan Liebowitz, University of Texas, Dallas
Dean Lillard, Ohio State University
Tony Lima, California State University, East Bay
Jody Lipford, Presbyterian College
Luis Locay, University of Miami
Francis Longstaff, UCLA Anderson School
James R. Lothian, Fordham University
John Lott, Burke, VA
John Lunn, Hope College
R. Ashley Lyman, University of Idaho
Glenn MacDonald, Washington University in St. Louis
Maurice MacDonald, Kansas State University
John Makin, American Enterprise Institute
Keith Malone, University of North Alabama
David Malpass, Encima Global
Yuri Maltsev, Carthage College
Gershon Mandelker, University of Pittsburgh
Greg Mankiw, Harvard University
Henry Manne, George Mason University Law School
Anthony Marino, University of Southern California
Michael L. Marlow, Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo
Richard Marston, Wharton School
Deryl Martin, Tennessee Technological University
Timothy Mathews, Kennesaw State University
John Matsusaka, University of Southern California
David Mayers, University of California, Riverside
Thomas Mayor, University of Houston
John McArthur, Wofford College
Bennett McCallum, Carnegie Mellon University
John McDowell, Arizona State University
Martin McGuire, University of California-Irvine
Francis McLaughlin, Boston College
W. Douglas McMillin, Louisiana State University
William Megginson, University of Oklahoma
Roger Meiners, University of Texas at Arlington
Will Melick, Kenyon College
Allan Meltzer, Carnegie Mellon University
Stephen Mennemeyer, University of Alabama at Birmingham
John Merrifield, University of Texas-San Antonio
Todd Milbourn, Washington University in St. Louis
Geoffrey Miller, New York University
Jim Miller, OMB Director 1985-1988
Tom Miller, American Enterprise Institute
Jeffrey Miron, Harvard University
Ed Miseta, Pennsylvania State University
James Moncur, University of Hawaii at Manoa
Wilbur Monroe, US Treasury Department, retired
Michael Montgomery, University of Maine
Ron Moomaw, Oklahoma State University
John C. Moorhouse, Wake Forest University
Tim Muris, George Mason University
Frank Murray, University of Minnesota
John E. Murray, Rhodes College
David B. Mustard, University of Georgia
Richard F. Muth, Emory University
George Neumann, University of Iowa
Robert Newman, Louisiana State University
Robert D. Niehaus, Robert D. Niehaus, Inc.
Daniel O’Brien, McLean, VA
June O’Neill, Former Director of the Congressional Budget Office
Dave O’Neill, Baruch College
James B. O’Neill, University of Delaware
Norman Obst, Michigan State University
Lee Ohanian, UCLA
Lydia Ortega, San Jose State University
Donald Oswald, California State University, Bakersfield
Richard Palfin, Economic Analysis
Stephen Parente, University of Minnesota
Randall Parker, East Carolina University
Donald Parsons, George Washington University
Douglas Patterson, Virginia Tech
George G. Pennacchi, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Tim Perri, Appalachian State University
Mark Perry, University of Michigan-Flint, American Enterprise Institute
Christopher Phelan, University of Minnesota
Tomas J. Philipson, University of Chicago
G. Michael Phillips, California State University, Northridge
Gordon Phillips, University of Southern California
Charles Phillips, Jr, Washington and Lee University
Mario Picconi, University of San Diego
John Pisciotta, Baylor University
William Poole, Former President, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Michael Porter, Harvard University
Barry Poulson, University of Colorado Boulder
John Powers, The University of Cincinnati
Robert Premus, Wright State University
R. L. Promboin, University of Maryland University College
Stephen Pruitt, University of Missouri, Kansas City
Richard W. Rahn, Institute for Global Economic Growth
Garey Ramey, University of California, San Diego
Valerie Ramey, University of California, San Diego
James Ramsey, New York University
Brian Reardon, Venn Strategies, LLC
Ralph Reiland, Robert Morris University
Jon Reisman, University of Maine at Machias
Robert Rencher, Liberty University
Thomas Rhee, California State University, Long Beach
Mark William Rider, Georgia State University
Christine Ries, Georgia Institute of Technology
Mario Rizzo, New York University
Nancy Roberts, Arizona State University
Philip Romero, University of Oregon
David Rose, University of Missouri-St. Louis
Harvey Rosen, Princeton University
Larry Ross, University of Alaska Anchorage
Robert Rossana, Wayne State University
Timothy Roth, University of Texas at El Paso
James Roumasset, University of Hawaii
Charles Rowley, George Mason University
Paul Rubin, Emory University
John Ruggiero, University of Dayton
Philip Jay Rushing, University of Illinois
John Rutledge, Claremont Graduate University
Don Sabbarese, Kennesaw State University
Anthony Sanders, George Mason University
Gary Santoni, Ball State University
Atulya Sarin, Santa Clara University
Raymond Sauer, Clemson University
Jennifer Savage, Orange Coast College
E.S. Savas, Baruch College/CUNY
Jim Schallheim, University of Utah
Michael Schuyler, Arlington, VA
Roger Sedjo, Resources for the Future
Robert Seeley, Wilkes University
Richard Selden, University of Virginia
Barry Seldon, Florida State University
Sol S. Shalit, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Alan Shapiro, University of Southern California
Tim Sheesley, Xcel Energy
Gary L. Shelley, East Tennessee State University
Judy Shelton, Atlas Economic Research Foundation
Ann Sherman, DePaul University
George Shultz, Former Secretary of the Treasury
Werner Sichel, Western Michigan University
Don Siegel, University at Albany, SUNY
Laurence Siegel, Chartered Financial Analyst Institute
Jonathan Silberman, Oakland University
Jay Edward Simkin, The Stratecon Group LLC
Evangelos Otto Simos, University of New Hampshire
Chuck Skipton, University of Tampa
Scott Smart, Indiana University
James F. Smith, EconForecaster, LLC
Janet Kiholm Smith, Claremont McKenna College
Richard L. Smith, University of California, Riverside
Donald Snyder, Utah State University
Douglas Southgate, Ohio State University
Lawrence Southwick, University at Buffalo
Chester Spatt, Carnegie Mellon University
David Spencer, Brigham Young University
Peter Sperry, Woodbridge, VA
Frank Spreng, McKendree University
Stan Spurlock, Mississippi State University
Michael Staten, University of Arizona
Robert Stauffer, Roanoke College
Craig Stephenson, Babson College
Derek Stimel, Menlo College
Joe Stone, University of Oregon
Gerry Suchanek , University of Iowa
Daniel Sumner, University of California, Davis
Scott Sumner, Bentley University
Phillip Swagel, University of Maryland
Richard Sweeney, Georgetown University
Moshe Syrquin, University of Miami
Robert Tamura, Clemson University
T. Craig Tapley, University of Florida
Jason Taylor, Central Michigan University
John Taylor, Stanford University
Rebecca Thacker, Ohio University
Teresa Tharp, Valencia College
Stephen Thode, Lehigh University
Shawn Thomas, University of Pittsburgh
James Thornton, Eastern Michigan University
William Thralls, Johnson & Wales University
Stephen A. Tolbert, Montgomery County Community College (PA)
Robert D. Tollison, Clemson University
Dang Tran, California State University, Los Angeles
Charles Trzcinka, Indiana University, Bloomington
George P. Tsetsekos, Drexel University
David G. Tuerck, Suffolk University
Roger Tutterow, Mercer Univiersity
A. Sinan Unur, Cornell University
Charles Upton, Kent State University
T. Norman Van Cott, Ball State University
Larry Van Horn, Vanderbilt University
David VanHoose, Baylor University
Karen Vaughn, George Mason University
Richard Vedder, Ohio University
J. Antonio Villamil, St. Thomas University
Richard Wagner, George Mason University
Donald Walker, Indiana University of PA
Ralph Walkling, Drexel University
Sherri Wall, University of Alaska Fairbanks
William Walstad, University of Nebraska, Lincoln
Ronald Ward, University of Florida
John Warner, Clemson University
Kevin Warsh, Stanford University
Mark Warshawsky, Social Security Advisory Board
Alan Rufus Waters, California State University, Fresno
Robert Weaver, Pennsylvania State University
Bruce Webb, Gordon College
Leon L. Wegge, University of California, Davis
Murray Weidenbaum, Washington University in St. Louis
Andrew Weintraub, Temple University
Walter Wessels, North Carolina State University
Robert Whaples, Wake Forest University
J. Gregg Whittaker, William Jewell College
Michael E. Williams, University of Denver
Wayne Winegarden, Arduin, Laffer & Moore Econometrics
Gary Wolfram, Hillsdale College
Colin Wright, Claremont Mckenna College
Steve B. Wyatt, Miami University
Tetsuji Yamada, Rutgers University
Yong Yang, Ford Motor Company
DeVon Yoho, Ball State University
Nancy Yonge, Center for American Strength
Mokhlis Zaki, Northern Michigan University
John Zdanowicz, Florida International University
Jerry Zimmerman, Univeristy of Rochester
Robert Zoellick, Former President of the World Bank
Benjamin Zycher, American Enterprise Institute

Chrisdor...

Wouldn't vote for the big-eared bandit if he was the only candidate and my life depended on it! He's one and DONE!

ROMNEY/RYAN 2012!!!

Ben-636050

Five hundred political hacks say:

In stark contrast, President Obama has failed to advance policies that promote economic and job growth, focusing instead on increasing the size and scope of the federal government,

That's total B.S. The president has NOT increased the size of the federal government by any objective measure.

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor

Obama spending binge never happened

Commentary: Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.

I'll bet the Nobel Laureates who signed off on that crap didn't even know they were signing off on lies. Maybe they're senile. I'll stick with Paul Krugman, a Nobel Laureate who clearly still has all his marbles.

Houston--even Freshiee who is explaining and defending Obama's economic policies would disagree with you and tell you Obama didnt spend enough. Your credibility gets hurt when you fail to include the stimulus spending in Obama's spending spree because it fell within Bush's fiscal budget year. In addition, your belief that Paul Krugman is not a political hack that is beyond biased that I dont believe anyone from the white house would cite his work. Its not a matter thats up for debate and I dont think Obama is trying to hide behind his spending as he wants more. He wants even more spending.

Freshiee, you keep acting as if taking money out of the economy from taxpayers or investors via debt doesnt offset the so called government assistance or benefits that government provides through its spending. Its just not accurate. No economist would support that view although I agree many would support the concept of kickstarting the economy via government spending but never on a long term basis as you set out. Also none of them support short term bailouts like temporary tax cuts as they dont create incentives to invest just short term consumption. You also state that the wealthy who have tax cuts or increases dont impact the economy because they are a small part of consumption. You totally ignored that 70% of all small businesses use flow through entities to reflect their business income onto individual tax returns. So that income inequality you cite includes all small business income even if its not available for consumption so tax increases on these businesses certainly impact available investment capital for expansion and growth. You cant ignore both sides of the equation. You also ignore the factors that create that wealth for the wealthy as if it just gets dropped in their hands. I dont know what the absolute right fair share contribution is for the wealthy but for the ultra wealthy, the working wealthy have talent, cognitive ability, ambition, hard work and effort and the concept that somehow they should pay close to 50% of their earnings if living in California or New York is just wrong. Governments need to be accountable for their spending and as you knwo they are not and we watch as the failed Obama economic policies get played out in California, New York and Illinois, its just recipies for bankruptcy. By the way you cant just raise the social security cap without raising the benefits for those who pay in. Unless you are saying that you want an even greater wealth redistribution from the workers of today including the working middle class and wealthy to fund the benefits for the wealthiest segment in our population. Our seniors in the aggregate control 80% of the wealth in this country. As for changing the fee structure, do you really think there are enough health care providers willing to accept a much lower reimbursement even in the non for profit arena to deal with our current seniors, the baby boom generation and all the additional insured under Obamacare? Why would any doctor see a patient with a lower reimbursement if he/she doesnt have to.

why does the economy still suck?

why does the economy still suck,

why does the economy still suck.

... the numbers for Bush's last three months. Between October and November, 597,000 jobs were lost; between November and December, 681,000 were lost; and between December and January, 741,000 were lost.

The July gain bumped up the monthly average job gain in 2012 to 151,000 a month...

