*** Romney to talk energy:

Talk about what?

The GNOP's energy plan would take us back to the 1900's...

If it doesn't pollute our air, contaminate our drinking water, cause earthquakes or destroy the Earth's oceans,or give billions of tax subsidies to those who need them the least...

They don't want anything to do with it!

For all of their whining about our children, they're hell bent on leaving them a planet which will soon be uninhabitable if left up to their ideas!

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

The most deceitful, hateful, conservative Republican Party platform ever is coming...

And its official themes would result in no infrastructure improvements, GOP control of women's bodies, loss of civil rights and elimination of our safety nets.

Then there is the agenda for the rich & extra-greedy:
1. Deficits-be-damned. A $5Trillion tax cut for the Adelson groupies, with the goal of reduces taxes for the wealthy to zero. (Under the Ryan plan, Romney will be at 0.82%.)
2. Raise taxes on the middle and lower income earners to pay for their tax cuts.

Finally, as defined by Paul Ryan's posthumous mentor, Ayn Rand:
3. Change the U. S. Constitution to "We, the few deserving wealthy people".

For some reason, a substantial slice of the electorate thinks that being a business person is a wonderful qualification for being President. The G.O.P. constantly sings the praise of private enterprise. Yet, the loudest singers in the choir have no business experience at all. Zero! None! Zip!

Paul Ryan has virtually no business experience. Eric Cantor has virtually no business experience. Mitch McConnell has virtually no business experience. So it goes with John Cornyn, Jon Kyl, and a host of other Republicans who have been drawing government checks for almost their entire adult lives. Yet, they talk as though they know the inner workings of business as if they have been in the business world forever.

Here's what else these guys have in common. Every single one of them has been on board when it comes to deficit spending and taking government pork. Not one single spending bill for which they voted was vetoed by President Bush. Not one. Hell, McConnell's wife was the Secretary of Labor in Bush 43's administration. Despite their words, their actions speak of a deep and abiding love for government spending. They've lined their pockets at the expense of taxpayers and yet they trash the government.

In spite of that, they would have us believe that the government that has thrown money at them for years is the enemy. They tell us that government is the enemy of the free market, of free enterprise, of the entrepreneur, but none of them know this from first-hand experience. They tell us of the efficiency of private enterprise. Government is a miserable failure - the same government that they have thrown into deficit with their irresponsible spending.

How about this? Since the founding of our nation, literally millions of private businesses have come and gone. The rate of failure for small businesses is more than 80% in the first year alone. The FIRST year! Check it our yourself. http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/01/small-business-successfailure-rates/

Those businesses will continue to fail. Most will not last ten years, and those that do generally owe their success to a serious commitment on the part of the owner(s), a lot of hard work, good business sense, and no small amount of luck.

But our Republican heroes don't know this. They get a pay check even as they spend wildly with no thought of an income stream, or competitive pricing, or quality of service. They don't have a clue and their actions show it. They talk the talk, which is pure BS. Worse, they have never walked the walk.

While millions of business have failed, there is a constant. That's government. It has survived these incompetents since the founding of our nation. Really, why would you want these guys in charge of something they flatly do not understand? In fact, it's pretty damned hard to escape the notion that they're doing their level best to destroy our government.

According to the record, the Paul Ryan/Todd Akin stance on women's NON-right to choose, is clear.

Ryan also voted against equal, fair pay. And he voted against the protection of women minorities in violent situations.

Good luck to the RNC figuring out what policies Romney is for and against, apart from being FOR Ryan and FOR Ryan's policies.

RomneyRyan >>Exit this way>>>.

Barack/Joe 2012

Obama – Biden 2012 - Still Cleaning up Bush’s Mess!!!

4 more for 44!

Obama 2012/Romney 1040

President Obama is on the right track. He's slowly and steadily pulling away from the clowns. He'll be breaking the 50% mark soon and will never go back under 50% again.

In the meantime, the Repugs just keep stepping all over themselves. Akin is a fine example. And Ryan has picked up Romney's bad habit of flip fopping and lying. Everyday I listen to them I say to myself "but that's not what you said yesterday". Their there own worse enemies and the American people aren't going to buy into their lying.

OBAMA IN 2012.

@Fool's Gold

:) :) :)

Oh hey look, Romney wants our energy dependence to be on dirty outdated fuels. Now there's a shocker.

Romney to talk energy:

More off the script directly from oil producers and the coal producers.

Obama 2012 / Romney 1040

Bobby -- Suddenly the right is griping about federal employees not paying their taxes. Where were these same people when that dollar amount was much higher in 2007? Did they step up and write a bill to stop this back then? NO. Fox has sent out the talking points apparently, but left off a few facts.

Federal workers owed more than $3 billion in income taxes in 2008, according to the Internal Revenue Service, a figure down slightly from the year before.

The agency reported that 276,300 current and retired federal employees owed $3,042,200,000 in 2008, down from $3,586,784,725 in unpaid taxes in 2007. The list includes White House and Congressional staffers and current and former active-duty and reserve members of the military.

The agency provides an updated snapshot of tax habits among current and former federal workers each year and provides copies of the list to reporters upon request. The agency does not provide similar snapshots of the total number of all American delinquent taxpayers.....

Fifty White House staffers owed a combined $812,917 in 2008, the IRS said. Up on Capitol Hill, slightly more than 4 percent of House staffers owed Uncle Sam $5.8 million, compared to 3.2 percent of Senate employees that owed almost $2.5 million.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/12/federal_employees_owe_3_billio.html

ContemptMe:

Apologies for stepping on your post. I posted the my response to Bill's post before I saw yours.

Romney's new energy policy = "drill baby drill".

Ahem, it's not new. It won't help with energy independence because WE AREN'T BUILDING ANY NEW REFINERIES.

AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH (Sam Kinison yell).

Brianb

If you notice, I am calling Dumbfux a he.

Nice rack of boobs you grew overnight Bb., kinda match your brain of late.

Romney's new energy policy = "drill baby drill".

Perhaps Romney doesn't realize the US doesn't have enough oil to sustain ourselves, not matter how much we drills. In addition, nuclear power is cheaper than coal. Oh wait, he'll just remove all the clean air regulations...

So now we have DumbFux predicting the weather.

LOL. You've got to be pretty desperate when your political hopes depend on the weather.

It's interesting how the liberals have bought into Obama's blame game. Right out of the starting gate in 09 Obama started blaming republicans for the horrible economic mess. How typical as we now see. Obama blames everyone else for his responsibility. I guess he finds it much easier to point his finger and say "Let me make this perfectly clear - it's someone else's fault!"

This doesn't sit well with liberals and I wonder exactly how long this post will go uncollapsed... It's common knowledge that liberals want to silence their opposition.

It was CONGRESS that controlled the spending arm of the government... it was their policies that set the financial collapse in motion... 17 months after the 07 congress took control did the bottom fall out... I guess it had nothing to do with spending... out of control budgets... putting too much money into social programs... or anything like that... Nope... it was the housing sector and the banking sector... both controlled by... you guessed it, democrats.

The democrats controlling congress is a fact. One Barack Obama was a member of that Congress... he sometimes voted, sometimes didn't, but clearly he was a part of his own problem and has the cojones to blame everyone else. The liberals buy into it... making up facts as they go. They blame the republicans but never hold themselves to the same standards... I guess that's exactly why it's called DOUBLE STANDARD.

It was CONGRESS that controlled the spending arm of the government...

Then why are GOP posters constantly blaming Obama for the national debt on this board? You cannot have it both ways.

We need clean, and dirty energy for now, we need to put people to work now

Yeah, and we need to expand coal power because electricity is so expensive right now right?

Yeah, I'm calling it...

Obama wins but only if people show up to vote.

Example: My greatest generation grandfather in law does not care for Obama but he hates the Republicans. I think he's going to vote Obama but I know he does not like Romney for the war dodging thing. We'll see...

Paul Ryan's Imaginery Budget

Paul Ryan has been christened by conservative and liberal pundits alike as a "fiscal hawk", with "serious" budget proposals, that makes hard choices about reducing the deficit.

That couldn't be further from the truth.

Paul Krugman says in a recent blog "Look, Ryan hasn't 'crunched the numbers'; he has just scribbled some stuff down, without checking at all to see if it makes sense."

I couldn't agree more - for a supposed "policy wonk" his maths skills and logic leave something to be desired.

The Ryan Budget has a long, detailed list of tax cuts - lower the top-tier tax rate and the corporate tax rate; eliminate taxes on corporate income, capital gains, estates, interest and dividends. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center calculates that these specified tax cuts will reduce tax revenue by $4.3 trillion over the next 10 years.

Not to worry, though - Ryan claims these tax cuts will be made revenue-neutral by closing unspecified loopholes.

The Ryan budget's specified spending cuts include reducing Medicaid funding by $800 billion over the next 10 years compared to current projections. Other specified cuts include $130 billion in food stamps and a reduction in Pell grant college funding. These specifed cuts save around $1 trillion over the next 10 years.

Ryan's budget also includes the $700 billion in savings from the ACA that are the focus of criticism in recent Romney/Ryan ads - because he claims they were in the "baseline". So now we are up to $1.7 trillion in spending cuts.

So for those of you keeping score we have around $4.3 trillion in revenue reductions offset by $1.7 trillion in spending cuts - for a total defict increase of $2.5 trillion. This does not even include the proposed increase in miitary spending!

The Ryan budget includes specific proposals that increase the deficit by over $2.5 trillion, with "secret" tax reform and "super-secret" spending cuts that will magically transform deficit increase into a defict reduction.

So that's the Ryan plan in a nutshell - reduce taxes on the wealthy, change Medicare into a voucher system, cut spending on lower-income families and college students, sprinkle with magic pixie dust, alter the rules of mathematics, and ABRA-CADABRA, reduce the deficit!

No wonder Bill in Fairfax likes Romney/Ryan - their imaginery budget would only work in Fantasyland!

Paul Ryan - The Deficit? I Built That!

Soundbite if that is true what does your grandfather think of Biden who had 5 student deferments. Pot c calling kettle maybe?

DCIA said: Suddenly the right is griping about federal employees not paying their taxes. Where were these same people when that dollar amount was much higher in 2007? Did they step up and write a bill to stop this back then? NO.

Ummm, Don't Carry It All.... who was in charge of Congress in 2007? Why I believe it was Nancy Pellosi and her dumber than a rock cohort Harry Reid. Why would they be interested in writing a bill forcing federal employees to pay their taxes? Maybe the year in question escaped you.

BCWC said: Nice rack of boobs you grew overnight Bb., kinda match your brain of late.

I'm sure the Queen appreciates all the ways you suck up to him. Got any fancy moves?

To play off TNSEVOL's thinking...

THE DEBT and DEFICIT? -- REPUBLICANS BUILT THAT!

Brilliant plan by the Obama campaign! Roll out the guy who's own campaign first coined the phrase "It's the economy stupid!"

Oh...wait...

Using a state-by-state analysis of unemployment and per-capita income, academics Kenneth Bickers and Michael Berry of the University of Colorado project that Romney will win 52.9% of the popular vote and 320 electoral votes.

Their forecast suggests that President Obama will lose in almost all of the swing states, including North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida…

Bickers said much of the polling thus far means relatively little, with much of the electorate still not focused on the race. The academics said their model focuses on the preeminent issue of the economy.

Bill Fairfax:

Of course, the American experience has been the deeper the economic downturn the stronger the economic recovery. At least that's been our experience for the last 80 years or so going all the way back to the Great Depression – until now.

Huh? Maybe in Bill Fairfax's own private Bizzaro World. Recovery from Hoover's Great Depression took over a decade and World War II. Recovery from Bush's Great Recession is going to take a long time, too. I hope it won't take a decade and another war to get us out the mess that was made by the Republicans and their paymasters on Wall Street in the first disastrous decade of the 21st Century.