DJIA Dec 1, 2008 8149.09

DJIA Aug 21, 2012 13172.77

Dec. 29, 2008 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. corporate earnings fell for a sixth-straight quarter, the longest streak in at least 20 years, as consumer spending on automobiles, homes and retailers collapsed.

Jul 31, 2012 (Bloomberg) -- Profits for companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index have grown for 10 straight quarters, helping to power the index to a more than twofold increase since March 2009.

Your definition of "suck" sucks!

Kirk-2957282

Houston--even Freshiee who is explaining and defending Obama's economic policies would disagree with you and tell you Obama didnt spend enough. Your credibility gets hurt when you fail to include the stimulus spending in Obama's spending spree because it fell within Bush's fiscal budget year.

You're credibility gets hurt because you mindlessly repeat Republicon lies without bothering to read the facts that debunk them.

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor/2

Before Obama had even lifted a finger, the CBO was already projecting that the federal deficit would rise to $1.2 trillion in fiscal 2009. The government actually spent less money in 2009 than it was projected to, but the deficit expanded to $1.4 trillion because revenue from taxes fell much further than expected, due to the weak economy and the emergency tax cuts that were part of the stimulus bill.

Notice that the stimulus included tax CUTS, despite Republicon lies about tax increases.

And just because 500 economists put their signature on a pack of lies doesn't magically make the lies true.

even though they were FOR IT before they were against it because of ONE change so connect the dots, Alan. What made the Republicans change from WANTING the individual mandate? Come, I know you can do it - what made the Republicans not like something that they wanted themselve???? I'll give you a hint: it starts with O and ends with a. That's why Republicans didn't vote for it - just like they have been sabotaging everything else that had Obama's name on it.

But it passed dopey, with NO Republican votes. Democrats are solely responsible for the individual mandate becoming law. Say Republicans want to stop federal funding of abortion in all circumstances. Democrats have a bill they want passed and include this provision to gain Republican votes. However, no Republican votes for it and a Democratic President signs the bill into law. Who is now responsible for the law? The party who came up with the idea, or the party who passed the bill into law on a partisan vote?

Are the Democrats for the individual mandate? If not, they produced a bill that nobody wanted. If they are not for the individual mandate then they are the biggest bunch of political losers ever. They gave away the store and got nothing in return. The ACA was a totally partisan bill so what exactly was the purpose of their compromise?

Alan, NJ

even though they were FOR IT before they were against it because of ONE change so connect the dots, Alan. What made the Republicans change from WANTING the individual mandate? Come, I know you can do it - what made the Republicans not like something that they wanted themselve???? I'll give you a hint: it starts with O and ends with a. That's why Republicans didn't vote for it - just like they have been sabotaging everything else that had Obama's name on it.

But it passed dopey, with NO Republican votes.

Are you dopey? You're missing the point that anyone with an IQ above room temperature can see. The Republicans turned against their very own proposal only because they wanted to hurt President Obama. And that's why they've been working so hard to undermine the economic recovery for the past 3 years.

Denial Houston you have a credibility, comprehension and intelligence problem. What stupid statements calling the economist hacks and senile -- they didn't know what they were signing. What a pathetic attempt to dispute facts.

Kirk-2957282

Freshiee, you keep acting as if taking money out of the economy from taxpayers or investors via debt doesnt offset the so called government assistance or benefits that government provides through its spending. Its just not accurate. No economist would support that view although I agree many would support the concept of kickstarting the economy via government spending but never on a long term basis as you set out. Also none of them support short term bailouts like temporary tax cuts as they dont create incentives to invest just short term consumption.

Over the long-term, yes, debt-based stimulus spending can hurt the economy as debt rises as a share of GDP. But in the short-term, you have to bridge the gap between private sector spending and the amount of investment and demand needed to restore the economy to full employment, and that requires government spending. And since tax increases or spending cuts during a recession worsen the crisis, you'd have to fund it via borrowing. Long-term economic growth depends on two things: private sector investment and demand, and government fiscal/economic policy. But my proposals go only until the economy gets back on its feet, probably when the unemployment rate is around 5-6%. Nonetheless, we have to continue to pump money into the economy until private sector investment begins to increase.

You also state that the wealthy who have tax cuts or increases dont impact the economy because they are a small part of consumption. You totally ignored that 70% of all small businesses use flow through entities to reflect their business income onto individual tax returns. So that income inequality you cite includes all small business income even if its not available for consumption so tax increases on these businesses certainly impact available investment capital for expansion and growth. You cant ignore both sides of the equation. You also ignore the factors that create that wealth for the wealthy as if it just gets dropped in their hands. I dont know what the absolute right fair share contribution is for the wealthy but for the ultra wealthy, the working wealthy have talent, cognitive ability, ambition, hard work and effort and the concept that somehow they should pay close to 50% of their earnings if living in California or New York is just wrong. Governments need to be accountable for their spending and as you knwo they are not and we watch as the failed Obama economic policies get played out in California, New York and Illinois, its just recipies for bankruptcy.

True, true, and I don't think the working wealth (which in my opinion is people making between $150,000-$400,000) should pay 50% in taxes; I think maybe 35-40% would suffice. Yet unequal distribution of wealth and income will eventually hurt everyone if not dealt with; it acts as a drain on economic growth and can lead to a recurring cycle of credit bubbles, like the one that has been growing over the past 30 years that popped in 2008-09. Wealthy people (and by that I exclude the working ones) tend to get their money from savings and investments, and although that should be prioritized we cannot allow the rich to dictate the swings of the economy, leading to a crash when their easy credit policies and morally hazard attitudes finally blow up. And Obama's policies have not failed; they were simply inadequate to deal with the situation. The stimulus was a great plan, even with all its faults, but it was more for a short-term recession, rather than a long-term slump. We would need a stimulus the size and length of the New Deal (1933-1941) to fix this recession, although spread out to provide maximum effectiveness. It would have to be targeted on long-term spending projects, particularly rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. That would be accompanied with structural reforms (pro-labor laws, regulations on the financial industry, regulatory overview, re-examining trade and tax policy, etc) and a long-term plan to balance the budget and reduce the debt as a share of GDP.

By the way you cant just raise the social security cap without raising the benefits for those who pay in. Unless you are saying that you want an even greater wealth redistribution from the workers of today including the working middle class and wealthy to fund the benefits for the wealthiest segment in our population. Our seniors in the aggregate control 80% of the wealth in this country.

Well, I looked over the results of raising the payroll cap to 90% of earnings as stated by the CBO, and it would reduce the Social Security shortfall over the long-term considerably. In order to reduce wealth redistribution to the elderly (which is somewhat different than redistribution to the wealthy, since most people will become elderly someday), I would institute a savings program that would supplement Social Security.

As for changing the fee structure, do you really think there are enough health care providers willing to accept a much lower reimbursement even in the non for profit arena to deal with our current seniors, the baby boom generation and all the additional insured under Obamacare? Why would any doctor see a patient with a lower reimbursement if he/she doesnt have to.

Technically, the fee-for-health structure would not necessarily give care providers a lower reimbursement; it would simply replace the flat reimbursement to one that based on the quality of the provider's care. If they have exceptional quality, they will receive higher reimbursements, and if they don't, they will receive lower rates. This plan would probably need broader healthcare reform, in which I would advocate a single-payer/public option system. There would be single-payer health insurance, but Medicare would be able to run hospitals that compete with for-profit and non-profit care providers to lower costs. Hopefully, this and other reforms would lower costs for both Medicare and the overall healthcare industry.

The edit button gremlin struck, wouldn't let me add this.

The Odd August Poll. Paul Ryan gave Mitt Romney a near ZERO bounce. Did the Romney team not think through the selection of Ryan as VP? Ryan has been in Congress about 16 years, he's been in D.C. nearly 25 years, did the Romney Team not inspect the Ryan Voting Record baggage? Not to mention Ryan's anti-women's health choice record which includes co-sponsoring many anti-women bills with the "legitimate" rape guy, Todd Akin--only Ryan prefers to call it "forcible" rape.

Did Team Mitt think the Ryan budgets killing medicare would magically disappear. Romney/Ryan, the Etch-a-Sketch Vulture/Voucher guys.

Willard should take the 5 year tax deal from the Obama camp. You see if I had nothing to hide, I would release my taxes and watch myself shoot up 10 points in the polls.

However, Willard has something to hide. Perhaps a 0% income taxes being paid, or admitting to a Massive Tax Fraud.

I heard that Romney was a member of Slytherin House when he was in school....

Jody,

The lies from these two "wealthies" are so LARGE, that GOP/Koch hopes they'll stay hidden under the Adelson/Rove Ads.

Ryan’s Medicare plan would turn the entitlement into a voucher program for future beneficiaries, starting in 2023. GOP is working like crazy to cover up their scarey programs.

That - and the big Romney tax cover up.

Not producing tax returns in a timely fashion, is one more GOP bully tactic.

To be in the running, Romney will have to submit to custom as with ALL previous presidential candidates.

Being extremely wealthy does not give Romney or Ryan a free pass.

NY Times in above article: "For those reasons, Henry J. Aaron, an economist and a longtime health policy analyst at the Brookings Institution and the Institute of Medicine, called Mr. Romney’s vow to repeal the savings ‘both puzzling and bogus at the same time.’”

And hey, who's gonna argue with Hank Aaron? :)

Jody, now your analogy to the Artful Dodger is going to have me singing the soundtrack from "Oliver!" all day:

"Would you rob a shop?
Anything.....
Would you risk the drop?
Anything.....
Though your eyes go POP!
Anything.....
When you come down PLOP!
Hang everything!

We'd risk life and limb
To keep you in the swim
Yes we'd do anything,
Anything???
Anything for you!"

Jody, Iowa

In short, Mitt Romney is an "artful" tax dodger. He and his many lawyers have taken advantage of every loophole, every tax break, every secret tax haven to avoid paying his "fair share" in taxes. A fair share is paying the legal effective tax rate on all ones earnings, not just the earnings that lawyers could not hide. It is not about how many millions Mitt has: if Romney artfully dodges his taxes, what else would he artfully dodge if he were President?

Jody, Great Point

Not only that "MYTH" Romney wants "US" to trust him. Impossible, the more he dodges the more we and other Americans will want to know WTH is he hiding?

Obama/Biden 2012

Jody

Contrary to republican musings, no one cares how many millions Mitt has socked away. We do care where he has it stashed; we do care that he does not pay taxes on multi-millions while the middle class pays their fair share. Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and elsewhere are known as great places where the ultra-wealthy hide millions and billions from the tax collector.

Contrary to your spew, Romney has already paid taxes to the governments where the money is and continues to pay taxes on them.

Take Apple for instance. Apple set up operations overseas so they could sell their products overseas at a competitive price. As of last week they $72 Billion overseas that has already been taxed at those countries 25 - 35% tax rates. If they bring the money to the US, they will lose about half of what they earned.

To get jobs in this country, companies have to see that conditions are reasonable to operate and grow. By companies leaving the use to compete with foreign manufacturing they are telling you that they cannot compete here. Our country to get the businesses back need to lighten the load or starve.

Dude get over it ...he is a successful businessman....are you a successful businessman? Did you work hard to build a business or did Obama do it for you?

Note

Brookings is about promoting progressive policies, not practical policies.

Breaking News:

Todd Akin and Romney/Ryan say the vagina has a natural spermicide for legitimate rape.

They ♥ "natural spermicides"!

☺

Sorry, Revenge, it's working just fine--the press keeps pressing Mitt and so do people attending his rallies when given the chance to ask question.

What I find unacceptable is people like Revenge. They are willing to trust a person, any person, because his name is not Barack Obama. They trust Mitt who refuses to be honest and open with them while expecting them to vote for him. If Candidate Obama had pulled this tax stunt, Revenge and those like him would be yelling all day, every day but now they defend Mitt. Conservatives have demanded a birth certificate from Candidate Obama, then they demanded a long-form birth certificate, then they demanded college transcripts--none of which has ever been demanded of any other President or Presidential Candidate. Yet conservatives give Willard a free pass on releasing 12 years (I'd settle for 7) of his tax returns, something EVERY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE has done since Mitt's Dad, George Romney, established the precedent.