Harley Chic -

You should read before you post. All of that was already mentioned above.

You are correct, by the way.... Romney will win in a landslide, all you Republicans should just stay home - no need to go vote for the inevitable.

DCIA -

So federal employee debt to the tax payers went down under the Bush Administration and has grown 14% under Obama in 3 1/2 years?

And what was your point?

My point was that libs are obsessed about an imaginary tax issue with Romney, obsessed with the tax rates of others, when they are blind to a $3.4 billion dollar problem / revenue issue that Obama has easy control / influence over.

Judging from your response, maybe libs aren't as much blind as stupid.

Another day and more of the same old, same old. Meh.

When the history of this election is written it will state that Mitt Romney lost the election on August 12, 2012 when he nominated Paul Ryan as his running mate.

The polls agree. Romney got a very small bounce out of the Ryan nomination. In other words, he shored up the votes Romney was going to get anyway and nothing more.

Because of Ryan's anti-woman philosophy and his "let 'em die" Medicare plan the remainder of the electorate (other than those who would vote for road kill over ANY democrat) will rush to the polls to vote for the President in record numbers.

They have finally realized Obama is our last, best, hope for the survival of the middle-class and the America the founding fathers intended.

In the last ten years we have seen the middle-class, the back bone of the US economy according to NBC News, eroded almost to the point of no return. Median "wealth" in the middle-class has dropped from an average of $130K to $90K in that period while, thanks to tax breaks, tax cuts, bank fraud and wall street greed the upper 2% of American have seen their wealth increase dramatically.

Americans have finally realized electing someone from the elite 2% to the Presidency will insure more of the same downward spiral for the middle-class and more wealth and prosperity for those who already have so much and pay so little in taxes.

Yes, President Obama will win and he will win in an historic landslide but only if we get out the vote. Discuss what's at stake EVERYWHERE we can and help the President save America. Not only must we re-elect the President, we've got to replace those Tea Party RED WHITE AND BLUE HE-MAN WOMAN HATERS like Paul Ryan and Todd Akin with reasonable and responsible lawmakers who understand that politics is the art of compromise and not "my way or the highway." It's that attitude that is keeping our economy depressed and in order for it to improve, those obstructionists have got to go. NOW.

The survival of the middle-class and AMERICA depend on the re-election of Barack Hussein Obama as President of the United States and replacement of those hypocrisy party obstructionists.

Let's do it!

Obama/Biden 2012

BrianB -- Do your homework. This has been going on forever. That's my point to Bob.

How come a bill wasn't written in 2000 or 02 or 03 or 04 or 05 or 06?

The right is trying to spin this to look like it's something that only happened under Obama. WRONG.

It's been happening forever. In fact, federal contractor's are the biggest tax evaders. Let's add all those doctors and dentists who bill and take money from Medicaid and Medicare but don't pay their taxes. Did you miss the article on that BRIAN and BOB?

Thousands of Medicaid health care service providers still got paid by the government even though they owed hundreds of millions of dollars in federal taxes, congressional investigators say. A legal technicality is making it harder for the IRS to collect.

In a report being released Thursday, the Government Accountability Office says Medicaid payments to doctors, hospitals and other providers aren't technically considered federal funds, since they're funneled through state health care programs.

Because of that glitch, the IRS can't just shut off the payment spigot to collect tax debts. Investigators only looked at three states, so the full extent of the losses is even greater.

One dentist who received more than $100,000 from Medicaid while owing back income taxes was spending money on fine dining, trips, spas, shopping and wine, the report said.

In another case, a medical transport company received more than $1 million from Medicaid while owing millions in unpaid payroll taxes for its employees. Not paying the payroll taxes is a violation of federal law.

http://news.yahoo.com/govt-report-tax-cheats-getting-paid-medicaid-071203726--finance.html

Xabre said:

Then why are GOP posters constantly blaming Obama for the national debt on this board? You cannot have it both ways.

I don't know why GOP posters do that... mainly because I'm not GOP, but I will tell you why I blame him... Who was it that stood in front of Congress and asked for a huge 751 Billion dollar stimulus program and got it? Who was it that stood in front of Congress and asked them to provide a rise in the national debt level? That was after it had already gone up $4 Trillion. I blame him because he hasn't signed a budget yet in his entire term! We have NO idea what is being spent and how much is going out. I blame him for being irresponsible with the nation's money. Do you need more?

Xabre: Then why are GOP posters constantly blaming Obama for the national debt on this board? You cannot have it both ways.

But yet, Xabre constantly blames Reagan for starting the debt. Oddly, to Xabre, Reagan is responsible for the debt on his watch, but Obama isn't responsible for his.

You cannot have it both ways.

Sorry DCIA, I don't seek out, or spend my time reading Yahoo news.

Joe, can you demonstrate that 44 magnum procedure for us... I don't believe it will work.

But yet, Xabre constantly blames Reagan for starting the debt. Oddly, to Xabre, Reagan is responsible for the debt on his watch, but Obama isn't responsible for his.

I said the policies he proposed (and were subsequently passed) were responsible for the debt. After all, it is 'Reaganomics' is it not? Keep up the deflection mode when those policies are discussed though, I need my daily dose of humor.

Now Brian is mad. He thinks that someone who is responsible for something, suddenly isn't becase someone asked for it. Nice logic you have there.

Bob -- You are trying to spin. Period.

Brianb -- That's an AP story. Yahoo is an aggregate site for news.

David Walker, well said in both posts.

Well done other liberal posters as well; you argue with facts, the right argues with conjecture and distortion. There was a time when conservatives argued facts as well but that disappeared not long after Reagan took them to his "shining city on the hill" built for those who had much by those who were fooled into believing that "shining city" was for them, could be theirs if they just believed the words of the Actor, Ronald Reagan.

“The Romney policy, spelled out in a white paper and on a conference call with reporters on Wednesday, focuses on developing domestic fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal - in large part by shifting federal responsibilities to the states, and by expanding exploration and production nationwide... Romney's plan would make states the custodian of energy production on federal lands within their borders"

Coming soon to a national park near you - shale production, oil rigs & fracking!

No wonder Bill in Fairfax likes Romney/Ryan - their imaginery budget would only work in Fantasyland!

Hmmm, seems like the CBO takes issue with you and the esteemed leftist troll Krugman. In fact, the CBO analysis shows the Ryan approach leads to a dramatic reduction in the federal debt as compared to the current path.

And as for those "unspecified" tax loopholes, surely a man of your intelligence understands that the Ryan plan is formally submitted to the House in the form of a Budget Resolution (hint: it's the kind of thing the Senate hasn't done for three years). And surely you would know the role that resolution plays in the congressional budget process. And that at this point in the process, "unspecified" details are the norm. Study up, junior.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-20-Ryan_Specified_Paths_2.pdf

*** Romney to talk energy: At 12:55 pm ET from Hobbs, NM, Romney will unveil his energy policy

Romney will say: "I will get back to you on that." One thing Romney is consistent on is racking up a good size pile of 'get back to yous.'

Hmmm, seems like the CBO takes issue with you and the esteemed leftist troll Krugman. In fact, the CBO analysis shows the Ryan approach leads to a dramatic reduction in the federal debt as compared to the current path.

Except as presented the Ryan Plan actually isn't paid for. Therefore it increases the debt.

bob - My point was that libs are obsessed about an imaginary tax issue with Romney

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

I just realized something. Obama was being predictive on his second term when he said: "If I don't get this done, it will be a one term proposition," he was predicting the outcome of the election.

Liberals can't deny it. They cannot say it's a lie.. since they feel that Obama NEVER lies...

Since Obama and liberals think he needs a second term, apparently Obama DIDN'T get it done... He should stick to his original statement and concede. Since he didn't get it done and he doesn't want to leave... he will have to be voted out through his prediction.

The republican/tea party is out today in force. The bulls#it is flowing real thick today. Lies, double standards and slick spin. But leaving all that behind, its still a great day to be a AMERICAN. There is no better place in the world than America!!!!

bob-1805084

My point was that libs are obsessed about an imaginary tax issue with Romney, obsessed with the tax rates of others

it is Romney who repeatedly claims that the rich are overtaxed while we know that in 1 year Romney paid slightly more in taxes(unclear if it's income tax since Romney refuses to say the word) than the Middle Class and less than the 4th quantile.

so yes, were are obsessed with Romney not proving his claim...again, and again, and again.

Obama 2012/Romney 1040

Then why are GOP posters constantly blaming Obama for the national debt on this board? You cannot have it both ways.

Congress has passed a budget. It was shelved by the Democrats in the Senate who won't even propose their own budget. The blame goes to Harry Reid and Obama for failing to do jack about the budget.

obsessed with the tax rates of others

Because wanting progressive tax rates is such a bad thing, right?

The blame goes to Harry Reid and Obama for failing to do jack about the budget.

How does it go to Obama in the least? He submitted his budget every year on time. His work is done until Congress passes a budget. Your logic is broken.

it is Romney who repeatedly claims that the rich are overtaxed while we know that in 1 year Romney paid slightly more in taxes(unclear if it's income tax since Romney refuses to say the word) than the Middle Class and less than the 4th quantile.

so yes, were are obsessed with Romney not proving his claim...again, and again, and again.

Not saying rich are over taxed - saying the tax code is unfair to all and that Washington over spends.

Xabre: I said the policies he proposed (and were subsequently passed) were responsible for the debt. After all, it is 'Reaganomics' is it not?

But, Reagan didn't pass legislation, Congress did. Section 7, Section 8 as you say.

It's amusing watching this guy flail around in the wind trying to square this all up. At least all his arm gyrations do provide a cool breeze for all.

Obama/Biden 2012 - "More Hate - Less Results"

Jody, Iowa

...There was a time when conservatives argued facts as well but that disappeared not long after Reagan took them to his "shining city on the hill" built for those who had much by those who were fooled into believing that "shining city" was for them, could be theirs if they just believed the words of the Actor, Ronald Reagan.

Judging by Fairfax Bill's bizarro reverse-of-reality claim that recoveries are quicker from bad recessions than from mild ones, it appears that some of the rightwingers are living in one of Ronald Reagan's old movies. There was a Twilight Zone episode about an actress who did something like that because life in the real world was too depressing. Spooky!

Xabre

Except as presented the Ryan Plan actually isn't paid for. Therefore it increases the debt.

neither were the Bush tax cuts - yet the Republicans want to make them permanent. They couldn't pay for them then - they had to borrow money - and they cannot pay for them now. Now we pay hundreds of billions of dollars in interest for the Bush tax cuts mortgage.

The Republicans don't want to increase taxes on job creators that created no jobs under Bush - WTF?

Republicans are nothing more than fiscally irrensponsible hypocrites.

Obama 2012/Romney 1040

Feisty is absolutely correct in her post #1.1

If it were up to Romney and the GNOP, we would never become independent of oil until the last drop has been taken from the planet. It doesn't matter to them how much it pollutes the earth or how much money the oil companies take from people, just drill. The oil companies are the most corrupt subsidy in this country. They make Billions in profit every quarter and raise gas prices every chance they get saying they have to. An example is the recent refinery fire at the Chevron plant in CA. The company immediately raised gas prices. The plant was insured wasn't it? The company would get back what it cost them to repair the damage. But this was a perfect example of a company gauging the public. Now they get the money from the insurance company so there was no real loss, and they made more money to add to their record profit margins at the same time.

Oil companies should be held accountable to the people using their products to sell their goods at a fair price. But no. The republicans have wiped out regulations that would keep companies in check long ago.