Revenge and conservatives like him are hypocrites just like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

On To Victory

From the Article above;

Per the poll, Obama has a 22-point lead (52%-30%) on caring about average people, as well as a 28-point advantage (52%-24%) on issues concerning women. These are what we call our “gut check” questions, and Romney is trailing here -- and trailing badly.

The article continues…

If you assume that whites make up 74% of the electorate like they did in ’08 (and there’s a good argument to make that, because of the Latino growth, it will be less than that), then Obama winning 90%-plus of the black vote, 67% of the Latino vote, and 40% of the white vote gets him past 50%.

The thesis I’ve maintained since the beginning of August is that American’s have already made their minds up, based upon the fact that we are such a divided Blue State/Red State Nation.

When I see all of the childish-name-calling and finger-pointing banter on this site, I just have to laugh because it’s all for naught. There are NO more Swing states or Independent voters to be won over.

The only thing left to do is vote.

President Obama has been running a brilliant campaign so far, and now it’s time for all the good and decent Middle-Class Americans to show full support for this President and keep the Senate, but MOST importantly, we need to TAKE BACK THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES so we can end trickle-down economics for good and lead the world out of this disasterous Bush Recession.

Salud

How any sane person can vote for Obama over Romney blows my mind.

And yet you don't realize that Romney's proposed economic policies have thirty years of recorded failure.

DB Akron, and you know for a fact that Romney paid taxes in those other countries exactly how? Because he said so? The only way to know that is IF Mitt releases his tax returns otherwise, you're just assuming it because Mitt says "trust me".

As for Devonshire 11, did "dude" not read where I say I do not care how many millions Mitt earned. Where in my comment did I suggest that Romney was not a successful business person? Your entire comment proves how uninformed you are and also how gullible. Hey, "dude", you know absolutely nothing about me so the personal drivel aimed at me is just that....drivel.

@ jody..

big giant shock .. i voted for Obama in 2008, I worked for Obama in 2008, and I housed campaign workers for Obama in 2008. All as a Registered Republican (cost me big) .. i still have my Oregon For Barack shirt i was one of the 50K at the waterfront rally.. i use it to change my oil .. now

I wanted a return to a manufacturing economy. I wanted Obama to REVERSE what CLINTON did.. Ie the WTO and NAFTA. I also wanted him to END both wars and Walk away. Not because it was immoral.. but because it was TOO EXPENSIVE. the troops are leaving Iraq but the Billion dollars a day is still being spent and Afghanistan is 2x the size now.. i wanted him to Fix medicare and propose a public option.. not REbuild a equally expensive and wastefull program called OBAMACARE and force me to buy Scam insurance from United Healthcare!! (JESUS!!!)

So Can it you vote fora republican you FRAUD. your the person who hates people just because there Republicans. you take the hatred in your heat and project it on others, then criticize them for it.

joshua w morris

Devonshire 11, I am a successful businessman and if i was running for President, I would release 10 years of tax returns because I pay my taxes at a substantially higher rate than Mitt's woeful and unfair 13.9% and I would want to show I have nothing to hide. It's not jealousy that drives the tax return issue. It is all about fairness and honesty and apparently Mitt has something to hide.

When Mitt or his wife say they paid taxes, a lot of taxes, why don't they ever say we paid a lot of Federal Income Taxes? Even the poorest man pays taxes, sales taxes for sure.

Xabre--Romney's plan doesnt have 30 years of failure in fact, it has several economic cycles of great growth. How can you actually say that the Reagan and Clinton eras were failures? Both great presidents who didnt lead from behind and provided real incentives for the private sector to grow rather than trying short term government welfare characterized as stimulus. Did you ever hear the class warfare, punish the rich BS from Reagan or Clinton?

Revenge of Podus, why do you want a reversal of Nafta and WTO? I agree that we need to go to some sort of opt in Universal care option versus the more expensive and horribly drafted Obamacare but I dont understand why you think taking us out of the global economy is good for us economically?

TAKE BACK THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

I am going to do everything I can to get Vicky Hartzler out of office.

BTW, she was my daughter's Home Ec. teacher

and she was not good at that job, either.

Jody

How did his IRA become multi-millions when $6,000 is the yearly limit?

By my calculations, it's because Romney has been contributing to his IRA for the past 20,000 years.

Shaak--do you really believe the IRS with Obama and democrats as president hasnt reviewed and audited every aspect of Romney's tax returns for years. If he didnt pay lawfully owed taxes, it would be known. You dont need his word as we actually have a very competent aggressive system to ensure that Romney pay's his taxes. I dont understand why it matters how much in percentage terms he paid in taxes as long as it was legal. Buffett does the same thing as all of us try to minimize our tax bill as low as it can get. Do you know a single person who voluntarily pays in taxes to such a wasteful government?

Xabre - What policies of 30 years haven't worked? If you actually look at revenues (i.e. total tax dollars collected) after tax cuts, they go up the fastest then when taxes are raised. Latest example was with the Bush Tax cuts (where the biggest break (33%) was for the lowest income bracket). $1.8 trillion in revenues in 2001 and $2.6 trillion in 2006 and 07. Nearly a 50% increase in revenues in 5 years. Bush spent too much, but the Democrats, since 2007, have gone absolutely nuts. You libs love spending other peoples money, and now you are down to our kid's children's money now.

I have no problem helping the helpless, it's the clueless I don't care for. And, for that matter, being born poor in this country is the best place to possibly be born poor. Free education, housing and food, etc. all the way until you are 18. You have a chance. Much better than being born in numerous other countries. Most of us are just tired of paying for others' crappy choices (i.e. not study in school, getting pregnant too young, trying to act cool rather than be a geek and learn, take welfare rather than the tough job to get a career started, etc.). It's NOT my job to support others. I have no problem helping others that truly need it, but when you make your own bad decisions, I don't have nearly the sympathy for you.

And, this is what Obama and the Dems want. They want these folks to look to government and not themselves so they can keep power...Romney and Ryan actually suggests people to take care of themselves. Amazing that this is such a reviled thought in the progressive community.

Just yesterday Obama was yapping about how Romney doesn't understand college kids when Romney, god forbid, suggesting borrowing money from your parents, working through college, etc. (mind you Obamacare has now federalize ALL college loans so applicants must go through the governemnt and us tax payers, not the banks, are on the hook for non-payment). Obama had the gall to suggest that Romney give some of his campaign donations to college kids for scholarhips. What has Obama's campaign donated to? Has it donated money for more food stamps? How about helping his OWN brother out of poverty in Kenya...

Obama is a joke, a fraud and his decision making can be reflected one decision...Biden...

I don't 100% like all of Romney's positions, but the difference is startling...

DB: When a company decides to move operations overseas, one of the known side effects is that you will have to pay taxes there and here. They went into China to make iPhones with their eyes wide open. Make iPhones here and pay one set of taxes versus make iPhones in a communist country and pay taxes twice in order to reinvest the profits here. How do they use the money offshore? Are they investing in communist China? Is the money just sitting there accumulating at a miniscule rate of interest?

This sounds a lot like profession sports where the city has to foot the bill for the billion dollar stadium so the crowds will spend their money in town. Is it worth it? Do you agree that taxpayers should build a stadium for the team?

RevengeofPodus

That tax return issue just not working is it? :-(

Obama and his fans keep uttering the phrase tax returns every night on the news.. JUST AFTER the lead story "unemployment still above 8%" or "last week unemployment figures AGAIN revised up" . NOt only does it make you look out of touch.. it makes ME happy. keep it going!!

RevengeofPodus,

Yup, that's right. Keep it going because the American people know why. Do you?

Unemployment is High by Republican Design as GOP Sabotaged Obama's Job Proposals

The story: Obama proposed a major jobs measure that would have created nearly two million jobs in an election year. Debate was blocked by filibuster. The jobs bill was broken down into small parts, some consisting only of tax cuts. Only one part, to help veterans find jobs, was passed (a tiny fraction of the overall jobs legislation). In total, Republicans blocked entirely (not even allowing debate on the floor, which would put them on record) 17 jobs measures.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/9124/unemployment-is-high-by-republican-design-as-gop-sabotaged-obama-s-job-proposals

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

RepubliCONs just aren't breaking bread with the 99%.

American people are sick of listening to FOX NOISE (FOX LIES), Lush Limbaugh, Karl Rove,and Republicon/T-Banger etc. propaganda and obstruction. Even mother nature is sick of the Republicon/T-Bangers. BTW: Issac means the laughter of God. ☺ Ha Ha

What an appropriate name for the hurricane coming to the Republican Convention!!!

http://moedtorah.blogspot.com/2012/03/isaac-laughter-of-god.html

4 more years for 44

Obama/Biden

Todd Akin and Romney/Ryan say the vagina has a natural spermicide for legitimate rape.

@Bev - I'm really starting to get massively conflicting, well okay, downright flip-flop messaging from the white male population in the GOP on abortion, rape, intercourse, and pregnancy. As I now understand, women cannot get pregnant if being raped. It seems that the only time intercourse isn't rape is when a pregnancy occurs. All other intercourse is rape, which has me completely confused, because I thought the purpose of consensual intercourse with a condom was to enjoy the carnal pleasures of going at it like bunnies, without the consequences. Little did I know I was raping my consenting partner.

And speaking of enjoying rape with my willing partner, apparently women have spastic tubes in their vaginas. How in the heck am I suppose to know when those have been activated. As best as I can tell, they are either something you buy at your local sex shop, or one has them surgically implanted prior to a first period. I tried googling 'spastic vagina tubes' to get more information on them, but sadly, the only place they are discussed is on the website of the Family Values Council.

Now, if you can't afford the spastic tubes, apparently the alternate route is to rely upon some toxic acid that dissolves sperm and penises on contact, while leaving an egg, uterus, vagina, fallopian tube, and a host of other 'woman' parts untouched. My problem is, how do I know when this toxic acid is about to be released. Is there some sort of warning, or do men simply pray they have a penis after having sex that was either legitimate or illegitimate rape, that may or may not lead to a desired or undesired pregnancy.

Now what I have not heard from the GOP men yet, but saw in a movie and therefore must be true, concerns teeth bearing vaginae. For the life of me, I can't tell if these teeth are always active, or if they are some sort of backup plan that kicks in after the unlikely event the spastic tubes and the sperm/penis dissolving acids fail. And speaking of vagina movies, one exists that details the exploits of a sweet talking vagina. I had no idea that women carried two sets of vocal chords.

What is most frustrating about these biological fundamentals is they were not disclosed in any of my human sexuality classes. I do not understand why the GOP had these well known facts omitted from the text books. I would think that men would need to be fully informed that intercourse is more dangerous than walking through a mine field. One thing is fore sure, the vagina is a multi-faceted piece of human anatomy. I guess it really does take a tricky dick to navigate that complicated relationship.

Xabre - What policies of 30 years haven't worked? If you actually look at revenues (i.e. total tax dollars collected) after tax cuts, they go up the fastest then when taxes are raised

Wrong. Trickle-down economics not only resulted in little to no increase in wealth for the middle and lower classes, it resulted in giant deficits that in turn resulted in Reagan tripling the national debt during his two terms. In fact, trickle-down works so well that the Bush tax cuts aren't a leading contributor to the current deficit...oh wait.

Paul -

Can I respectfully ask you which planet you live on? The one where poor people get free everything, you can work your way through school,and if you are rely on government assistance it is through your own "poor choices"?

I live here on planet Earth, in the United States of America, where if you are truly poor you don't get get "Free education, housing and food, etc. all the way until you are 18". You may get a grant for college, but it certainly won't pay for all of it. You may get food stamps, which at best will keep you from starving. You may get subsidized housing, if you are lucky and it is available.

Work your way through school? Have you seen the cost of tuition lately? Even if a student could find a full-time job in the current job market they would be hard-pressed to make enough to put a dent in their tuition bill. Borrow from your parents? Seriously, that's your answer?

Romney and Ryan actually suggests people to take care of themselves

If that is the case, why did they support the bank bailouts? If you make BIG bad decisions, like risky investments that cause a bank to fail, we will bail you out. The little guys are on their own.

Paul Ryan - The Deficit? I Built That!