Under Romney's plan he would encourage more drilling and more dependence on fossil fuels. At the same time, he would like to put the responsibility on individual states rather than the federal government. Great plan. If it fails he can disassociate from the failure saying he wasn't his fault, it was the fault of the states. If it helped in the short term, he would take all the credit.

The problem with what the republicans want for this country is that they fail to look any further into the future than today. They get massive support from the oil companies and the individuals running them to keep record profits flowing to their pockets at our expense through further financial loss and exacerbating global warming. Why is it that green energy is so unpopular with the republicans?

Because wanting progressive tax rates is such a bad thing, right?

The top 1% earn 17% of all taxable income and pay 37% of the tax load. That's a pretty progressive tax structure but you are still complaining!

(It's amusing watching this guy flail around in the wind trying to square this all up)

Not nearly as amusing as it is watching you deflect yet again on thirty years of failed economics policies that is the cornerstone of your political ideologies. Probably why you never have an opinion of your own, you merely deflect and contort what others have said.

The top 1% earn 17% of all taxable income and pay 37% of the tax load. That's a pretty progressive tax structure but you are still complaining!

Q22: I complain about people like Mitt Romney who pay less than an effective rate than I do. For those at the very top (who can rely on capital gains as their main / only source of income, the system is broken. To make matters worse, not only do Romney and Ryan not propose to fix the situation, they propose to exacerbate it.

I am middle class. Personally, I fell that almost every politician has forsaken the middle class. Where is a candidate that represents me ? If you read stats, the middle class is getting skewered right now.

How does it go to Obama in the least? He submitted his budget every year on time. His work is done until Congress passes a budget. Your logic is broken.

His budget garnered no votes. Not a single Democrat or Republican. Obviously not a serious effort and all for show.

I'm glad to see that Wisconsin is doubtful as I wouldn't want us to be put in a category of the states with the poorest educational systems and most backward that appear in the republican't column

Q22 - that's because the damn House GOP won't put it up for a vote, genius.

How can anything get any votes if it's never brought up for a vote?

Sheesh.

Recovery from Hoover's Great Depression took over a decade and World War II.

Real GDP growth in the years 1934-1937 was 10.9%, 8.9%, 13.1% and 5.1% respectively. Such was the strength of the rebound coming out of the trough of the Depression in the years 1930-1933. While the economy double-dipped downward in 1938, that does not refute the reality of the enormously robust initial recovery from the worst years of the downturn. So, as usual, you're the one living in Fantasyland – the land devoid of FACTS.

http://bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xls

Joanna, since you are to dumb to tie your own shoes, let me try to explain debt. Spending more money then you take in. Debt. Reagan increased spending and the size of government and we are still paying for much of that, Bush 1 was a push pretty much Clinton got spending under control, reduced the size and scope of government and offered a balanced budget to Bush which produced a surplus that could have reduced the debt in time. Bush 2 again increased the size of Government, and spent like what you rightys claim democrats do and in addition started two wars and the drug benefit that wasn't in his budget. Then he left Obama a budget that had a deficit of 1.3 trillion dollars that Obama has to pay. Is obligated to pay. Obama has actually reduced the size of government and lowered spending but still hasn't been able to get those tea bags in congress to help in any way that would put Americans back to work and solve the deficit problem. IT WAS BUSH'S FAULT. YOU ARE A REPUBLICAN SCUM BAG.

Q22,

The so called President’s budget was a mock up with numbers only no wording to explain anything and the faux budget was submitted by Republicans.

Who in their right mind would vote for that?

Q22

Not saying rich are over taxed - saying the tax code is unfair to all and that Washington over spends.

that's why Romney wants to cut taxes for the highest 5% while slashing tax breaks for mortgage interest, employer-provided health care, education, medical expenses, state and local taxes, and child care — all breaks that benefit the middle class.

And while Romney is "concerned" with Washington spending, he wants to increase the defense spending.

Go blow smoke up someone else's a$$

Q22 - you do realize your avatar is smarter than you, right?

The top 1 percent today gets around 20 percent of the nation's income — twice what it did two decades ago. The top 0.1 percent's share has almost tripled. Disparities in wealth are even greater.

Some on the right also assert that those at the top deserve their higher incomes. They earned it, conservatives say. Their riches were due to their greater contribution to society, from which all benefit.

Much of the top-most wealth instead comes because of successful "rent seeking." Economists use the term "rents" for income derived from owning an asset, rather than from effort. "Rent seeking" refers to attempts to garner a larger share of the economic pie, rather than making the pie larger.

Monopolists, for example, gain their wealth through restricting production — which makes the size of the pie smaller. When we look at divided societies abroad, like so many of the dysfunctional oil-rich countries, we diagnose their problem as an infliction of excessive rent seeking — too much of society's resources go to attempts to grab a larger share of the oil wealth, too little to expanding the economy. What we don't realize is the extent to which the United States, too, has become a rent-seeking society.

And you can stuff that crap about the rich paying the majority of taxes. 36% of federal revenues come from PAYROLL TAXES. Those are paid ONLY by working people, NONE by people like Mitt Romney

His budget garnered no votes. Not a single Democrat or Republican. Obviously not a serious effort and all for show.

Q22: Congress doesn't vote on the President's budget request, they vote on the bill they draft based off of it (or whatever they want to) after it goes through resolution and committees. You need to educate yourself more on the budget process before you post next.

little bob numbers, ever cross your mind that if it was an "imaginary" tax issue, Mitt Romney would have released his tax returns ages ago. Trust him? The guy lied about paying taxes in Massachusetts so he could run for Governor yet refused to provide proof that he had and then voters found out he had not. He's got millions stashed in off-shore accounts to avoid paying taxes in the US; those are PO Boxes not legitimate businesses and yet, conservatives say it is an "imaginary" issue. The issue is not how much money Mitt Romney has but rather his integrity, his honesty and his moral character--his refusal to be transparent with voters as every previous presidential candidate has for decades by claiming it's no ones business should make every voter question his integrity, his honesty and his moral character. Trust him? Why? What has Mitt Romney done to deserve that trust? What is Mitt hiding? It must be politically fatal information or he would have no problem releasing his tax records. Mitt Romney is either a bold-faced liar or a man with no core because he has been on both sides of every issue since he first entered politics. Trust him? No thanks.

Q22 - that's because the damn House GOP won't put it up for a vote, genius.

Um..... It didn't get any Yes votes. It went up for a vote in the house and was defeated 414-0. The Senate defeated it 99-0. Try again, genius.

Q22

The top 1% earn 17% of all taxable income and pay 37% of the tax load.

is that why Romney pays about what the Middle Class family pays? And this is assuming that he IS paying income tax at all since the lying hypocrite won't use the word "income" or show us what he actually pays.

Romney tells the truth 27% of the time and spcifically avoids the word INCOME when he talks about his taxes. For almost 20 years this tax issue has been following Romney - yet in 20 years Romney cannot get the right sentence out: Is he that stupid or is he that deliberate?

Q22, is Romney stupid or is Romney deliberately not saying the word 'income'. It's one or the other so which one is it? The choice is yours.

Hey Smitty - Amazing how your perspective seems to be somewhat off. If you feel the liberals don't bulls#!t with their ideas, thoughts and expressions, do tell me how come they haven't perfected the world yet... I mean if their way is so much better than why isn't everyone buying into it, why we haven't reached universal harmony and arrived at Xanadu?

Economic Policy Institute:

Growth in Income: 1979 to 2007

Economic Policy Institute:

Growth in Income: 1979 to 2007

Trickle-down is working as intended. Nothing to see here.

Xabre: Congress doesn't vote on the President's budget request

And the lies continue. So what committees did Obama's budget go through in the Senate Xabre? What amendments were offered, what were the results of the votes on those amendments. Don't bother looking, there were none. Just the zero votes.

It's clear you will defend the Queen Bee Obama at every turn. The strangeness and obfuscation you go through is, . . . . well, interesting. Certainly you can't defend Obamanomics, it has truly been a failure. Your feeble attempts to pin it back to Reagan is nothing more than the phony smoke-and-mirrors all liberals are going through these days. Just like Obama said at his coronation at the 2008 Democratic convention:

We measure progress by how many people can find a job that pays the mortgage; whether you can put away a little extra money at the end of each month so that you can someday watch your child receive her diploma. We measure progress in the 23 million new jobs that were created when Bill Clinton was president - when the average American family saw its income go up $7,500 instead of down $2,000 like it has under George Bush.

Barack H. Obama - Democratic National Convention 2008

Looks like there has not been much progress. Maybe this time Obama can talk about the number of people on unemployment, food stamps, welfare, and Medicaid. Maybe this time he can talk about the record deficits and the record debt he has accomplished on his watch. That can be his "progress". There is no defense for that Xabre. But there is room for lies and distortions about it, something you have proven to be up for the task to provide.

I'll let you have the last word.

TO: Q22 who wrote:

Congress has passed a budget. It was shelved by the Democrats in the Senate who won't even propose their own budget. The blame goes to Harry Reid and Obama for failing to do jack about the budget.

Well, what was in the House budget? Do you even know? Let me guess, tons of tax breaks for mega-millionaires, and tax hikes for Working Americans, which is why it failed in the Senate.

I'd bet dollars to donuts you don't have a clue what Republicans are doing or what they're trying to do. You're flying in the blind, trying to support things you don't even understand for one reason only, a Republican "mentioned" it, not explained anything truthfully, just "mentioned" something.

I don't see how you can "blame" anybody without blaming Bush and his Republican Administration first, since Bush is the one who got us where we are, and Bush did a really nasty job at doing things that hurt the American People the most.

After Osama Bin Laden hit us on 9/11 he made his 2nd terrorist "wish" against the American People, which was to destroy the entire United States Economy. Bush accomplished that, while he was in the Oval Office.

Republicans can't put 2 and 2 together worth a crap, but they want to be in charge of everything and everybody in spite of the fact that they prove themselves to be incompetent nearly each and every day.

Obama/Biden 2012

Xabre said: Not nearly as amusing as it is watching you deflect yet again on thirty years of failed economics policies that is the cornerstone of your political ideologies. Probably why you never have an opinion of your own, you merely deflect and contort what others have said.

Let's see... 30 years of pretty good successes... 17 months and then failure.... Hmmm let me make that hard decision... 30 years or 17 months... 30 years or 17 months... I'll choose the 30 years over the 17 months it took democrats to destroy our economy. Maybe Xabre thinks 17 months is a very long time for democrat successes... Xabre must have been sleeping for 30 years, but on anxious overdrive for 17 months while the democrats were destroying the economy... I guess Xabre feels the democrats are absolute wizzes at controlling the economy.

And the lies continue. So what committees did Obama's budget go through in the Senate Xabre?

You have absolutely no clue whatsoever.

Here you go:

House and Senate Appropriations Committees hold hearings, taking testimony from OMB, executive agency officials and others. Each subcommittee is charged with developing one appropriation bill:

1. Agriculture, rural revelopment, Food and Drug Administration
2. Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary
3. Defense
4. District of Columbia
5. Energy and water development
6. Foreign operations, export financing
7. Homeland Security
8. Interior
9. Labor, Health and Human Services, Education
10. Legislative Branch
11. Military construction
12. Transportation, Treasury, General Government
13. Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, Independent Agencies

Go back to deflecting JoAnnaSmith1, because every time you post an opinion it turns out to be false.

Let's see... 30 years of pretty good successes... 17 months and then failure.... Hmmm let me make that hard decision... 30 years or 17 months... 30 years or 17 months... I'll choose the 30 years over the 17 months it took democrats to destroy our economy. Maybe Xabre thinks 17 months is a very long time for democrat successes... Xabre must have been sleeping for 30 years, but on anxious overdrive for 17 months while the democrats were destroying the economy... I guess Xabre feels the democrats are absolute wizzes at controlling the economy.

Success? You call towering national debt and a shrinking middle class success?

Mitt Romney claims to be a business person and his experience will fix everything. The most important thing a business does is set the price of their product. In the case of government, service to the people is the product. Government provides the services demanded by its citizens. The prices of those services are taxes collected. We can argue about what services to provide and how much to charge for them, but until we cut something, the correct price has to be collected. Congress has to set the services and prices (taxes) charged. It is difficult to determine the correct price until a fair price that covers costs is achieved. The government is not exactly like a business, cutting the price does not increase demand for more service the same way as a price cut on a product will produce more demand for it. Until Mitt understands that providing government without charging the price to cover costs, he will fail for the same reason most businesses fail, not setting the correct price for the product provided. As long as the Norquist Congress believes we can provide more services at a cheaper price, we will fail.

is that why Romney pays about what the Middle Class family pays? And this is assuming that he IS paying income tax at all since the lying hypocrite won't use the word "income" or show us what he actually pays.

First, I was talking about the 1% in general, not Romney specifically. Romney is rich. Big deal - so was Kerry but no one cared then. Romney doesn't have a job right now because he made a lot of money when he did work (and paid lots of taxes on that income). Because he no longer earn wages he is living off his investments which is taxed at a lower rate than payroll tax (presumably because - as investments - they are subject to risk). He also pays nothing in Social Security and Medicare since those are also payroll taxes. This is no different than it was when Kerry ran and Edwards (Actually Edwards was really devious because he created a Sub chapter S corp and paid himself low wages and took most of his money as dividends as an obvious scheme to avoid paying income tax, Fica and Medicare tax.) I never heard any of you high minded liberals complaining at all about their taxes. Romney pays all the taxes he is required to under the law. Until Obama refuses to take any deductions to lower his tax burden you are all just a bunch of hypocrites.

Bill in Fairfax -

Hmmm, seems like the CBO takes issue with you and the esteemed leftist troll Krugman. In fact, the CBO analysis shows the Ryan approach leads to a dramatic reduction in the federal debt as compared to the current path.

Actually the CBO report you cite used Paul Ryan's revenue and spending numbers for 2012-2022, the ten years I included in my analysis. SO how does the CBO uisng Paul Ryan's numbers prove Paul Ryan's numbers are realistic?

The CBO then uses their estimates of revenue and spending after 2022.

And as for those "unspecified" tax loopholes, surely a man of your intelligence understands that the Ryan plan is formally submitted to the House in the form of a Budget Resolution (hint: it's the kind of thing the Senate hasn't done for three years). And surely you would know the role that resolution plays in the congressional budget process. And that at this point in the process, "unspecified" details are the norm. Study up, junior.

Your logic is as flawed as Ryan's. Why are all the Tax Cuts detailed and specifed, but the tax loopholes that would be eliminated are not? Don't Tax Cuts have to go through the same resolution process?

In order for his plan to actually achieve ANY deficit reduction over the next ten years, the "unspecified" tax loopholes would have to be larger than the detailed tax cuts, and the "unspecified" spending cuts to discretionary spending would have to be big enough to more than offset the increase in military spending.

Surely a man of your supposed intellilectual stature has to realize that the math does not add up, and the Ryan Budget is indeed a fantasy. Do your homework, and actually read the details of what you link to your posts.

Because he no longer earn wages he is living off his investments which is taxed at a lower rate than payroll tax (presumably because - as investments - they are subject to risk).

Is that why losses are taken into account when they are taxed?

Q22

Um..... It didn't get any Yes votes. It went up for a vote in the house and was defeated 414-0. The Senate defeated it 99-0. Try again, genius.

i will simplify the budget process for you because you apparently cannot do your own research to find out why no Democrats voted for Obama's budget:

1. Obama gives a budget proposal (blueprint)

2. the House and Senate Budget Committees develops its own budget resolution

3. Republicans introduce a budget amendment that they know the Dems will not vote for

4. Then, Republicans force a vote on a bill that was supposed to resemble the president's budget, but wasn't actually the president's budget.

5. Voila, you have an Obama budget that no Democrats voted for and all the Republican talking points that come with it.

And you follow the propaganda like a blind sheep....

Thanks Bayllie.

Xabre-

Success? You call towering national debt and a shrinking middle class success?

They call it success because that was the plan all along - Class Warfare was waged, and the Middle Class lost.

i will simplify the budget process for you because you apparently cannot do your own research to find out why no Democrats voted for Obama's budget:

1. Obama gives a budget proposal (blueprint)

2. the House and Senate Budget Committees develops its own budget resolution

3. Republicans introduce a budget amendment that they know the Dems will not vote for

4. Then, Republicans force a vote on a bill that was supposed to resemble the president's budget, but wasn't actually the president's budget.

5. Voila, you have an Obama budget that no Democrats voted for and all the Republican talking points that come with it.

And you follow the propaganda like a blind sheep....

The Republicans submitted and passed a budget in the house. And where is the Senate's budget resolution???

* Crickets *

They call it success because that was the plan all along - Class Warfare was waged, and the Middle Class lost.

The funny thing is, that in doing so they shot themselves in the foot. Ruin the middle class and you ruin the economy.

The Republicans submitted and passed a budget in the house. And where is the Senate's budget resolution???

* Crickets *

Here you go slick.

[DOT]senate[DOT]gov/2012/01/24/fact-sheet-responding-to-republican-no-budget-claims/

John in Battle Creek said: Joanna, since you are to dumb to tie your own shoes, let me try to explain debt.

When all else fails, use insults to make your point, right John? Let me tell you, your entire post is nothing but BS. Government has grown... By many measures, the federal government has indeed grown during Obama's tenure. Spending as a share of the economy has gone up. The number of federal employees has risen. More Americans are relying on federal assistance. If this isn't growth by definition, then debt by definition is down... in your world.

Brian: I guess Xabre feels the democrats are absolute wizzes at controlling the economy.

What is clear is how Team Obama and the liberals plan to frame the economy. Argue the minutia, blame the past (the GOP in general, Bush in particular), and be critical of any plans from the GOP. To debate the economic results on their watch is political suicide to Obama. Throw in some manufactured polls (What? NBC fabricate the news? Surely you jest!)

There is a singularity to Obama's and the liberals task. They need to obfuscate the economic facts about what they are responsible for and render blame on anyone but themselves for the results of their actions. To pull this off they'll need a complaisant media, which so far they have, but it may turn on them if anyone of Team Obama starts to waver. The goal of Team Obama is to keep the focus off of themselves and keep it on the trivial. They may pull it off. Certainly the GOP would never be allowed to do so.

soazDan

bayllie, are you really that ignorant? He doesn't pay about what the middle class pays-he pays millions

OMG, you didn't just say what I think you said, and you are calling me ignorant. Do me a favor, and do some research on zero-sum game because that's what wealth is. It's a cake. The bigger piece you have the less is left for the rest.

The taxes are paid on 100% of the cake - in theory of course because we know some don't pay taxes. So Romney is supposed to pay more in $$$ since he has a bigger piece than Middle Class who have a smaller piece so your claim that he pays MILLIONS is useless. The question is: does Romney pay his fair share.

BTW, 1 Romney annual income = about 1000 HOUSEHOLD incomes. Ofcourse this is a total guess since NONE of us have seen Romney's taxes.

he pays millions

How do you know what he pays??? Have you seen Romney's taxes?

Obama 2012/Romney 1040

http://www.upworthy.com/a-tea-partier-decided-to-pick-a-fight-with-a-foreign-president-it-didnt-go-so-we

And there's JoAnnaSmith1, back with the usual deflection after realizing that budgets do indeed go through committees.

When all else fails, use insults to make your point, right John?

She posted that the budget process of going through Senate and House committees was a lie. I'll leave it at that.

Under Romney's plan he would encourage more drilling and more dependence on fossil fuels. At the same time, he would like to put the responsibility on individual states rather than the federal government. Great plan.

Nomoresameo, I wrote a paper in college 30 yrs ago on the subject of alternative energy sources and you know what? In those 30 years there have only been modest leaps in alternative energy technologies. Rather than cripple our economy (which requires energy to run) by limiting our usage of fossil fuels, let us use fossil fuel based energies as well as the others, wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric and nuclear until such a time that significant breakthroughs in efficiency of alternative energy sources develop. As we have seen recently with Solyndra (and other companies the government recently gave funds to), is that proper decision making is absent when it is the taxpayer's money being used to fund such programs. (Who cares what money is lost when it isn't yours right?) If those business decisions are made by private companies, more care will be put into decision making because the decision makers have a vested interest in the outcome. Perhaps, then the advances we need will come about. Putting government in charge of the advancement in new energy technologies is the wrong idea.

I imagine, you must have been against the keystone pipeline? How much is gas /gallon in your area?

In those 30 years there have only been modest leaps in alternative energy technologies.

Then I suggest you go back to school. Technology in fields such as nuclear fusion, or even photovoltaic cells have advanced dramatically.

TNSEVOL

They call it success because that was the plan all along - Class Warfare was waged, and the Middle Class lost.

because desperate, uneducated workforce = cheap labor= bigger bottom line

Read the above comments, our country is too divided to exist. Little wonder why there are no jobs, no expectations for the future, no wages for the middle class that is exiting existance. Where are your politicians in all this? Bend over you'll find out. They are NOT on your side. They are too busy getting wealthy. The country is being bought out. This alone should piss you off with a commitment to join together to oust those that keep this country from being all it can be. It's not about right/left, or red/blue, get a grip and get rid of both that cannot work for we the people. Get rid of the MONEY in politics. Quit allowing our elections to be bought and paid for by the highest bidders.

Xabre said: Success? You call towering national debt and a shrinking middle class success?

That's from your perspective only. You are talking about a period of over 30 years with many inputs from democratically controlled congresses. You insist that it's all the republicans fault, but tell me Xabre, didn't the democrats have ANYTHING to do with it? Are you telling me that the democrats never controlled congress or the presidency during that period of time? Are you insane?

Why is it all one sided with you? You only blame one party when both parties had input. Are you blind? Do you type by braille and pass your hands over your screen to read things? What's your excuse?

Why did the economy collapse while under democrat control 17 months after they took over? The debt during Bush's 8 years was $4 trillion and we fought 2 wars at the same time. Don't give me the standard liberal lie that the wars weren't included in the budget... they were paid for none the less and the debt was still only $4 trillion. Enter Obama and the democratic Congress and after 4 years we add an additional $5.3 trillion? What's your excuse now Xabre? Trickle down? You aren't telling me that the democrats adopted it as their own...

Like I said... 30 years or 16 months... I'll definitely choose the 30 years.

chris, dorr...

your posts are such a bore...the exact same drivel on every vine...

Funny, though. You must have gotten a raise from MSNBC...seems you are beating FR as to who gets the first post. LOL!!!

Romney/Ryan 2012!

What's your excuse now Xabre? Trickle down? You aren't telling me that the democrats adopted it as their own...

Actually Obama did, as he extended the Bush Tax Cuts (for all). This is because you never raise taxes on the middle class during a recession or recovery. However, since the Bush Tax cuts are a main driver in the deficit, Obama proposed ending the cuts for those making over $250,000 (i.e. undoing trickle-down) but the GOP can't have that, can they?

I'm with you cantakenomore. These clowns that are voting for O/Joe are part of the 100 MILLION on some kind of government assistance on the backs of the hardworking taxpayer that don't want their freebies taken away. They are shameful and shouldn't be allowed to vote if you have NO skin in the game!

IR

services demanded by its citizens

Social Security was not demanded by the citizens. Medicare was not demanded by the citizens, Medicaid was not demandeded by the citizens.

Whatever school that teaches such rubbish should be closed.