Xabre--are you kidding or just dont get it? No increase in wealth for the lower and middle classes comes from a variety of factors none of which is tax policy. The largest drivers (according to the CBO) is the education gap, immigration which impacts the lower class by driving down wages (including union wages) and replacing the lower class with legal and illegal immigrants, government assistance programs like social security and medicare because they primarily go to the wealthiest segment in our society our seniors and finally the global economy that has created and evolved our manufacturing and required a higher level of education for our citizens. Given that our government revenue went up dramatically with all of the tax cuts but couldnt keep up with democratic congressional spending (isnt that what you just were saying by the way that congress controlls the spending), doenst change the trickle down BS that you spew.

Xabre--are you kidding or just dont get it? No increase in wealth for the lower and middle classes comes from a variety of factors none of which is tax policy.

Clearly you don't get it. For example the more I pay in taxes, the less I have to spend on anything else. But of course you think supply and demand are the same thing...so I don't know why I'm fielding economics-based replies from you.

Xabre--exactly which is the whole theory of trickle down so I am not sure I quite understand. Are you now saying it worked? Because the percentage of taxes as both a percentage of income and as a measure of progressivity in government revenue as dramatically decreased for the lower and middle class over the last 30 years. But after tax income has had very little impact on weath distribution at least according to the CBO. So you just totally blow off my reply and focus on how your take home pay is impacted by taxes. Isnt that what all small businesses are complaining about now with Obama and Obamacare? If they have less take home pay, they have less to spend and less to expand and less to hire new people right?

Xabre--exactly which is the whole theory of trickle down so I am not sure I quite understand. Are you now saying it worked?

You have a serious literacy problem. Here is a summary of what I have said:

The middle class is the driving force behind consumption, which in turn is the driving force behind demand. Trickle-down economics has no effect on the wealth of the middle class, therefore has little effect on consumption.

Because the percentage of taxes as both a percentage of income and as a measure of progressivity in government revenue as dramatically decreased for the lower and middle class over the last 30 years.

And what has happened to the size of the middle class during those same 30 years? I'll wait.

No wonder the GOP is pushing this country off every cliff it can find. Do we really want 32% of the US population (white males) running everything?

Women, minorities, young people - get out and vote!

db Akron - Contrary to your spew, Romney has already paid taxes to the governments where the money is and continues to pay taxes on them.

And you know this....how?

Do you have some tax returns to show us?

BTW, can you imagine the Republicans saying to Obama, "Never mind, Mr. President, we don't need to see your tax returns." ???

The"didn't build" lie, is one of many GOP lies they are pushing to save their sorry backsides.

GOP is terrified of Ryan's Medicare plan which will tank shortly after if implemented, and Ryan makes 60% more cuts to Medicaid. Who wants it? So GOP is covering it up.

Ryan's budget puts $10Trillion on the deficit, while not balancing anything until 2050. All this and he would drive women back 60 years.

The lies Ryan is telling will make his priest blush.

Surely you don't wonder why Rove/Adelson are running multi-millions in lying ads?

The lies he is telling will make the priest blush.

Isn't that an advantage to being a Catholic? You can go to confessional, daily if need be, and be absolved. It must be expensive for the Romney/Ryan team to have a traveling booth and priest on hand. I expect that fairly soon, Hail Mary will become part of any Ryan speech.

RedDevPS

Todd Akin and Romney/Ryan say the vagina has a natural spermicide for legitimate rape.

I guess it really does take a tricky dick to navigate that complicated relationship.

You know how cum. That'd be lizard dickheads like Romney, Ryan , Akin, Tea bangers, and RepubliCon leaders who all try and give women foreplay for their warped idealizations. In reality it's they give nothing but a nightmare. These dickheads are really bad blowjobs.

@Kirk-2957282: I do admire the size of your sack. You do though, need to gain more experience in the art of effectively strewing that bullsh^t. You're getting more of it on yourself than on the ground around here. Suggest you go back and reread your instructions, and maybe find a new mentor.

TNSEVOL-

I live in the United States. Let's see, Section 8 housing, public education, food stamps, free childcare, Medicaid, etc. How about the poor in Russia? China? Afircan countries? Sorry, USA is a good place.

It's called community college. And, who is responsible for the increase in college tuition? The liberals that run the university system and all of the govenment grants and loans to kids to allow the colleges to charge more. Have you been to a college lately? They are like country clubs. But, when the government gives money to kids to spend on college, the colleges spend more and charge more. But, you can go to community college and work and cover your costs...is it hard? Yes...is it hard work? Yes, ask a kid in Africa for the same choice.

Unlike Obama, I do believe the successful worked a little harder, are a little smarter and did build their own success. And, they paid more in taxes to create the infrastructure for everyone else to benefit from. That is what this country and it's prosperity was built on.

Regarding TARP, while I don't agree with it (and Obama voted for it to), at least the vast majority of that was paid back. The Stimulus is gone...and apparently even $500000 was used to blow on Obama campaign adds on MSNBC....great use of our tax dollars...

But, you know what, let's make the top 2% not pay 39% of all income taxes (with 17% of all income), let's make theme pay 50%? 70%? When are you libs FINALLY going to say it's time to live within our means...

Top 11 Economic Data Romney don’t want voters to know:

1. When W. Bush left office, our GDP was at minus 9 and today is positive 2.

2. When Bush left office, Down Jones was at 7,949.09 point, minus 24%, and today is at 13,000 points, up 61% since Mr. Obama took office. Similarly, when Bush left office, my 401K was half value, and today is double.

3. When Bush left office, we had over 12 months jobs lost consecutively, 800K jobs lost per month, spiral to a depression. Mr. Obama stops the bleed, and he has produced 29 month jobs growth consecutively.

4. When Bush left office, corporation profits was down at 1 trillion dollars level, and today is up 1.7 Trillion dollars, which is 58 % increased.

5. When Bush left office, Export was down at minus 30%, and today is positive 7 percent. Both export and import are growing again.

6. When Bush left office, we have higher trade deficit, and today is a lot less.

7. When Bush left office, household income was down, and today much higher. In fact, it’s much higher than real GDP.

8. Manufactures employment has gone up since Bush left office.

9. When Bush left office, we had a depression in auto industry, and today GM is saved and the industry is profit again, thanks to Mr. Obama and his courage.

10. If GOP congress approves American job Act that produce 1-2 million jobs, instead of sitting on it since last summer, unemployment rate would down by 1% point or 7.2% overall according to WSJ.

11. "During the 28 years of Democratic administrations in that period, 57.5 million new jobs were created, an average of 2.05 million per year vs. During the 36 years of Republican administrations in that period, 36.2 million new jobs were created, an average of 1.0 million per year. " NYT

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/has-obama-made-the-job-situation-worse/?hp

http://social.dol.gov/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Monthly-Private-Emp-Change-07-121.jpg

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?graph_id=82586&category_id=0

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?graph_id=82587&category_id=0

We’ve already had three CEO presidents: Herbert Hoover, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney. How’d that work out for us? Why would we want a Wall Street Raider who created this financial collapsed in 2008?

We’ve already had three CEO presidents: Herbert Hoover, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney. How’d that work out for us? Why would we want a Wall Street Raider who created this financial collapsed in 2008?

Mitt Romney King of Outsourcing Jobs oversea

FACT: Under Gov. Romney, MA outsourced jobs in child support enforcement, food stamps, and unemployment insurance overseas.

FACT: In 2004, Gov. Romney vetoed a bill that would have banned state contractors from outsourcing state work overseas.

FACT: As governor, Romney signed a $160,000/month contract that used taxpayer money for a consumer call center in India.

Mitt Romney's top economic adviser Greg Mankiw said the "offshoring" of American jobs was a good thing. No wonder, under Mitt Romney's leadership, Massachusetts ranked 47th among the 50 states in job creation. A Northeastern University economist found that Massachusetts lagged on virtually every economic indicator while Mitt Romney was in office. What happened to his business experience?

………………

Broken Promises: Romney's Massachusetts Record

Mitt Romney ran for Governor of Massachusetts promising more jobs, decreased debt, and smaller government, but his business experience fail him badly.

Here's what Massachusetts got instead:

Jobs: 47th out of 50 states in job creation
Taxes and fees: Increased more than $750 million per year
Long-term debt: Increased more than $2.6 billion

Fact is, Romney economics didn't work then, and won't work now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlnaYOv0DZY

Kelly,

Cheney was not president.

And, personally, I finished my degree, bought a house, had a child and more than tripled my income during that period, so I think it went pretty well. Primarily, because I wanted those things for myself, and did not wait for hand outs.

First I must say that RedDevPS's post #2.28 is great satire to make a point about the Stupid Party. The problem with Bachmann, Santorum, Akin, etc. (and far more Republicans than American voters want to admit) is they have never learned research methodology, most specifically what a credible source is. There are classes that teach the different levels of credibility, with the Internet at the bottom of the list, and criteria to discern what is most credible.

I highly encourage parents to make sure your children are taught this class, and if their school does not offer this class to demand that they do. Of course analysis, critical thinking, logic and deduction are important skills to learn as well, but research methodology is fundamental.

How is it that such a large percent of adults the age of Akin lack these skills? Or were they taught these skills but reject it? I have a thesis I'd love to test, which is religious fundamentalists who are willing to make a leap of faith in regard to religion are more predisposed to make a leap of faith in other areas of knowledge as well. And having studied various religions and denominations, the Mormon faith requires the largest leap of faith of all.

But suffice it to say this is why there has been an anti-science movement that began in order to counter evolution and then went on to include climate change and so forth. If you believe abortion is murder, how do you reconcile cases of rape/incest or the mother's life being in danger? You start to diminish the nature of those crimes, and women as lesser beings, which is much easier for men who are already misogynists (sexist pigs). These religious-Right men are most disconcerting because they hold bigoted beliefs we all thought had been in decline, and worst of all, these men are a large percent of the Republican Party (note the platform the Bob "vaginal probe" McDonnell is overseeing) and in positions of power.

This trend MUST be resoundingly rejected in the coming election, and then we as a society must get back to work to correct the damage and educate future generations all over again about equality and respect for our fellow human beings.

True Patriot,

I think the concept of a big boom creating our complex DNA is every bit as goofy as a creator saying boom....and it comes to life. Your theories are no more grounded in proof or evidence than those terrible white christian males you speak of and hate so much.

At some piont in our past, we came into existence. And, any way it happened would be found to be just as amazing as the next. You speak as if you have a firm grasp, but the smartest people I've known are usually much more open to opposing ideas than you appear to be. The science that you reference is something to be continuously researched. Then, to absorb it all, you must have an open mind, or you just might miss something.

Yoda said it best, don't let your hate consume you....or something like that.

Jody, Iowa -- Great opening post to this section. The outrageous hypocrisy of rightwingers in regard to what they demand of President Obama versus what they accept from Mitt Romney can't be denied -- it is so glaringly obvious -- and yet these sh!theads deny it in every and all instances.

Mitt Romney's record is one of lying about his residency and what state he paid taxes in, which is a record directly linked to his taxes and his lying about his taxes. And he employs the same "strategery" now that he always uses, which is to tell the media and voters that he would be happy "to get back with them on that," then refuses to get back with anything, and then says folks will just have "to trust him on that." There is no better case for the "Fool me once..." quote.

Moving on, various posts address the issue of denial. I recently spoke with my Tea Party mother who is on Social Security and Medicare, telling her that if Medicaid is cut and she needs to go into a nursing home or hospice, we do not have the resources to help her. Her response was that would be off in the future so it's of no concern to her, and in the worse case my youngest brother could probably help her. I also reminded her that three of her kids are just below the age 55 cut-off and she completely ignored me. I believe that if one of her kids were to be sacrificed for Romney, she would say it must be God's will.

Let me make this CLEAR. The Teapublicans are so brainwashed there is no reaching them, especailly the religious-Right. All we can do is get out the vote like maniacs and hope the extremists can be contained until these Tea Party types die off. And per mys post above, ensure that future generations receive good education so they don't join the Stupid Party.

in the middle-2260511 -- Your post is an excellent example of what rightwingers do. They go off into the weeds about some silly thing. My post primarily is about research methodology and how to discern what a credible source is. Please stay on this topic and feel free to explain why Republicans like Akin (Santorum, Bachmann, etc.) say they read articles about something and repeat it as truth?