Obama lied through his teeth repeatedly to get elected the first time. I think the fine people in the battleground states of Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin, in addition to other states, will be smart enough to see through all of his BS and see the truth. They should be saying to themselves: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me", and vote for the men that can truly make a positive difference in ALL of our lives, Romney and Ryan, and not for Obama / Biden (a joke of a VP) who appeal to those dependent on government for handouts. We desperately need a BUSINESSMAN in the office of the Presidency for a change, not a career politician. Having another four years of Obama scares the hell out of me because WE WILL become another Greece, but on steroids, by the time he is done destroying the country. And, having dopey Biden one step from the Presidency also scares the hell out of me.

However, since the Bush Tax cuts are a main driver in the deficit...

And who told you that load of BS...the Huffington Post??

You could take all the money...hear me?? ALL the money from the top 1% and it wouldn't dent our deficit/debt...SHEEESH!

alan290 flip the channels every now and then and stop listening to bush lambaugh

The Obama wants me to have medical insurance for pre-existing conditions, but Romney says no.

Why are the fat diabetic Republicans against medical care?

Bill 'Fair'Faux sees fit to give us the "imaginary recovery"

So I'll see his cynicism and raise him an

Imaginary McCain Presidency:

http://blogs.hbr.org/fox/2012/08/economic-record-of-the-mccain-presidency.html?referral=00563&cm_mmc=email-_-newsletter-_-daily_alert-_-alert_date&utm_source=newsletter_daily_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alert_date

Bottom line,...Having an R behind your name doesn't change where we were or where we are - other than the double down on petulance and obstruction.

"Country be damned" - any Republican anywhere who thinks they got 'theirs'!

DB, if there is no demand, simply send a letter to your congress person and have them introduce a bill to eleminate them. Should be simple to pass and phase out if there is no demand. Let me know how that works out.

Xabre said: Actually Obama did, as he extended the Bush Tax Cuts (for all). This is because you never raise taxes on the middle class during a recession or recovery. However, since the Bush Tax cuts are a main driver in the deficit, Obama proposed ending the cuts for those making over $250,000 (i.e. undoing trickle-down) but the GOP can't have that, can they?

See this is where we have a differing opinion. I believe spending is out of control. The government does not live within it's means. They give way, way too much money away to people, social programs, other countries, mistakes such as green energy, tax credits to rich companies... most of this stuff is for votes. The dependent citizenry demands government to give to them...

Tax cuts would work just fine if the government would control spending. Why can't you see the government is just too large in this country? We don't need half the programs we have... we don't need to be giving billions away to other nations... but only blame it on tax cuts... never blame it on politicians buying votes.

The government could tax all the rich Americans 100% of their income, steal all their money and take all their goods and you wouldn't even touch the deficit this year. Is this what you want?

Feisty,

Top of the morning to you!

Wouldn't the idiot from Albany either

A. Have to HAVE character

or B. At least know how to SPELL character?

PSST,...and in a "you can't make this up" moment - one of the other idiots is mocking the president for giving a speech on education.

PRICELESS!

Those 'polls' have some glaring problems with them;

1 - They are mostly polls of 'Registered Voters', which typically overstate Obama's support by about 4% (based on history) because Republicans are far more likely to vote - see link below.

2 - Most of them over-sample Democrats by about 30% to 50% when surveys show that those who self-identify a party affiliation show equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats (about 35% each). This is important because exit polls show that people typically vote 'party-line' for President. This results in a false bias in favor of Obama by about 6%.

3 - The last factor that is not actually included in these polls is that the 'Undecided Voters' typically 'break for the challenger' by 75% to 85% (based on history). This will give Romney an additional boost as the election nears.

At this time, the most experienced pollsters (Gallup and Rasmussen) have Romney ahead by 2% to 6% among 'Likely Voters' - those that actually vote. All of the pollsters will switch to Likely Voters just before the election to avoid an embarrassing 'miss' when comparisons are made with actual results. When you factor in the historical adjustments and use the 'Likely Voter' polls by State from Realclearpolitics.com, you get an estimated electoral vote breakdown as follows;

Electoral Votes for Romney = 316

Electoral Votes for Obama = 196

Electoral Votes toss-up = 26

Here are some links to help explain how to REALLY interpret polls;

http://www.polimerican.com/adults-vs-registered-vs-likely-voters/

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/10/the_incumbent_r.html

What a bunch of liberal jug heads! Getting taken to the cleaners by Obama and thanking him for it. Smoke another Joint you Jug heads!

"Huh? Maybe in Bill Fairfax's own private Bizzaro World. Recovery from Hoover's Great Depression took over a decade and World War II." - Houston!

Only a liberal could find a world filled with fact to be "Bizzaro World". Thanks for finally admitting that.

The list of US recessions and depressions dating back to the Great Depression and ordered by depth of downturn correlates on an almost exact one-to-one basis with the list of US recoveries dating back to the Great Depression and ordered by strength of recovery. That is except for the current Obama "recovery" as Bill Fairfax noted.

David walker...

So you don't think that romneys business experience is a plus. You also probably think that being a governor having to work with a bipartisan mix of state senators and state reps also has no validity for preparing anyone for the position of POTUS.

How misinformed you are. Lets review obamas qualifications in 2008...

He was the US jr senator from illinois. What committees did he lead to pass bipartisan supported legislation during his short term?

He was a partisan state senator from illinois prior to his run for the US senate. Did his stint in state government necessitate having to lead any committees? At best maybe one.

What branch of military service did he serve in? Seems like this is a tie between romney and obama.

Other than university courses what experience did obama have regarding foreign affairs? Looks like another tie if you discount romneys overseas missionary work. Did he head up any US senate foreign affairs commitees as a jr US senator?

Is obama any better than romney when delivering non-teleprompted speeches? They both have shown a propensity to make verbal gaffs, so here is another tie.

Obama never ran or created any business leading to any type of economic growth within the private sector. Romney has and yes not every business venture was a success. Kind of like 80% of new startups fail within 18 months. Bain capital seems to have a higher success rate than this.

Obama has consistantly promoted partisan politics by assigning blame everywhere but on himself. Only in a recent charlie rose interview did he allude to having made a mistake. Just go to charlierose.com to find it. While obama is spreading blame, romney is talking about unifying the country and moving forward economically. You know, using obamas own "hope and change" attitude for Americas future.

Yep david, romney does have more experience going for him now than what obama had in 2008. Of course romney is unlikely to ever have the politically smooth talk of obama. Not exactly a deal breaker for POTUS if romney can deliver unity.

Look, I get that some of you think Obama is the worst thing to happen to America. I get that you would vote for literally ANYONE but him. But you need to realize you are in the minority here. You can't win this election with the idea that "Obama is awful, so vote for us". Many of us see both his flaws and his successes and don't think he is that awful. So to win this election, you need to provide something. The GOP actually needs to run on something other than "We're not Obama!"

The first thing that causes me to mistrust the GOP is something pretty general: If Obama is so horrible for America, why do you have to lie? Why lie about all these things? Why not tell the truth about Obama? Is it because your claim that he is awful for America is a lie, and the only way to back it up is with more lies? That's the only logical conclusion.

If the GOP's ideas and policy are really best for Americans, why are they trying to limit voters? There have been 10 cases of voter fraud in the last 2 presidential elections. For being fiscal conservatives, this seems like an awful big waste of money to spend on something that is so minimal (until you realize that the VAST majority of people who will be affected by this vote Democrat). And why is it necessary to extend voting periods in Republican counties in Ohio while shortening them in Democratic counties in Ohio? Are you afraid that if you made voting accessible to all of America that you would lose? That's the only logical conclusion (Congressman Turzai said himself that "Voter ID laws will allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania. Done").

Let's look at the slogan for the RNC, shall we. The official slogan is "We Built This" which is a reference to a statement Obama made (and don't get me started on the irony of a convention whose slogan is proclaiming the success of full privatization while hosting the same convention inside a building that was built using public funds). A statement that has been proven, repeatedly, by people from both sides of the aisle, to be taken out of context. Romney himself stated it was taken out of context. Yet it is still being used.

Let's just look at the GOP in general. Why should I vote for a party that celebrates ignorance? Why should I support a party that across the board fights the teaching of evolution in schools (they say it's only a "theory". You know what else are scientific theories? The atom, gravity, and Einstein's relativity). Why should I vote for a party who placed a member on the House Science Committee who doesn't understand basic principles of human reproduction (it doesn't matter that he's been taken off, the fact that he was placed on that committee while being this stupid is my point)? By the way, I can't even begin to understand the mental gymnastics someone has to do to argue that a fetus is a human life that is being murdered by abortion, but it's suddenly ok to murder that baby when the mother was raped. I can't understand how sometimes it's a miracle from God and a precious life we must save, but if the mother was raped it's A-OK to abort it. If you're going to say life starts at conception, you can't flip-flop on that. But now I'm getting sidetracked...

Why should I support a party who released this statement in Texas as their position on education:

Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

They're opposed to critical thinking?! Can you think of no better way to ruin America's future economy? Our manufacturing jobs are all going overseas, and the only jobs we still thrive with utilize critical thinking!

The GOP opposes gay marriage. Let's ignore the emotional aspect and just look at the legal aspects. Either: 1. Marriage is a religious ceremony and the federal/state governments have no right to impose any limits on gay marriage under the First Amendment or 2. Marriage is a civil union which provides many rights to married couples, and the federal/state governments have no right to impose any limits on gay marriage under the 14th Amendment.

The GOP opposes women's rights. Equal pay? Voted against. Banning abortions? For it.

Look at their attitude towards teachers. And labor unions. And Muslims. And minorities. And Atheists. And liberals. And scientists. And women. And gays. And students. And immigrants. Look at their attitude towards ANYONE other than rich white males who are Christian.

And you want me to overlook ALL of this? All of this lying and manipulating? All this poor treatment of everyone but the select few in their own ranks? All of this STUPIDITY? You want me to overlook all of this because the GOP's plan is so much better?

I wholeheartedly agree that Obama is not perfect and that there are plenty of things he's done wrong. In a different election year, I would definitely consider voting for someone else. I would LOVE it if the GOP put forth an actual nominee and we could look at the policies of being a fiscal conservative. But we can't.

This is what the GOP deserves. They sold their souls to the extreme right wing evangelicals to try to motivate a part of their base that was apathetic towards voting. They allowed crazy into their party, and it is our right, no, our duty, to beat the @!$%# out of them in the polls until it is made perfectly clear that this is unacceptable.

Whatever, none of this rant matters. I guarantee you that every person that is still reading this someone who didn't need to hear this to begin with.

I WANT TO GET RE-ELECTED"

*If any other of our presidents had criticized a state law that he admitted he never even read, would you think that he is just an ignorant hothead? *

*If any other of our presidents joined the country of Mexico and sued a state in the United States to force that state to continue to allow illegal immigration, would you question his patriotism and wonder whose side he was on? *

*If any other of our presidents had pronounced the Marine Corps like Marine Corpse, would you think him an idiot? *

*If any other of our presidents had put 87,000 workers out of work by arbitrarily placing a moratorium on offshore oil drilling on companies that have one of the best safety records of any industry because one foreign company had an accident, would you have agreed? *

*If any other of our presidents had used a forged document as the basis of the moratorium that would render 87000 American workers unemployed would you support him? *

*If any other of our presidents had been the first President to need a Teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes? *

*If any other of our presidents had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take his First Lady to a play in NYC, would you have approved? *

*If any other of our presidents had reduced your retirement plan holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved? *

*If any other of our presidents had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved? *

*If any other of our presidents had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved? *

*If any other of our presidents had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought it a proud moment for America ? *

*If any other of our presidents had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia would you have approved? *

*If any other of our presidents had visited Austria and made reference to the nonexistent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip? *

*If any other of our presidents had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved? *

*If any other of our presidents had stated that there were 57 states in the United States, wouldn't you have had second thoughts about his capabilities? *

*If any other of our presidents would have flown all the way to Denmark to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him walking out his front door in his home town, would you not have thought he was a self-important, conceited, egotistical jerk?*

*If any other of our presidents had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, wouldn't you have winced in embarrassment? *

*If any other of our presidents had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?*

*If any other of our presidents' administrations had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on

9-11? *

*If any other of our presidents had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence? *

*If any other of our presidents had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate
on much of what is happening in America, would you have ever approved? *

*If any other of our presidents had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved? *

*So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? *

*Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 34 months so you don't have that much time to come up with an answer.*

*Every statement and action in this email is factual and directly attributable to Barack Hussein Obama. Every bumble is a matter of record and completely verifiable. *

AND NOW-- HE ACTUALLY WANTS US TO RE-ELECT HIM!

WAKE UP AMERICA 2012 IS UPON US!

Please forward this to someone. I CANNOT AFFORD TO TAKE A CHANCE ON THIS GUY FOR ANOTHER FOUR YEARS . . .

Barack Obama is an intelligent, honest, incisive, and compassionate man. He has dedicated his life to helping his community and his country.

Mitt Romney is a pathological liar. He is clueless, self-centered, awkward around people, and utterly lacking in the passion needed to lead our country. He has spent his life doing one thing: making lots of money. He has made so much money that he has to stash it in secret accounts all over the world.

No single man (or woman) can rescue us from the creeping cancer of a government in thrall to corporations and the uber-wealthy. This country operates on the principle of one citizen, one vote. That is far less common in this world than I care to contemplate. Only we, the people, can save our democracy.

So get out there and vote in November, and take your family, friends, neighbors and co-workers with you. This is our only home in the world, and we are the only ones who can preserve this experiment in government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

OBAMA/BIDEN 2012

I'll take the guy for 4 more years and skip the anti-woman, religious cult member.

Mike in SA

Only a liberal could find a world filled with fact to be "Bizzaro World". Thanks for finally admitting that.

The list of US recessions and depressions dating back to the Great Depression and ordered by depth of downturn correlates on an almost exact one-to-one basis with the list of US recoveries dating back to the Great Depression and ordered by strength of recovery.

Only a wingnut twit would claim that the recovery from the Great Depression was "strong" when it took over a decade. I watched the head of the CBO on C-Span explain that recoveries from severe recessions take longer than recoveries from milder recessions, but what does he know? He's obviously doesn't understand how things work in Wingnut Bizzaro World.

BTW: Recoveries from recessions involving collapses of the financial markets take longer than recoveries from recessions caused by other factors. And of course, the entire country is now paying for the nasty gambling habits of Wall Street greed addicts who are pouring money into Romney's campaign so they can do it again like they did it in '08.

You know what, I'm not done yet. For this post, let's actually examine the GOP's fiscal policy.

Just to summarize the GOP's main argument, it's that we have too much government in the economy. Too much regulation. Not enough privatization. And by removing the Government from the economy, it will provide the free market with enough freedom to fix this mess.

They think everyone will just be responsible and cooperative without government intervention, yet they fail to realize that the only reason we even have government regulatory bodies is because we already tried the whole conservative idea of not telling business how to do business and it ended with us being impoverished, sick, and unable to do jack about it because there was no authority from the publicly created and operated government to do anything to help us. So we made the regulatory bodies and things improved, and it was ONLY after we started reducing their power under the pretense that it was too costly that things started going downhill again. We cannot have an effective government if the government which is supposed to represent our society is weaker than literally any single person or group within the society.

Business cannot override the will of the people, period, or else the entire function of government, which is to exert the will of the majority without causing undue harm or hardship for the minority, is decimated and pointless. Taxing businesses at a percentage of their income and allowing them to write off certain necessary expenses is not undue hardship, its the price you pay to keep the government alive and make sure it can protect you and your business from unfair business practices by others, along with all the other services it offers.

Jesus, the sheer ignorance of these people is unbelievable! To think that by reducing the strength of your own democratic voice to shape the way this society works you're going to enhance your freedoms? Please, all you'll end up doing is obeying some private party which isn't legally obligated to do what you and the rest of your society wants it to and will abuse that privilege and power to screw you over at every opportunity. We've seen it time and time and time again in every civilization that's ever tried it, and it always ends the same way with an oppressed people who have no way to free themselves because they've eliminated the only force they had to protect them legally (note to you people who love guns and think that'll protect you: you're laughably naive if you think owning guns is going to protect you from a corporation that has nothing stopping it from taking everything you have under laws it crafted)

You hate the government now? No, you hate the private parties who have used their power and influence and wealth to take over the government and use it to push their own agenda contrary to what might actually benefit our country.

Lets review obamas qualifications in 2008...

Why? Do you have a time machine that would take us back to 2008? We need to live in the here and now. We need to deal with reality. That's a tough concept for the GOP.

It is 2012. Barack Obama's qualifications include nearly four years as President of the United States of America.

Mitt Romney has spent most of his time since his term as Governor of Massachusetts ended in 2007 running for president. He hasn't done anything else of note in the past several years but campaign. Romney is a weak candidate whose current campaign strategy of 'LIE and BUY' is not likely to win him this election.

But if you want to live in 2008, you ought to review the mess that George W. Bush made back in those days, and left for Obama to clean up.

kaybeetoys

But if you want to live in 2008, you ought to review the mess that George W. Bush made back in those days, and left for Obama to clean up.

Let's not give Bush ALL the blame. Much of it goes to the current crop of Republican clowns in Congress who vowed to prevent Obama from succeeding by any means necessary. The recent book that's out, The New New Deal, even has several former Republican congressmen and senators on record saying that they were ordered by GOP party leadership to oppose Obama on every major initiative he put forward no matter what. The Repub philosophy is: America's failure is our success.

Then I suggest you go back to school. Technology in fields such as nuclear fusion, or even photovoltaic cells have advanced dramatically.

Well then you showed me Xabre, I'll just go to my "nuclear fusion powered home" now in my "photovoltaic powered automobile"........

By the way, the company I currently work at, among other things MAKES photovoltaic cells and has projected FLAT sales for the remainder of this year despite many other areas of technology doing very well.

It never ceases to amaze me how lefties have to insult people with whom they disagree.....

"It's interesting how the liberals have bought into Obama's blame game. Right out of the starting gate in 09 Obama started blaming republicans for the horrible economic mess. "

Briand --- you Republicans buddies have a very short memory. From 1976 to 1992 you whined and cried, moan and groaned and complained and complained more and bitched, carried on and on and blamed President Carter of everything wrong in the entire universe. Then from 1992 to 2008 you whined and cried, moan and groaned and complained and complained more and bitched, carried on and on and blamed President Clinton for everything that was wrong in the entire universe. So – using the standard you set – the left has another 29 years to blame Bush for everything just to pull even with you.

Houston!, again with ignoring the facts. The facts are that unlike this Obama "recovery" the GDP recovery from the Great Depression was very robust. 7 of the 8 years after the trough saw GDP growth above 5% and 5 of the 8 years saw growth above 8%. That's phenomenal growth. In fact, the 3 years immediately following the trough saw GDP growth of 11%, 9%, and 13%. Those are huge numbers.

Unfortunately LIKE the Obama "recovery", the economic recovery from the Great Depression saw little relief for private sector joblessness for two reasons. The first is related to the circumstances surrounding the downturn. This has less to do with the downturn being caused by weakness in the banking sector and more to do with the overreaction to it. By clamping down on banks you restrict lending when the economy needs it most to recover the jobs lost. You do the exact opposite of what needs to be done for a quick recovery. You make the recovering private sector swim upstream against the current you're creating. Instead of a normal quick recovery, this does nothing but prolong the pain and suffering.

The second is the nearly completely reliance on the misguided fundamental principle that government projects can have a great long term affect on unemployment. It largely didn't work in the 1930's and -- not surprisingly -- largely didn't work this time.

"And of course, the entire country is now paying for the nasty gambling habits of Wall Street greed addicts who are pouring money into Romney's campaign so they can do it again like they did it in '08."

Sorry but HUD beat Wall Street to the punch by a decade, forcing risky lending on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac starting in 1995 (documented in post #1.30). At that point because of the size of Fannie and Freddie, HUD's mandates would ensure that 1 in 3 home loans originated after that point were to high risk borrowers and 1 in 6 were to very high risk borrowers. The most egregious underwriting standards are documented in use and encouraged by Fannie and Freddie as early as 1998. The whole point of HUD's mandates were to get the private banks to lend to high risk borrowers in the name of "affordable housing". Guess what...it worked...then collapsed on everybody. Thanks HUD!

Bill, Fairfax VA

The Imaginary Recovery

Of course, the American experience has been the deeper the economic downturn the stronger the economic recovery. At least that's been our experience for the last 80 years or so going all the way back to the Great Depression – until now. But now we're supposed to be grateful for the new normal of unemployment persistently above 8% and economic growth persistently at 2% or less. And we're supposed to give the president credit for stopping the economy from bleeding jobs when he took office – as if in the absence of his policies, the economy would have continued to lose jobs until today there would only be 34 or 35 people in the whole country who were still employed. Good grief, the things these people expect us to believe.

Actually, this recession is unlike most recessions that we've had in the past, and the only recession that is anything close to this one in nature (the Great Depression) took a decade of high unemployment, slow growth, and a massive world war to get out of. This depression was based on a credit bubble that expanded private debt; when the bubble burst, all the monetary easing in the world could not fix the problem because we were in a liquidity trap, where banks refuse to loan out newly created dollars. Fiscal policy did work, yet it was rather inadequate, as much of the money that ended up in consumer pockets went to balancing checkbooks, paying the mortgage, and lowering consumer debt levels. What we needed was a long, protracted period of stimulus spending that continually pump money into the economy, boosting employment and allowing for more money to be spent on consumption rather than debt-relief. If we had passed more stimulus packages, like Obama's jobs bill, we might have lower unemployment; but unfortunately, politicians and lawmakers alike have abandoned the conventional ways of dealing with recessions in favor of austerity and contractionary fiscal and monetary policies, which will only make things worse.

Almost makes one wax nostalgic about the "failed policies of the past" from that evil slug George Bush. Like the one where three years after his tax cuts were fully implemented the economy grew at an average real annual rate of 3.3 percent. And in the four years after those tax cuts were implemented the economy added almost 8 million new jobs to push the unemployment rate down from 6.1% to 4.4 percent. And where federal tax revenues increased by over $800 billion, rising from 16.2% of GDP to 18.5% of GDP – a clear and indisputable example of lower marginal tax rates leading to the higher tax revenues that can be derived from a more robust economy.

Oh, how I enjoy the naivete of you right wingers! The dot-com bubble was MUCH SMALLER than the housing and credit bubbles, and the uptick in economic growth was normal. Yet the Bush administration was notable for a lack of private sector job growth and stagnant wages, so much that people call it a "Lost Decade." As for your revenue argument, you simply assume that the tax cuts caused the uptick in revenues; in actuality, it was a combination of factors, including economic growth, inflation, and the housing bubble, which coincidentally peaked at the exact time revenues peaked at 18.5% of GDP. Essentially, the housing bubble artificially raised revenues; with it, revenues would be MUCH lower. And if lower marginal rates spur economic growth, how come that growth did not "trickle-down???" Middle class wages stagnated, job creation stalled (in comparison to earlier times), and the economy only seemed good because of the housing bubble.

And lest we forget, policies where the federal budget deficit declined from $412 billion in FY2004 to $161 billion in FY2007 – a far cry from the $1 trillion plus deficits the president has given us in every year of his watch.