BTW, this election is not about you. It is about the majority of people. We know statistically that most people thrived during Clinton, while many who were in the middle class and even upper middle class (six figure incomes) are now in poverty thanks to failed GOP/Bush-era policies during the decade of his administration.

We will NOT go back to supply-side voodoo economics and the 21st Century Robber Barons and religious Dark Ages. Throw the treasonous Teapublican Taliban out!

Yet another BS poll by NBC/WSJ. Here's why it's biased;

It surveyed 34% Democrats vs only 27% Republicans, when surveys by both Gallup and Rasmussen show that voters self-identify as about 35% Republican and 34% Democrat. Since party affiliated voters typically vote about 90% party line for President (per exit polls in both 2004 and 2008), this sampling bias in favor of Democrats results in an artificial lead for Obama of about 6%.

When you adjust for this obvious poll bias, it shows a 2% lead for Romney - consistent with the latest numbers from Gallup and Rasmussen.

Sorry TP, but the failed policies started long before Bush and even in the Clinton years. But, don't get me wrong, I think Clinton was a great president (even wanted to vote for Hillary), I just don't ignore the facts. Those include the pressure on lendors to make bad loans, which started under Clinton. And, everyone's favorite, expanded trade agreements that resulted in cheaper products coming form other nations, and fewer products being made here.

All I wish for is that people like you start looking at both sides through the same filters. There is no one perfect president, and never will be. But, your doing yourself and the country a disservice by being blind to exploring all options before making a decision.

There is good and bad to both sides that needs to be seriously debated. But simple minded people continue to run with whoever their party puts up there, and attack the other's guy with vile comments. This is stupid, and so are the people who play the game.

HOME SALES TAX - BEGINS 2013
When does your home become part of your health care? After 2012!

Your vote counts big time in 2012, make sure you and all your friends and family know about this!

HOME SALES TAX I thought you might find this ...
interesting.The National Association of Realtors is all over this and working to get it repealed, -- before it takes effect. But, I am very pleased we aren't the only ones who know about this ploy to steal billions from unsuspecting homeowners. How many realtors do you think will vote Democratic in 2012? Did you know that if you sell your house after 2012 you will pay a 3.8% sales tax on it? That's $3,800 on a $100,000 home, etc. When did this happen? It's in the health care bill, -- and it goes into effect in 2013. Why 2013? Could it be so that it doesn't come to light until after the 2012 elections? So, this is 'Obama change you can believe in'? Under the new health care bill all real estate transactions will be subject to a 3.8% sales tax. If you sell a $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200 tax. This bill is set to screw the retiring generation, -- who often downsize their homes. Does this make your November, 2012 vote more important? Oh, you weren't aware that this was in the ObamaCare bill? Guess what; you aren't alone! There are more than a few members of Congress that weren't aware of it either. You can check this out for yourself at:http://www.gop.gov/blog/10/04/08/obamacare-flatlines-obamacare-taxes-home

Here is the very sad and sorry JOKE. $500 MILLION spent on this campaign for the election so far. How many more MILLIONS will the both of these morons throw down the toliet before this whole nightmare is over???? Both the candidates suck, are each full of crap and out for themselves and their owners!!! The nation is in for hell forthe next 4 years either way. Neither of these guys can or will live up to everything they'll promise the voters. Obama has all ready proven he can't handle the job. IF he gets elected will Michelle start wearing a burqua???? And how many millions would she throw away on frivoulous vacations, tennis shoes, and lingerie??? Everybody bitchs about Romney and his wife having "money". How does Michelles spending on the tax payer money look aside Mrs. Romneys spending of her own $$$???? At any rate everybody better prepare to fend for thenselves because neither of these guys give a crap about anybody but the wealthy and the ones they are owned by!!!

DB Akron

Take Apple for instance. Apple set up operations overseas so they could sell their products overseas at a competitive price. As of last week they $72 Billion overseas that has already been taxed at those countries 25 - 35% tax rates. If they bring the money to the US, they will lose about half of what they earned.

To get jobs in this country, companies have to see that conditions are reasonable to operate and grow. By companies leaving the use to compete with foreign manufacturing they are telling you that they cannot compete here. Our country to get the businesses back need to lighten the load or starve.

Technically, tax rates don't have a large effect on whether companies will come here or not, as they pay FAR less than the 35% rate. Now, if we made incentives to coming to the U.S, like perhaps establishing a manufacturing policy, we will tap into the in-sourcing market. But most of the outsourcing occurred because of lax regulation and lower labor costs overseas.

Paul-4412303

Xabre - What policies of 30 years haven't worked? If you actually look at revenues (i.e. total tax dollars collected) after tax cuts, they go up the fastest then when taxes are raised. Latest example was with the Bush Tax cuts (where the biggest break (33%) was for the lowest income bracket). $1.8 trillion in revenues in 2001 and $2.6 trillion in 2006 and 07. Nearly a 50% increase in revenues in 5 years. Bush spent too much, but the Democrats, since 2007, have gone absolutely nuts. You libs love spending other peoples money, and now you are down to our kid's children's money now.

Unfortunately, you fail to count in that those tax cuts had NOTHING to do with the revenue increases. Revenues increased absolutely due to inflation and economic growth (which came from the housing bubble). Revenues ALWAYS increase over the years, even after recessions. Yet if you look at revenues to GDP (which accounts for economic growth AND inflation), you will see that the Bush tax cuts lowered the ratio to below the 18% average. And technically, the Democrats are spending so much because we are in a RECESSION, which increases deficits automatically.

Kirk-2957282

Xabre--exactly which is the whole theory of trickle down so I am not sure I quite understand. Are you now saying it worked? Because the percentage of taxes as both a percentage of income and as a measure of progressivity in government revenue as dramatically decreased for the lower and middle class over the last 30 years.

Technically, that happened because lower and middle class wages stagnated over the last 30 years, even as productivity (which accounts for education) has gone way up. Essentially, the decline of unions has been the primary factor for stagnated middle class wages, because the pay of teachers and other highly educated people has not gone up the way it has for the top 1%. Supply-side economics does not work at all because it just gives the benefits to the wealthy, who don't send the money down the ladder.

But after tax income has had very little impact on wealth distribution at least according to the CBO. So you just totally blow off my reply and focus on how your take home pay is impacted by taxes. Isnt that what all small businesses are complaining about now with Obama and Obamacare? If they have less take home pay, they have less to spend and less to expand and less to hire new people right?

Taxes have a large effect on wealth distribution; after-tax income is merely a measure. Yet since the progressiveness of the tax code has declined (as rates for the rich have gone down), it's effect has also shrunk. You may argue that the rich are paying more in taxes (making it theoretically more progressive), but that is only because they have made more money, increasing their taxes automatically. And unless the feds exact exorbitant tax hikes on small businesses, only demand will affect whether businesses hire more people. If the government gives me a $50,000 tax break, but demand stays the same, what is the incentive to hire another worker???

Paul-4412303

TNSEVOL-

I live in the United States. Let's see, Section 8 housing, public education, food stamps, free childcare, Medicaid, etc. How about the poor in Russia? China? Afircan countries? Sorry, USA is a good place.

True, the U.S. is a great place to be poor, unless you don't qualify for Medicaid (which millions don't) or cannot afford to make even the most meager investments in higher education.

It's called community college. And, who is responsible for the increase in college tuition? The liberals that run the university system and all of the govenment grants and loans to kids to allow the colleges to charge more. Have you been to a college lately? They are like country clubs. But, when the government gives money to kids to spend on college, the colleges spend more and charge more. But, you can go to community college and work and cover your costs...is it hard? Yes...is it hard work? Yes, ask a kid in Africa for the same choice.

In my opinion, the reason costs for college are increasing is simply because people are willing to pay any price and no one is stopping the colleges. The federal government could rectify that by threatening to pull out all aid to colleges, giving them more aid in return for lower tuition rates, nationalizing the public school system and lower tuition there (eventually forcing private schools to do the same), or allowing students to collectively bargain for lower tuition rates, like in a union. And community colleges do not offer the best type of education; they only have associative degrees, instead of bachelors, and you would have to spend years at a more expensive grad school to get better degrees. Those colleges were great when education wasn't as big a factor in employment as it is now.

Unlike Obama, I do believe the successful worked a little harder, are a little smarter and did build their own success. And, they paid more in taxes to create the infrastructure for everyone else to benefit from. That is what this country and it's prosperity was built on.

You think Obama doesn't think that??? He simply stated that successful people had help from everyone else, via schools, roads, etc, which are funded by ALL taxpayers.

Regarding TARP, while I don't agree with it (and Obama voted for it to), at least the vast majority of that was paid back. The Stimulus is gone...and apparently even $500000 was used to blow on Obama campaign adds on MSNBC....great use of our tax dollars...

According to the CBO, the stimulus created or saved (and by saved I mean kept from being fired) an average of 2.55 million jobs and reversed the recession. Jobs began to be created instead of lost when the stimulus took effect (go ahead and look).

But, you know what, let's make the top 2% not pay 39% of all income taxes (with 17% of all income), let's make theme pay 50%? 70%? When are you libs FINALLY going to say it's time to live within our means...

First of all, the top 1% of Americans control roughly 25% of all income earned. And if you want to reduce the share of taxes that the rich pay, you will have to raise their taxes, which will lower their after-tax income and thus lower the share of income they control (and the share of income taxes that they pay). And we liberals are all for living within our means; hell, we've accepted $2.2 trillion in spending cuts, half of which are in the programs that we cherish (safety net, education, etc). All we're saying is that we've put our skin in the game; it's time for you to do the same (via accepting higher taxes or more revenues). After all, fair is fair. We've made our tough decisions and are willing to stand by them; it's time for you to bite the damn bullet and grow a pair.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Not producing tax returns in a timely fashion, is one more GOP bully tactic.

To be in the running, Romney will have to submit to custom as with ALL previous presidential candidates.

Being extremely wealthy does not give Romney or Ryan a free pass.

You are an absolute imbecile, Romney released the previous 2 years of taxes which is ALL that any of the previous presidential candidates provided (just like your beloved Barry Blamegame Obama) . If you we living in the real world you would know that, pathetic.

Kirk-2957282

Xabre--Romney's plan doesnt have 30 years of failure in fact, it has several economic cycles of great growth. How can you actually say that the Reagan and Clinton eras were failures? Both great presidents who didnt lead from behind and provided real incentives for the private sector to grow rather than trying short term government welfare characterized as stimulus. Did you ever hear the class warfare, punish the rich BS from Reagan or Clinton?

First of all, the Reagan and Clinton booms were temporary and mainly based off of bubbles; Clinton had the dot-com bubble, while Reagan had most of his growth occur due to increased defense spending, lower interest rates, and the deregulation of the financial industry (which culminated in the savings and loans crisis of the late 80s and early 90s). We haven't had a sustainable period of economic growth since the postwar boom of the 1940s-1970s. And both presidents used stimulus to boost the economy (Reagan used defense, and Clinton used normal stimulus, i.e infrastructure). As for the class warfare stuff, both Reagan and Clinton raised taxes on the rich, with Reagan demanding that the wealthy pay more than the middle class and Clinton raising the top rate to 42% before being beaten down by the GOP to 39.6%.

Revenge of Podus, why do you want a reversal of Nafta and WTO? I agree that we need to go to some sort of opt in Universal care option versus the more expensive and horribly drafted Obamacare but I dont understand why you think taking us out of the global economy is good for us economically?

Technically, we cannot end the WTO, but we can re-write NAFTA in order to make sure that neither party is cheating via tariffs and subsidies. I have to admit that we need to end this idealistic free trade BS and start doing what the rest of the world is doing, which is protect certain crucial industries. We could also negate the difference in labor costs with a tariff and use quality as the defining factor. In other words, we cannot play by the rules when nobody else is; it's time we start playing dirty until everybody else agrees to play fair. And personally, while I wish we could have gone for single-payer, Obamacare was the only option because the Blue Dog Democrats would never have supported single-payer; Obama even had to ditch the public option to get them aboard, but even after agreeing to the individual mandate the Republicans refused to vote for it (even thought they supported it a few years back).

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

I have one simple question for all of you bull headed, rich-worshiping republicans who hate Obama and love the do nothing congress he has tried to deal with... why would any man who makes over 20 million a year (Romney), even want to take on a job that pays a drivel $450,000 pr yr? Think about that one and don't give a lame answer like "because he loves this country so much"! If he did, he wouldn't invest in offshore accounts as tax shelters... nor would he have made hundreds of millions bankrupting companies and sending jobs overseas.

Mutt has more ideas for improving the economy.

Those would be?

Unchaining banks so they can steal 401k money, again?

Reducing worker wages to 3rd world wage rates?

Reducing environmental regulations, effectively allowing business to piss and chit in our water?

Blah, Blah, Blah. Suffice it to say:

Obama 2012 / Romney 1040

in the middle,

Great post, but unfortunately, it is falling on deaf ears when it comes to TP, Bev, Fisty and the other Democratic trolls on here. They actually enjoy spewing hate, biased opinions and outright lies to get their talking points to be heard (or shouted would be a better term) to all others on these forums. They ignore any facts that are presented by arbitrarily dismissing them without thought or reseasrch. If it did not come from MSNBC, CNN, NBC or the DNC it must be wrong according to them.

You are correct that neither party is perfect and there are some good and bad points from both sides on the issues, but to get them to think logically and without prejudice is asking too much from such closed minds.

db Akron - Contrary to your spew, Romney has already paid taxes to the governments where the money is and continues to pay taxes on them.

what you fail to realize ( or admit ) is that the money was stolen uh sorry earned here, so it should be subjected to US taxation. Being rich is not a crime, to hide your money to escape the taxes on it is. Like Mittens siad himself, I do not want to release my tax records because the democrats will pick it to death. Mitty, if there is nothing to pick at then why hide it?

patriotmark -- Stop with the Projection Politics. It is the rightwing that live in an Echo Chamber and Cone of Silence.

in the middle-2260511 -- Agreed that the supply-side voodoo economics started with Reagan (Nixon was Keynesian), and that the destruction to the middle class and stagnating wages has been going on for 30-40 years.

Freshiee--thanks for the response and we for the most part are talking around the same things except with different interpretations which is a far cry from the rhetoric (admitedly by me as a response) of the mostly progressive posters on here. If you can reply with as critically thought out responses as you did, then you certainly understand that your conclusions arent as easy or factual as you made them. Much of what you conclude is nuance or opinion based much like mine. For example, every economic cycle is a bubble of some sort whether it was a manufacturing bubble in the 50s and 60s or war related whatever so discounting Reagan's and Clinton's is just not accurate. For example, both Reagan and Clinton reduced rates to incent private business to invest and raised them once the economy started taking off. They used investment tax credits, accelerated depreciation, R&D credits and small business credits to incent small business rather than temporary tax holidays. Obama didnt reduce business taxes and all of his stimulus was short term attempts to put money in consumer's hands much like what Bush did and it didnt work.

You also clearly discount and shove aside the primary factors in income inequality like the education gap, government programs like social security and medicare which goes to our seniors who are the wealthiest segment in our country and legal and illegal immigration. Lets face it immigration had just as big if not bigger impact on union wage declines than outsourcing and globalization. You also totally dismiss factors like cognitive ability, talent, ambition, hard work and effort in the income inequality equation. As we all know being a single mom is a huge predictor of poverty but if you also factor into that cognitive ability or talent, its amazing how those poverty statistics for single moms disappear. You also ignore personal choice. We all have the ability in this country to choose our profession within our talents and all the money in the world isnt going to turn me in a professional baseball player and nobody forces a young student into becoming a teacher, nurse etc instead of opening the next dunkin donuts.

You certainly know that the rich have skin in the game. But you ignore the fairness and equal aspect. The tax code shouldnt be playing favorites if you have kids, rent etc and all deductions and loopholes and social engineering should be removed and all workers should have skin in the game on the federal level. Education, infrastructure and state and local issues are funded differently and I bet you understand that. on the federal level, very few have skin in the game funding our general budget (yes they help fund social security and medicare).

On corporate taxes, you are completely wrong that they dont impact company decisions and their ability to compete in the global economy. Outsourcing is a dirty word but my guess is that more jobs than those that have been lost have been created as a result of companies ability to compete better. Do you really think GM can compete with Toyota for selling cars in Brazil if Toyota pays a far less overall tax on their cars sold in Brazil? My guess you understand that better than you let on. Its definitely true that labor costs clearly are the largest driver of operating margins and the ability to compete in the global market but its not true that tax policy has no impact. Apple doesnt bring the cash back home solely for tax reasons but they have a unique product and a brand that sells regardless of price at the moment. But the vast majority of companies dont have that benefit and compete solely based on price. You have to know this issue is far more complex than your opinionated conclusions. I also disagree that tax cuts had NOthing to do with the revenue increases. I dont think the Bush tax cuts impacted the economy as much as Reagan's cuts or Clinton's capital gains tax cuts, but they certainly had an impact and put more disposable income in consumer's hands that helped the housing market continue its bubble. Access to cheap capital was certainly a big driver. Demand doesnt stay the same with tax cuts and you know it. It goes hand in hand although not as much with Obama's short term tax cuts because most people used the excess cash to pay off debt which didnt increase demand.

We could go on and on and even have some sharing and common ground. I just wish the campaign stuff would disappear from here

Independent Kathy--Lets say all those wonderful accomplishments by Obama are true, then explain why he continues to spend on government assistance. How is it that the poor, middle class and minorities have performed so poorly in the midst of his great economic turn around. Why has it increased to over a trillion dollars and still growing. Shouldnt he be requesting huge cuts from these programs as the economic benefits are shared by all. Or are you saying Obama's policies havent helped those who need it most?

Frances, got bad news for you but you dont escape US tax by putting your money offshore and you could be subject to both foreign and US taxes so you want ot put it in low tax foreign countries. But he still pays US tax on the money offshore. Sorry to burst your bubble.

inthemiddle,

forcing people to make bad loans? Do you know who authored the Glass Steagall repeal? Phil Gramm (R) Texas.

Don't give me this bs about it being singularily a Dem issue. Both sides are to blame.

and if that were true Kirk, Richie Mitt would have no problem with showing his 1040's for the past few years. Sorry to burst your bubble of chit

Kirk-2957282 "Frances, got bad news for you but you dont escape US tax by putting your money offshore and you could be subject to both foreign and US taxes so you want ot put it in low tax foreign countries."

Correct. Some people have the mistaken impression that putting your assets or earning your income in foreign locations avoids taxes - THIS IS NOT TRUE. American citizens have to pay U S income taxes on all income - no matter where it is earned, so silly comments about 'Cayman Island accounts' are meaningless - any income earned is still taxable.

Of course, we have seen a big increase in people renouncing their American citizenship to avoid that tax bite - Like one of the founders of Facebook and the former wife of Marc Rich - the convicted tax evader who was pardoned by Bill Clinton in his last days in office in return for a big contribution to Clinton's Library.

Prober--I apologize but it is true sorry you dont like it. You arent bursting my bubble as I have tons of personal experience with offshore accounts. Second, we have this organization called the IRS, not sure if you have heard of it but if Romney did do what you think, it would be front page news trust me. I know you have chip on your shoulder for anyone successful but lets stick with real issues and facts. You do realize that Bain's investors where unions right so he was making money for his investors. You also realize that shipping jobs overseas isnt necessarily bad and thats just political pandering for those who dont understand how a company like GM competes against Toyota in Brazil. It sounds good to say outsourcing is bad and evil but that doesnt explain how companies employ people and why. It sounds good when someone says Romney will roll back EPA regs and dirty the air and water but if they new that the regs that even Obama decided to postpone that were supposedly going to save 4000 lives were going to put 27000 people out of work, plus loss of jobs of all the related small businesses, along with associated suicides, substance abuse and economic damage that this unemployment would cost and you add it up and more people die and billions are incurred and people suddenly go I didnt know that. So when you just say outlandish embellishments that sound like Rachel Maddow talking points, you lose credibility.

irk-2957282

Freshiee--thanks for the response and we for the most part are talking around the same things except with different interpretations which is a far cry from the rhetoric (admitedly by me as a response) of the mostly progressive posters on here. If you can reply with as critically thought out responses as you did, then you certainly understand that your conclusions arent as easy or factual as you made them. Much of what you conclude is nuance or opinion based much like mine.

You are welcome.

For example, every economic cycle is a bubble of some sort whether it was a manufacturing bubble in the 50s and 60s or war related whatever so discounting Reagan's and Clinton's is just not accurate. For example, both Reagan and Clinton reduced rates to incent private business to invest and raised them once the economy started taking off. They used investment tax credits, accelerated depreciation, R&D credits and small business credits to incent small business rather than temporary tax holidays. Obama didnt reduce business taxes and all of his stimulus was short term attempts to put money in consumer's hands much like what Bush did and it didnt work.

Well, technically a bubble is either an artificial boom or a boom that's gone farther than it should have. The post-war era was buoyed by the fact that the rest of the world's industrial capacity had been diminished by the war, yet the massive investments that the U.S. government had made in infrastructure and manufacturing played a huge role in the postwar boom, along with the rise of unions that had been aided by pro-labor government policies. But both Reagan and Clinton engaged in stimulus spending; Reagan focused on military spending and Clinton used regular spending, and both used tax incentives. Obama has cut taxes for businesses many times (note the numerous small business tax breaks passed), and about 30% of the stimulus was in tax cuts, which (in my opinion) aren't as good a stimulus as spending packages.

You also clearly discount and shove aside the primary factors in income inequality like the education gap, government programs like social security and medicare which goes to our seniors who are the wealthiest segment in our country and legal and illegal immigration. Lets face it immigration had just as big if not bigger impact on union wage declines than outsourcing and globalization.

Yes, the education gap, immigration, and government programs have had an effect on income inequality, but those things did not necessarily dominate the reason why inequality rose. I can easily say that globalization had a smaller effect than expected because countries like Canada and the UK also experienced the effects of globalization, yet they did not see the effects as much we did (primarily because of progressive policies like manufacturing preferences and stronger safety nets). Immigration may have had a big effect, but Americans have drifted away from low-skill jobs like farming (leaving them open to some immigrants). As for high-skill jobs, most of our immigrants come due to family reasons, and the number of high-skill immigrants with visas is not very large, and many do not become citizens in the end. Tax policy, on the other hand, has a considerably large effect on income inequality, along with social programs like SS and Medicare. Not to mention the fact that the decline of union membership almost identically matches the stagnation of middle class wages and the rise of income inequality. I personally don't focus income inequality on cultural aspects; I prefer to focus on the economic statistics, as reducing income inequality between economic classes is (in my opinion) much more easier than reducing income inequality between cultural groups.

You also totally dismiss factors like cognitive ability, talent, ambition, hard work and effort in the income inequality equation. As we all know being a single mom is a huge predictor of poverty but if you also factor into that cognitive ability or talent, its amazing how those poverty statistics for single moms disappear. You also ignore personal choice. We all have the ability in this country to choose our profession within our talents and all the money in the world isnt going to turn me in a professional baseball player and nobody forces a young student into becoming a teacher, nurse etc instead of opening the next dunkin donuts.

That is true, but if we take the educational and skilled aspect, we don't necessarily see that much shift in income to high-skilled people from low-skilled people. Teachers are an example of high-skill employees; if education had been a primary factor in the redistribution of wealth, they would be among the most highly paid workers in the United States, but they are not. As you can see, incomes have increased 275% for the top 1%, while increases for people down the line tends to shrink. And we cannot be sure that all CEOs who get huge pays are good at managing them; even the CEOs of failed companies like Lehman Brothers and companies that almost collapsed (like AIG) get large salaries, regardless of whether they led the company skillfully. Essentially, they stuff the board of directors with friends from other companies and enact deals to raise each others' wages.