And lest we forget, most of the deficits (roughly $900+ billion) were caused by a combination of the Bush policies and the recession. Obama only increased the debt by about $1.5 trillion through his own policies (second round of TARP, stimulus, surge in Afghanistan). Everything else (about $3 trillion) was either caused by Bush or the recession.

By those standards the Obama recovery is not only imaginary, it's every American's nightmare. Yet this guy actually expects us to rehire him despite his dismal job performance. Well, a wise man once said you can't fool all the people all the time so the president's campaign of tom foolery isn't likely to carry the day. In fact, I've been preaching for quite a while that Romney not only wins, he wins decisively.

If you really believe tax cuts for the wealthy grow the economy, how come the middle class hasn't gotten any of the prosperity??? The top 1% control 25% of all of the nation's income; middle class wages have plateaued, even as productivity has soared; job creation over the past decade has been tepid at best; average net worth of Americans has fallen deeply thanks to conservative deregulatory policies that tanked the economy and the housing market; how the hell can you find a shred of good news from the Bush years??? Romney is doing the EXACT same thing Bush did, and chances are we are going to have ANOTHER financial crisis if the deregulatory right-wingers seize power. There once was a great man who stated that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.

It's just taking some time for the left to come to grips with that joyous reality.

Oh, don't worry; we lefties have already accepted reality. We are just waiting for the day when you righties accept it as well.

Concerning Romney's pledge for "North American energy independence," I noticed something strange. Romney stated that he wanted both American and "North American energy independence." Unless he is planning to create the North American Union and merge with Canada and Mexico, he implies that he will achieve "energy independence" by importing oil and gas from Mexico and Canada. That is the only rational way to that in 8 years, as we cannot develop domestic fuel sources and retrofit our entire economy in that amount of time. So we aren't actually achieving energy independence, at least not in America; we'll simply just buy dirty Canadian oil sands and petroleum from Mexico, instead of developing reliable sources here in America, by which I mean solar, wind, and hydro-power.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Mike in SA -- Are you suggesting CDO's played no role in the meltdown??? FYI - CDO's came to be in the late 80''s. It's funny how you completely ignore global factors as well.

ROMNEY/RYAN 2012!!!

Mike in SA

Houston!, again with ignoring the facts. The facts are that unlike this Obama "recovery" the GDP recovery from the Great Depression was very robust. 7 of the 8 years after the trough saw GDP growth above 5% and 5 of the 8 years saw growth above 8%. That's phenomenal growth. In fact, the 3 years immediately following the trough saw GDP growth of 11%, 9%, and 13%. Those are huge numbers.

Again with the fiction, and now you're adding the big lie about the government "forcing" the financial services to make all those bad loans that they sliced and diced and sold to suckers who took the fall. The economy may have been recovering at a good pace in the early '30s, but when Roosevelt decided he had to appease the fiscal "conservatives" with budget cuts, the country plunged back into a near depression.

http://open.salon.com/blog/steve_klingaman/2010/03/03/double_dip_will_we_repeat_1937

It looks like déjà vu all over again in the political dialogue of 2010. On the economy front, Republicans blame an overreaching, overspending federal government for nearly all of our current ills. Mitt Romney had the gall to imply that the stimulus package worsened the nation’s unemployment rate. Disaster averted is a hard thing to prove. Economists will debate the point for years to come. But the charge that profligate government spending is responsible for all our ills seems sticky enough to anticipate it will become one of the top two issues this fall.

That makes the present moment look a lot like 1936-37, when the Democratic administration got cold feet about recovery spending and brought on the Roosevelt Recession of 1937-38. A panicky, self-doubting reaction to intense public criticism led the administration to cut popular, effective programs like the WPA, cut the monetary supply, and raise interest rates in a manner that choked off the economic recovery just as the nation regained parity with the pre-Depression conditions of 1929. This second swoon led to a renewal of government intervention in 1938, but the pall was cast to last; the nation remained locked in a swoon until World War II kick-started the economy.

And Roosevelt didn't have to deal with a tea bagger Congress that was ordered to vote in lockstep against all Obama initiatives that might make the recovery go faster, as documented in the recently released book The New New Deal.

Freshieee

Actually, this recession is unlike most recessions that we've had in the past, and the only recession that is anything close to this one in nature (the Great Depression) took a decade of high unemployment, slow growth, and a massive world war to get out of.

Apparently, not in wingnut Bizarro World, where Franklin Roosevelt was a Republican who cut taxes on the wealthy to quickly end the Great Depression, which was caused by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac forcing corporations to make loans to greedy poor people who couldn't afford them.

I gota get my 2 cents in, Obama sucks and thats a fact. He's done enough, nearly all bad, now it's time for him to go back to $hitcago and root for the crappy Bears & Cubs.

Dolt.

Backhouse, that is absolutely the best description of what lies between a Republicans ears I have ever read.

Romney's new energy policy = "drill baby drill".

Ahem, it's not new. It won't help with energy independence because WE AREN'T BUILDING ANY NEW REFINERIES.

AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH (Sam Kinison yell)

Does anyone realize that the filth that will be spewed into our air, soil, and water by going full blast on drilling, fracking, and mining will be sold on the world market? It does nothing for energy independence.

Ok, are we supposed to be shocked that Exelon has donated to President Obama? Is that supposed to make us go hmmmm? I would remind readers of two things. 1) Shell, BP, and many other big oil companies have also been granted approvals to drill for oil. 2) President Obama has always said we need to explore ALL sources of energy as we move toward clean, renewable energy and improve the technology of it.

Moderate Dem makes a great point as well. All the oil we drill goes on the international market for sale. Just because it is oil on US land doesn't mean it is our oil. Unlike Vegas where what happens there, stays there, what oil we produce here does not necessarily stay here; odds are that most of it does not--it gets sold to the highest bidder. Same with the Keystone XL Pipeline, those oil sands are Canada's to sell on the international market once those oil sands take the scenic trip down the US to the Gulf and possibly contaminate our drinking water in the process.

Actually BCWC - that's the only word you know how to read....

I guess Jody didn't know that oil companies donate to both presidential candidates. They do it every presidential election. So, tell me, what is your point Jody?

Many of these guys running for office this cycle are Christian. They don't believe we need to save the Earth because Jesus is coming back and is going bring us a new one, so we can just totally f%&k this one up. Most of the red states are heavily Christian, also the same beliefs, we can wreck our world because we are going to get a new one. If you aren't Christian f*&king up the Earth may seem like a bad idea. This is why this election is very important, it's the religious right complete disdain for science and fact compared to common sense and scientific fact. I think most of the people in the red states still believe the earth is flat!!

Brianb-999431

Actually BCWC - that's the only word you know how to read....

Don't forget to feed the monkey that thinks and types for you Bb.

FORWARD

From the article above:

A trio of New York Times/CBS/Quinnipiac polls of likely voters suggests that Romney got a slight bounce from the Paul Ryan pick in Wisconsin and Florida, but no real bounce in Ohio. In Florida, it’s Obama 49%, Romney 46% (down from 51%-45% earlier this month); in Ohio, it’s Obama 50%, Romney 44% (unchanged); and in Wisconsin, it’s Obama 49%, Romney 47% (down from 51%-45%).

At this time, the numbers look very good for President Obama.

The article continues...

“Only two days after a fundraiser hosted by the CEO of major oil companies, Romney is expected to defend billions in oil subsidies while opposing efforts to use oil more efficiently and develop homegrown alternative energy. We will never reach energy independence by turning our backs on homegrown renewable energy and better auto mileage.”

By now, we should fully understand ONE of the main differences between the Democrat philosophy and the Tea Party philosophy. Democrats are quite comfortable adapting and changing with the times; in this instance, exploring newer energy alternative.

The Tea Party is comfortable just doing the old same thing, Oil, Gas, Coal, and nothing else.

I am in the profession of Architecture, and I am witnessing massive changes GLOBALLY as other nations adapt and change using more wind, solar, thermal, and even wave power technology to move their nations forward.

Quite frankly, it is extremely frustrating seeing this great nation lag behind the world on all of these newer technologies, because our political philosophy is to be slaves to the Oil Giants.

We use to lead the world in just about everything, and we use to do it together; Republicans, Democrats, and Independents fighting for Americans.

Now, EVERYTHING is divided by political philosophy, and as a result, America is falling far, far behind.

It’s real simple. Either we move FORWARD and embrace change and adapt with the times with as President Obama rightly recognizes, or we don’t move at all, and even lag behind, and suffer the consequences because our fear and stagnation.

I’m not afraid. I’m a Democrat! I want to move FORWARD into the 21^st Century with the rest of the world.

Salud

Q22 - you do realize your avatar is smarter than you, right?

The top 1 percent today gets around 20 percent of the nation's income — twice what it did two decades ago. The top 0.1 percent's share has almost tripled. Disparities in wealth are even greater.

Some on the right also assert that those at the top deserve their higher incomes. They earned it, conservatives say. Their riches were due to their greater contribution to society, from which all benefit.

Much of the top-most wealth instead comes because of successful "rent seeking." Economists use the term "rents" for income derived from owning an asset, rather than from effort. "Rent seeking" refers to attempts to garner a larger share of the economic pie, rather than making the pie larger.

Monopolists, for example, gain their wealth through restricting production — which makes the size of the pie smaller. When we look at divided societies abroad, like so many of the dysfunctional oil-rich countries, we diagnose their problem as an infliction of excessive rent seeking — too much of society's resources go to attempts to grab a larger share of the oil wealth, too little to expanding the economy. What we don't realize is the extent to which the United States, too, has become a rent-seeking society.

And you can stuff that crap about the rich paying the majority of taxes. 36% of federal revenues come from PAYROLL TAXES. Those are paid ONLY by working people, NONE by people like Mitt Romney.

(Corporate taxes? 12% !!!)

Economic Policy Institute:

Growth in Income: 1979 to 2007

Two great charts that really lay it all out in pictures.

Sources of Federal Revenue, 2011

Sources of Federal Tax Revenue, 1945 to 2010

Pretty easy to see why America is "going broke" - mainly the reduction in corporate taxes!

President Obama has failed but he cares. Pathetic excuse to vote for a failure. Jimmy Carter cared too.

Thomas, thanks for a great post. One thing one might add is that when the other companies get far enough ahead of us that there is no more market for our oil (it's all about money, you know) there we will be like a third world country with resources on one wants, polluted air and water paying out the nose for systems that will finally bring us clean, safe, renewable, home produced energy. We used to be the leader in all that was new and technologically foreward but we are slipping and badly because of this love affair we have with oil and the power we allow oil companies, oil brokers and those who are in bed with them to have.

Feisty Redhead, besides being PONG, spelled backwards, what does GNOP mean in your usage of it?

REally??? Is that all Mutt Head can come up with??? Oil, Oil and more oil. What a gutless wimp. Nothing about renewable energy of any kind. The same old Bush/Republican cow towing to big oil.

Really??? Is that how we really want to continue on and on. Throw the worthless bums out.

SeekingSanity - keep seeking, you need some. Why don't go out and read their plans. I would read Obama's plans but he is the one who doesn't have any. But he cares and he can speak well. Pathetic failure.

RealAmerican

Do you know how to read charts? Did you see the spike in corporate taxes after the Bush tax cuts? Do you see the reduction in the personal taxes since the Bush tax cuts? The majority of the revenue decrease in personal taxes is from the middle class and Obama keeps giving away more. Let ALL of the Bush/Obama tax cuts expire, leave corporate taxes as they are and get this country going again. Quit this class envy crap.

When the AARP tells its members what the Ryan Plan has in store for Medicare and Social Security, Florida at its 29 electoral votes will belong to President Obama and his reelection will be assured. Romney cannot fix what the GOP has chosen to break.

GNOP mean in your usage of it?

Grand NO Party...