You certainly know that the rich have skin in the game. But you ignore the fairness and equal aspect. The tax code shouldnt be playing favorites if you have kids, rent etc and all deductions and loopholes and social engineering should be removed and all workers should have skin in the game on the federal level. Education, infrastructure and state and local issues are funded differently and I bet you understand that. on the federal level, very few have skin in the game funding our general budget (yes they help fund social security and medicare).

Well, as I said before, all tax systems have at least some degree of social engineering, even without deductions. Flat taxes tend to benefit the wealthy, as 10% of $50,000 is a lot more in economic utility than 10% of $500,000. Consumption taxes benefit savings and investment over consumption; sin taxes serve as disincentives for certain practices, like drinking or smoking. I think deductions have a place in the tax code, mainly because they incentivize things that are good for the economy. And I'll admit that I favor higher taxes for everybody, not just the rich.

On corporate taxes, you are completely wrong that they dont impact company decisions and their ability to compete in the global economy. Outsourcing is a dirty word but my guess is that more jobs than those that have been lost have been created as a result of companies ability to compete better. Do you really think GM can compete with Toyota for selling cars in Brazil if Toyota pays a far less overall tax on their cars sold in Brazil? My guess you understand that better than you let on. Its definitely true that labor costs clearly are the largest driver of operating margins and the ability to compete in the global market but its not true that tax policy has no impact.

I never said that corporate taxes have no impact; what I said is that corporate taxes have a lesser impact than what most people advocate, mainly because few companies pay the 35% thanks to an immensity of loopholes and deductions.

Apple doesnt bring the cash back home solely for tax reasons but they have a unique product and a brand that sells regardless of price at the moment. But the vast majority of companies dont have that benefit and compete solely based on price. You have to know this issue is far more complex than your opinionated conclusions.

Yes, I'll give you that.

I also disagree that tax cuts had NOthing to do with the revenue increases. I dont think the Bush tax cuts impacted the economy as much as Reagan's cuts or Clinton's capital gains tax cuts, but they certainly had an impact and put more disposable income in consumer's hands that helped the housing market continue its bubble. Access to cheap capital was certainly a big driver. Demand doesnt stay the same with tax cuts and you know it. It goes hand in hand although not as much with Obama's short term tax cuts because most people used the excess cash to pay off debt which didnt increase demand.

Then again, the Bush tax cuts didn't really put much money in the hands of consumers. Most of the tax cuts went to the rich (here is a site: http://www.ctj.org/pdf/bushtaxcutsvshealthcare.pdf), and any income that went to the middle class merely compensated people for the lack of real increases in their wages, so essentially the tax cuts merely provided people money to spend rather than supplementing disposable income. And the reason Obama's tax cuts didn't work was because of the condition of the recession, which was caused in part by too much private debt. Everybody else's tax cuts didn't experience the same situation. Demand can rise after tax cuts, but rising demand is more reliable with spending increases because then the government knows where the money will go, while tax breaks can go anywhere.

We could go on and on and even have some sharing and common ground. I just wish the campaign stuff would disappear from here

I agree.

You know how cum. That'd be lizard dickheads like Romney, Ryan , Akin, Tea bangers, and RepubliCon leaders who all try and give women foreplay for their warped idealizations.

@Bev - Touche my dear, touche. The GOP/TP manly-man idea of foreplay is tapping 3 times at the urinal of the local GOP/TP convention.

@TruePatriot - Touche to you as well. Thanks for the satire acknowledgement. As to your many great points you made, this one I will comment upon:

And having studied various religions and denominations, the Mormon faith requires the largest leap of faith of all.

Mormons do have a great leap of faith. For how does one counter the teachings of religion (faux faith) vs. the counter-intuitive teachings of science. The Catholics (hey Northstar) have an easier idea of how this reconciliation happens, but Mormons, being the new kids on the block, have no clue. I might suggest reading up on the impact of AIDS to the Mormon religion. It is now largely tucked into the deepest, darkest recesses of internet searches. But the Mormon faith is a religion that had to confront this terrible disease up front. Of course, many women wrote about this duality of faith, religion, sexuality, disease, and at the end, spirituality, but they were immediately ex-communicated or dismissed.

To another point you make, the right-wing freaks coping with the definition of murder, this is again one that is never easy, but yet to them, is so simple. Murder is an evil act committed against an unborn zygote. The murder of another human being has a ton of exceptions that either make it allowable, or not allowed, depending on some mood. Murdering a teen wielding Skittles is allowable. Ending a pregnancy is a high crime. It sickens me because of the mood is what Mormons and the freaky right base their 'justification'. It is similar to religious law, you can't eat fish on Friday, or perhaps the various laws of Kosher eating. It is ok to murder of Blacks, Jews, Gays, and Women on Tuesdays and Thursdays, but never ok the rest of the week. My but they love their black and white "so be it, it is written".

It looks like Little Paulie Ryan agrees 100% with Todd Akin about abortion and rape.

In 2008, when Mitt Romney was running for president, one of his surrogates was a doctor who is behind the claim cited by Rep. Todd Akin, that pregnancies are rare in cases of forcible rape or if you will “legitimate rape”’. Dr. Jack Willke, physician, well known to abortion rights opponents, was according to one of those pesky little videos from a moment in time, proud to be a surrogate, to which Mitt Romney replied “"He knows how important it is to have someone in Washington who will actively promote pro-life policies. Policies that include more than appointing judges who will follow the law but also opposing taxpayer-funded abortion and partial-birth abortion."

So now we have the proposed nominee for President and Vice President for the GOP, cozy with the same man whose claims have made Todd Akin ‘famous’ and has abortion front and center on the proposed Republican platform for their convention in Tampa. The draft reaffirms support for a constitutional amendment banning abortions that would allow no exception for pregnancies caused by rape.

Social issues once again are at the top of the Republican agenda. When will they, if ever, focus on jobs and helping the country? Despite their claims of everything they want to do about the economy, social issues consume them and not in a good way. The last few day’s headlines show where their interest lie, Romney with Ryan and Akin along with many others in their party are all about playing to their base and social issues, giving tax cuts to their ultra-rich buddies whose money helps spread their message.

IR....great piece and your own words emphasize the need to vet all candidates for any office, for as things stand right now, we have many in Congress who will at the drop of hat, vote for the most extreme measures to further the right wing agenda and sadly most of it goes under the radar, until a Todd Akin type, lets slip what they really are all about.

The GOP's candidates for the highest offices in the land, are zealots of convenience for the purpose of gaining power, to rape the country of freedom and democracy.

looks like job1 agrees 100% with Akin's comments

looks like job1 agrees 100% with Akin's comments

Actually I agree that there are some dumb A$$ Neo-Nut Right Wing Drones Conservatives posters going on with their crazy talk.

What's galling about the Repub "pro-life" stance is that it's not pro-life at all. Once the child is born, they want to rip away all the programs that would help the child get a decent chance at a good life. Cut funding for WIC, food stamps, Head Start, Medicaid, education, Pell Grants - the list goes on.

As George Carlin said, "Once you're born, you're on your own."

@ Holly

dear god you think this list

Cut funding for WIC, food stamps, Head Start, Medicaid, education, Pell Grants..

its whats GOOD for kids. Food stamps, low income daycare? wow. its a depressing world you live in where food stamps have become whats the "ideal" environment to raise children.

How about Dad has a good job with good income.. Say in manufacturing...WAIT .. it was the democrats who killed that dream. Clinton and his giant sucking sound (perot was right) FIRST THE WTO and then NAFTA, now kids need the "dream" of food stamps. God save us from the democrats.

joshua w morris

IR and GBM, so well said. Thank you.

GOPRomney/Koch, wasting our time, and indulging in backwards patriarchal power games.

Though they have time to mess up our environment, and make laws that leave ordinary people stranded economically, physcially and emotionally.

All to aggrandize themselves, while making the GOP/Koch Small Government crew a few more $Billions to hide.

Independent Redneck Va.

And you’ll Yahoo’s want Paul Ryan to be Vice President of these United States. H@ll he doesn’t deserve the office you got him in now with this kind of thinking or lack thereof

Isn't it LOL funny even the forces of nature( a tropical cyclone) are against these clowns? VP Joe Biden will blow these clowns away too during their convention.

Popcorn anyone? :-P

He has grown those programs to over 1 trillion dollars over 70 government assistance programs in the budget which is over an 80% increase since he took office.

Really? Obama can pass legislation on his own now?

Xabre, so its all Reid and Pelosi's fault? So you also believe in the leading from behind views of Obama.

Excellent article and opinion, IR. As President Obama said, rape is rape, parsing it and slicing and dicing it doesn't mean it isn't rape. It is tragic that so many are fooled into believing the kind of old-wives tale nonsense Akin repeats.

Having followed politics for decades, what I find astonishing these days is the fact there are so many ignorant, uninformed GOPTP legislators, the TPers have a real lock on stupid. Now, there are intelligent republicans in Congress but there seems to be a whole ship-load of ignorant fools in the bunch these days. Akin and those like him are the type of elected officials we get as a result of the planned, systematic dumbing down of conservatives by the likes of FOX, Limbaugh, Beck. The hosts of FOX are paid by the wealthy owners who want nothing more than an uninformed and uneducated electorate--Akin is one example of the result of the effort to dumb-down America.

GBM, cheers for posting the connection between Mitt Romney and the doctor(?) of crazy spin.

Kirk-

You would think that a good liberal philosophy would be to enrich and provide the engine that creates self reliance and personal responsibility over generational welfare?

Why is it that a person who takes legally takes advantage of government assistance during a rough economic period are part of "generational welfare", but someone who legally takes advantage of every possible tax avoidance scheme is just a good businessman?

Why do you get upset about food stamps, but not about the charitable deductions for tithes to churches? Aren't we creating a "system of dependency" for these churches?

Why do you get upset about welfare or unemployment, but not about the "carried interest rule" that taxes passive investment at a lower rate than earned income? Are we not creating an environment hat "punishes work"?

Paul Ryan - The Deficit? I Built That!

The fact that the need for food assistance and aid has increased since Dec 2007 because of the Near Depression, the total economic collapse which began under George W. Bush apparently is beyond the ability of Revenge, Kirk and their friends to grasp or at least they like to pretend they don't know.

This photo sums it up:

http://demo.montabe.com/galleries/occupy-wall-street/photos/4e9b5d876c2ff33b6c000001

Don't be fooled, AGAIN!

RevengeofPodus, Obviously you were lucky in the "who you were born to" lottery. The luck of birth seems to instill in those lucky Republicans the notion that they would do well even if they were born to the poorest of the poor in the worst neighborhood with the worst schools.

I was luckier than some, but it's taken me 38 years to build my business to where it is today. I'd be way further along if my parents had given me $1,000,000 to get started. As it is, I appreciate the luck I've had and I am willing and committed to help those less fortunate to climb up the economic ladder.

I believe in hard work and I believe that if Republicans had a more realistic view of the role LUCK plays in life, they would be less focused on badmouthing those less fortunate and would instead, actually work with Democrats to help ferret out the fraud and to strengthen the economic ladder instead of just creating obstacles to upward mobility.

I know that it is much harder to make it up the economic ladder than it is to stay there.

I know that a working class wage barely pays the bills. I believe that a higher tax rate for the rich is reflective of this reality. They can afford it and they profit from a healthy economic ladder which they should help pay for without all the griping and grousing.

Who profits when the poor are left in desperate circumstances? Corporations who build private prisons? How much better would it be to help the poor make it to the middle class where they could pay taxes and buy goods from Corporate America?

Jody, cant have your cake and eat it too. Government assistance has gone up because of the recession but you cant then point to all of the accomplishments of Obama during that time period and say he has done any good? Which is it? If he has brought us back from the deep then shouldnt his budget be showing decreases in unemployment and government assistance for the poor, middle class and minorities? Instead it continues to grow. I understand your point but you dont get mine. Show me where Obama's economic policies over the last 4 years have helped this group one bit.

Tnsevl--this is where you and I agree. I dont like either welfare. I would advocate the elimination of all tax loopholes and deductions and I dont like welfare for charitable deductions for churches and dont think the federal government should be funding planned parenthood as a charity. Planned parenthood should get its funding from private donations and be treated no differently than AIDs, SIDS, Cancer and any other very worthy charitable cause. I agree with you that those welfare programs should be eliminated too. The carried interest rule should be eliminated when they reduce corporate tax rates and increase capital gains rates. We are on the same page. This concept that all people who would vote for Romney or Obama dont share many of the same values and concepts is something in the minds of people like Fiesty, Seeking Sanity and others who work for the Obama campaign and want to call people idiots. I agree with many of Obama's policies but you would never find any of the people on this board say that agree with anything that comes out of Romney/Ryan because it doesnt fit with the current campaigning.

Show me where Obama's economic policies over the last 4 years have helped this group one bit.

Show me what policies you are even talking about, to prove you aren't just repeating babble.

Clara KCMO

This photo sums it up:

http://demo.montabe.com/galleries/occupy-wall-street/photos/4e9b5d876c2ff33b6c000001

Don't be fooled, AGAIN!

Clara,

With the number of independent women switching to Obama I doubt if that will happen.

Miss you and the kids.

UPDATE:

Surrogates Admit Romney Will Cut Medicare Benefits For Current Seniors

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan want to neutralize Democratic attacks on their plan to turn Medicare into a voucher program for future seniors by replaying the GOP’s 2010 campaign against Democratic members of Congress: by attacking President Obama for Medicare cuts he signed into law.

As has been noted repeatedly, that strategy requires Romney and Ryan to disavow Medicare reforms the GOP recently endorsed overwhelmingly as a part of the party’s budget, which Ryan authored.

But the ticket also contends that a key difference between Obama and Romney is that Romney won’t change Medicare at all for existing beneficiaries — only future ones. Recent statements from his advisers and surrogates, suggest the claim is false.

As outlined in a memo the campaign released Saturday, Romney plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act in its entirety, and thus to spend over $700 billion more on the program in the coming decade than the government would spend if the health care law stands.
http://www.mittromney.com/news/press/2012/08/memorandum-2

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/surrogates-admit-romney-will-cut-medicare-benefits-for-current-seniors.php?ref=fpa

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

I told ya'll the cuts would effect the present Seniors

I wish the media would cover the current events regarding Fast and Furious, and what Holder is doing.

“Given McMahon’s outsized role in the Fast and Furious scandal, the decision to approve an extended annual leave arrangement in order to attain pension eligibility and facilitate full-time, outside employment while still collecting a full-time salary at ATF raises a host of questions about both the propriety of the arrangement and the judgment of ATF management,” wrote Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., in a letter to ATF.

McMahon apologized to Congress for his handling of Operation Fast and Furious. “Rather than imposing consequences for his admitted failures, the ATF appears to be rewarding McMahon,” the lawmakers wrote.

Is anyone going to be held accountable?

Kirk, You were lucky. Many people have the misfortune of being born to bad parents or parents with a sense of entitlement or with a disability or mental illness or circumstances so bad they can't reach beyond that circumstance.

Lucky in business? Try starting a business and then have the bottom of the economy fall out. Bad timing, not luck, so businessmen are just blessed with awareness of macroeconomic forces beyond their control. Even those with thorough knowledge of macroeconomic forces, are hard pressed to predict the future which depends on so much that we cannot see. Do a major expansion of your business right before a major recession like the one that hit us in 2008 and that is just BAD LUCK.

There are many things we have no control over such as someone running a red light and broadsiding you in your car. Or getting a disease or having a family member that needs constant care. Luck is a part of everyone's life even yours.

The Republicans need to think harder (or at least think) before they open their mouths.

If Obama really is the "Food Stamp President", doesn't that mean Romney will be the "No Food President"?

Thanks, IR, for a very provocative post.

Rape is, by definition, forcible (look it up.) What is legitimate rape? How does it differ from illegitimate rape?

Confidence is necessary to succeed at business. Inflated egos can result too. I was blessed with cognitive abilities that allowed me to have a good shot at climbing the economic ladder. I was helped by state and federal aid to my university and to me personally that made my college education possible. I consider this aid a strengthening of the economic ladder and I am thankful for it.

I hear stories of individuals that freeload the safety net. They are just plain unmotivated. Bad parenting, a failure to thrive, a lack of ambition, I don't know exactly what causes them to be this way, but I believe we can do better in constructing the economic ladder. Obama's recent strengthening of the welfare work requirement to allow states to have greater flexibility in designing work programs, required to do 20% better, is a good example of this effort. I believe fraud should be more aggressively pursued, but we need to hire some more workers to do this job. Making aid programs work better should be a top priority for us.

I know Head Start prepares low income kids for school and the results are impressive. Lower crime rates, better education, higher incomes. There are many other things we can do together as a society, through volunteer organizations, individually, and through our government that will strengthen this economic ladder. Mentoring efforts, parent education classes, prenatal care (WIC), job training in coordination with local industries, etc.

The attitude that we cannot do better and that these people are bums WILL NOT solve these problems, but if we try and work together to solve these problems, I am sure we will do better. That is my goal here. But recognizing how LUCKY we have been seems to me to be a good starting point in realizing that we should try to help others have better lives.

Isn't Ron Paul supposed to be some sort of OBGYN? What is his opinion on what Aiken said? Dr. Paul has been silent on this matter and, other things lately. What's up with him?

Ron Paul has alzheimer's, he forgot he was running.

@kirk you DO KNOW the argument is to SET THE TAXES @ THE CLINTON RATES 34% THAT'S the god damn argument @!$%#head!!!!!

shaak--I agree there is a certain amount of luck in who you were born too, unintended consequences of government actions or calamities. Like EPA regs intended to clean up the air to save an additional 4000 lives a year but put 27,000 employees out of a job along with all the ancillary businesses that go bankrupt, suicides, divorces and mental health issues resulting from that unemployment that costs the economy billions but doesnt get factored. We pick winners and losers such as the democrats want to create safety nets and bailouts for those in the unions and government jobs like teachers, firemen and policemen along with homeowners who through "unluck" are underwater but dont want to bail out the small businesses that go broke because of their policies or just because of bad luck. The fact is we have a safety net for your so called bad luck and neither party ever advocates the elimination of that bad luck. Unfortunately those policies also reward those who have made bad choices, are not talented, hard working or just dont have the education or ability to have an equal outcome in life with others. Nothing is stopping a teacher from starting their own business--they chose that profession. You seem to advocate as a result of your version of luck that everyone have equality of outcomes regardless of the factors that determine success. Not going to happen in any lifetime of anyone. By the way there is no evidence that Head Start has made any of the progress of success you conclude. All studies of Head Start show that by the time these kids are adults, their success is based on their own individual circumstances, education or talent. Its like saying that if you throw a bunch of money at training me to play baseball, basketball or hedge fund manager, that somehow I am going to compete with Albert Pujols or Kevin Durrant. It doesnt happen.

I just have a few questions. If a woman has an abortion, for any reason, under the republican plan, will she be put in jail? If so what kind of jail would it be and who is going to pay for it? If she is the care taker, or supplies money for other children, parents, or others, who is going to take her place? If she happens to be a single mother (perhaps her husband died or left her through not fault of her own), where do those children go? Life isn't as simple as these republicans want us to believe. They want to control the choices of women but they don't seem to want to deal the issues this would create.

Douglas, no he wants to increase rates to 39.6% and they are currently at 35%. Plus Obamacare added another 4% on investment income within its bill. I dont necessarily have an issue with eliminating the original Bush tax cuts or let them expire but I would let them expire for everyone. However, I would use this opportunity to fundamentally revise the tax code and make if fair, simple and progressive with an increase in revenue and not tax cuts for the wealthy. But thanks for playing nice.

its whats GOOD for kids. Food stamps, low income daycare? wow. its a depressing world you live in where food stamps have become whats the "ideal" environment to raise children.

It is better than starving to deatg dying by disease, and that low income child care helps to get the welfare mom off welfare and out into the work force so that she can hold her head up and stand on her own to feet. I guess that special antibody that lives in a woman's vagina whenshe is raped oesn't always work. Husbands don't always stay home and support the family. I guess we should all get used to welfare food stamps and governmen health care. IF Romney gets elected those of us that makes less than $250 g a year will surely end up on the welfare rolls.

pibs,

I suggest that every woman force to give birth to an unwanted child should leave the child at either the hospital or a police station.

Let Romney, Ryan, and the tea people figure out how to take care of them.

Frances, give me a break--nobody is advocating anything like that in terms of elimination of the social safety net. That sort of embellishment and hyperbole gets us nowhere. You cant sing the praises of Obama's economic accomplishments and ignore his expansion of the entitlement state at the same time. You also cant ignore people's bad choices in life and reward them for it. You do have to balance self reliance, personal responsibility and your own personal choice with that safety net but clearly we have blown past those concepts and more discussing what wealth redistribution is fair and how to equal out the inequality of outcomes.

How about Dad has a good job with good income.. Say in manufacturing...WAIT .. it was the democrats who killed that dream. Clinton and his giant sucking sound (perot was right) FIRST THE WTO and then NAFTA, now kids need the "dream" of food stamps. God save us from the democrats.

So how did that work out under dear ole' Bush?? Yeah the jobs were so plentiful that people just quit due to overabundance. And, once they started quitting, they just continued to the point of 750,000 job quitters every month.

Let’s see, when Clinton left, unemployment at around 5%. When Bush left, unemployment at 11% and rising. Enter Obama and unemployment down to 8.1% (much lower if the party of obstruction was not in the Congress). Yep! You’re right, them democrats are monsters.

I not worried about the intent of the people to re-elect President Obama. But, I’m especially worried about Voter Suppression in PA, FL, and Ohio, which could be a big problem. The real voter fraud occurring is going on with the republicans in power. I'm hoping that the civil rights marches start again, in order to bring this issue up nationally and show these republican thugs that they won't get away with it.

At worst, I hope it doesn't come to peaceful civil disobedience in which suppressed voters such as in PA are bused by the thousands to heavy republican areas, and voting in their republican locations is disrupted, by protest or a blocked sit in. Think about it, the police would be forced to arrest and id the folks being arrested and there is the proof of ID needed provided by the police.

However, that is what it takes to get some peoples attention. In this case it's known as leveling the playing field.

Job1, so why are you folks so nervous lately. It looks like your calculations (questioned) have our President wining by a landslide.

Your numbers are even better than NBC and WSJ, unbelievable.

Don’t Take Your Vote for Granted, Because Someone Can Take It Away.

Job1, so why are you folks so nervous lately

Because the GOP Cult wants to take the right to vote away.

Job1

Job1, so why are you folks so nervous lately? Because the GOP Cult wants to take the right to vote away.

Yeah, and they want to kill Seniors, and women.

What a great answer. That is all I need to say about your response. So I guess that thee are no Elections plan for November? Really JOB1.

Job 1, fabulous posts.

GOP/Ryan voted against the Lily Ledbetter Equal Pay Act. GOP also voted to change the Violence Against Women Act ~ they voted NOT to cover and NOT to protect minority women.

Civil rights will be next, if GOP gets the chance.

Job 1 - further proof that Republicans want to control the outcome of elections is their strong-arming of Akin to resign. The voters in Missouri spoke, but the GOP doesn't like their choice (anymore).

What a great answer. That is all I need to say about your response. So I guess that thee are no Elections plan for November?

Actually, Myself and Millions of others will be working and voting to Re-Elect President Obama!!!

Obama 2012/Romney 1040

Job1, I enjoy your election predictions. Great post about the Voter suppression efforts, too. The only voter fraud taking place is being waged by the GOPTP on behalf of A.L.E.C. for the rich and powerful.

Conservatives who laugh off the efforts of the GOP & ALEC to suppress the votes of the poor, minorities, the elderly and students should remember this: your vote is next. This is not about republican or democrat, it is about the powerful manipulating (via the GOP) for even greater power and control. "First, they came for...., then they came for me" and there was no one left to speak for me.

Voter suppression? Really? Becuase a photo ID is required? Please have Holder come up with 10 people that are registered to vote in ANY state who doesn't have a photo ID. If you can do that, then maybe I'll believe you. The only reason to NOT require a photo ID when voting is for fraud.

Please have Holder come up with 10 people that are registered to vote in ANY state who doesn't have a photo ID.

Why should anyone spend one minute of their time to appease you? Whether that number is 10 or 10 million, it will not change your closed tea bagging mind.