It's all NO 24/7 with them...

Sailcat

The AARP will have to lie to the seniors in Florida. The Ryan plan doesn't affect current seniors. But more lies from the left are to be expected.

Lush, actually the explaination is quite simple. If you start a business, say Staples, and pay a wage that allows your employees to collect all state welfare services, you lower your expenses and pass them on to the taxpayers. This allows your employees to be able to afford food and housing, all the while enriching yourself.

JH - the only "facts" you spout are the usual GOP talking points - no facts, no ideas, nothing.

I can read charts and plans as well as or better than you. And, if you're honest (which you've proved you aren't) you'd know that any talk about letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire was met with nothing but venom from the Republicans in Congress. They're not about to let the tax cuts for the wealthy expire.

There is no class envy here. I don't envy anyone. But, I want this country strong and around for hundreds of years - something the GOP frankly doesn't care about. Your ignorance in your posts shows over and over again. You don't even bother to look at the whole picture.

Oh, and the Ryan plan would increase costs to senior by about $6400 per year. Your lies are easy to prove. Too bad you think everyone is as ignorant as you.

As I continue to say and people like you continue to prove, seeking sanity in the GOP but there is absolutely NONE to be found!

Obama/Biden 2012

Thank you Feisty Redhead, that makes sense, I was also kind of thinking that

GNOP - PONG

was another way of showing Romney's predilection for Flip-Flopping.

GNOP - PONG - GNOP - PONG - GNOP - PONG - GNOP - PONG

FLIP - FLOP - FLIP - FLOP - FLIP - FLOP - FLIP - FLOP

See what I mean?

And Florida's seniors have no children or granchildren. They are also especially fond of the donut hole in the Medicare Drug program. They also believe there is no chance that Romney will change his stand on the issue.

The Ryan plan doesn't affect current seniors.

You obviously are ignoring the fact that the AARP accepts members aged 55 and older. Those of us who have paid into the system all our lives and who are going to be cut out are definitely going to be affected. The AARP will report Ryan's plans and the senior vote will run from Romney and his nasty sidekick. Florida will belong to Obama.

I thought PNOG was a parody of OIHO. You know, the picture that low IQ voters thought was one of 4 men wearing blouses.

I wouldn't be so cock-sure about Obama taking NY. He is very unpopular in middle-and-upper-Westchester County. He's also disliked in upper Putnam County, upper Rockland County, and all of Orange County.

These are largely populated areas that could negate NYC's support for him.

And remember, Westchester has a Republican County Executive.

NY could very well go to Romney, if the counties north of NYC vote Republican.

I'm telling you folks, this election aint a slam dunk. Obama is not as popular with working folks as the media portrays him to be.

It's going to be a lot closer than people think, and Romney does have a shot at winning it.

I wouldn't be so cock-sure about Obama taking NY.

There is no state more solidly behind President Obama than NY...except perhaps Massachusetts, the state in which Romney failed miserably as governor. You are leading quite a fantasy life, aren't you?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

New York; Obama +24.7

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ny/new_york_romney_vs_obama-2868.html

Massachusetts; Obama +18.7

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ma/massachusetts_romney_vs_obama-1804.html

Obama lied through his teeth repeatedly to get elected the first time. I think the fine people in the battleground states of Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin, in addition to other states, will be smart enough to see through all of his BS and see the truth. They should be saying to themselves: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me", and vote for the men that can truly make a positive difference in ALL of our lives, Romney and Ryan, and not for Obama / Biden (a joke of a VP) who appeal to those dependent on government for handouts. We desperately need a BUSINESSMAN in the office of the Presidency for a change, not a career politician. Having another four years of Obama scares the hell out of me because WE WILL become another Greece, but on steroids, by the time he is done destroying the country. And, having dopey Biden one step from the Presidency also scares the hell out of me.

Unchanged? Give it up MSNBC, Obama slides further into oblivion everyday.

Obama holds lead in Ohio, but slips in Florida and Wisconsin, poll shows

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-holds-lead-ohio-slips-florida-wisconsin-poll-104836458.html

alan290, YOU GOT THAT QUOTE ALL WRONG!

It's

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

(Watch video clip; listen to audio clip)

Now really! Does anyone really want four years of that same kind of gibberish from a Bush-League Romney/Ryan team of goofs?

• OBAMA/BIDEN 2012
• WTF - Win The Future

Lush Limpballs

Arizona, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas West Virginia.

as much as i would love to agree with you, your post is a bit flawed,

you must eleminate flordia and arizona they are retirement states, people from new york and Illinois retire to these states. also alot of black retire back to the south to states like Louisiana, Mississippi.

but the rest of your post is right on!!!!!

Sailcat

Quick Clarification:

I am 51 and became an AARP member when I turned 50. Both my wife and I are proud members (discounts on all kinds of travel, Rx, and especially All-you-can-eat buffetts!!!)

Seniors are well aware of Congressman Ryan's "55" cut-off point number. They aren't just concerned for themselves, but for THEIR CHILDREN who like me, have paided into Social Security since I was 16 years old.

One thing is for sure if the Congressman ever gets his way, you will see the LARGEST class action lawsuit in the History of America from people like me.

Also, seams to me, the money wasted on the Bush Iraq war, would have made Social Secutiry - SECURE for generations to come. That's what you get with a Trickle-down - Kill The Beast attitude.

Social Security WORKS!

PERIOD!

Salud

Well said, Tomas! Thanks!

TO: JH-479998 who wrote:

"...The Ryan plan doesn't affect current seniors..."

Unless Romney/Ryan get in office, then it'll be: "Things are worse than we thought they were, so we're going to have to gut Medicare AND Social Security NOW."

It's common knowledge that Republicans have been trying to gut Social Security and Medicare nearly from the time it was created.

My problem with that Republican "Plan" is, Republicans want to gut the programs, but they don't want to give us our money back.

I seriously doubt that Republicans would be getting so much backlash IF they would give us ALL of our money, WITH INTEREST AT THE LEGAL RATE.

Republicans want to gut Medicare, but they also want to continue to collect the premiums from our paychecks without giving us the benefit of the bargain that our money pays into.

Obama/Biden 2012

Tomas...

Still looking for someone else to pay for your idea of what you think you are entitled to.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist or CPA to follow the governments cash flow or what will happen when the FED finally starts to raise interest rates. You know, interest that government will have to pay on what they borrowed. Ever look up your expected SS bennies at SS.gov? Did you catch the trustees warning that after 2033 expect an ~ 25% cut in what you qualify for. How about the projections that medicare will be bust even before 2033?

You don't need to worry about your kids or grandkids. Without reform, all they will have is nothing.

Think if the 2% would only pay their "fair share" it will all go away? LMAO - Use the internet to look up at what the estimated lost revenue over 10 years was for the obama (bush2) tax cuts and report back to us on just how effective raising taxes on just the 2% will be.

Then you can search for "who pays taxes" to see just how "unfair" the wealthy has it when it comes to income taxes. They may certainly have the discretionary income to pay more, but so what? They can spend their $$$ more effectively than the government ever can. Bet if you just look at the gates foundation the government would never be able to do as much as what bill and his wife do, even if the government put in 4x's the amount.

Republican logic - It doesn't affect YOUR Socialized single-payer medical insurance or your socialized retirement income, just people under 55. 56 year old Republican devotee who has received farm subsidies his whole life - "Thank God! For a minute, I thought I would have to rely on private sector insurance like some kind of animal! Yes, since it doesn't affect me personally, lets end all socialized health care for these lazy black bums who want to go to the ER and have abortions every week!" - aside - "My Medicare is still safe right? Whew, yeah ok, lets privatize everything (else)."

American girl...

Remember bush2? Of course you do, you blame him for everything.

Seems that around 2004 (?) bush2 tried to end SS. Guess what? Congressional republicans put a stop to that. Now you are trying to have us believe that whatever the makeup of congress is in 2013 that they will eliminate both SS and medicare? I thought that the left like you didn't advocate fear mongering?

american-2051576

Tomas...

Still looking for someone else to pay for your idea of what you think you are entitled to.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist or CPA to follow the governments cash flow or what will happen when the FED finally starts to raise interest rates. You know, interest that government will have to pay on what they borrowed. Ever look up your expected SS bennies at SS.gov? Did you catch the trustees warning that after 2033 expect an ~ 25% cut in what you qualify for. How about the projections that medicare will be bust even before 2033?

Yes, but then again privatizing either (or both) of them won't solve anything. Sure, the government saves money, but then you're throwing the costs onto seniors, which will hurt the economy. Solving Social Security's problem is easy; simply raise the payroll tax rate by 2% points and raise the employee cap to 90% of earned income. You solve the 75-year solvency problem. As for Medicare, that is a bit more complex; personally, I advise swapping the fee-for-service payment mechanism for the fee-for-health system (paying hospitals based on the quality of their care), empowering the IPAB to address and and all problems with Medicare's solvency, and allowing the program to sanction for-profit care providers and only do business with non-profits until the for-profit hospitals lower costs significantly.

You don't need to worry about your kids or grandkids. Without reform, all they will have is nothing.

Then again, with Ryan's reforms, our kids and grand kids will be footing increasing health costs while the insurers and drug companies laugh all the way to the bank.

Think if the 2% would only pay their "fair share" it will all go away? LMAO - Use the internet to look up at what the estimated lost revenue over 10 years was for the obama (bush2) tax cuts and report back to us on just how effective raising taxes on just the 2% will be.

That's why I support repealing the Bush tax cuts IN THEIR ENTIRETY. Yet I would support raising taxes further on the top 2%, hopefully creating a top tax rate of 76% for anyone making $15-20 million or more.

Then you can search for "who pays taxes" to see just how "unfair" the wealthy has it when it comes to income taxes. They may certainly have the discretionary income to pay more, but so what? They can spend their $$$ more effectively than the government ever can. Bet if you just look at the gates foundation the government would never be able to do as much as what bill and his wife do, even if the government put in 4x's the amount.

Well, that's not entirely true; food stamps, a government program, managed to keep hundreds of thousands of people out of poverty during the recession, at least as good as the Gates Foundation. The wealthy also have a history of making risky bets, which led to the financial crisis in 2009....

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Portion of a really funny articled today in the Tampa Bay Times about the Republicans in Florida:

When did buffoonery become statesmanship?

By Daniel Ruth, Tampa Bay Times Columnist
In Print: Friday, August 24, 2012

When you think of some of the nation's great statesmen, who comes to mind? Thomas Jefferson? George Marshall? Woodrow Wilson? Dean Acheson?

But somehow the list seems incomplete. Who could be missing from this august assemblage of figures who negotiated international treaties, rebuilt countries ravaged by conflict and stood at the diplomatic parapets of the Cold War?

Yes, of course, none other than Donald Trump, the Republican Party's answer to Bozo the Clown meets Bedford Falls' Henry Potter.

According the Republican Party of Sarasota, statesman Trump seems to loom right up there with Winston Churchill.

This weekend, in the land of those other noted envoys for brotherhood, Katherine Harris and Vern Buchanan, the Republican Party of Sarasota will honor Trump at its sold-out annual "Statesman of the Year" award. Uh, isn't this a bit like paying tribute to befuddled Missouri U.S. Senate candidate Todd Akin for his contributions to a better understanding of obstetrics?

That's right. Conservatives pat the back and shake the hand of the one with the most money, no matter what comes out of his or her mouth. They defend their right to say anything, because they have been successful. The Republican Monarchy goes back to days when only land owners could vote,,,,,,,,,, and that is the way they like it.

Would you expect any different kind of article from nbc.com hacksters ona a backward democratic article?

If any of the authors changed one word, they would be looking for a new job. That's why microsoft pulled out. They truly want an non partisan news reporting agency. I was waiting to see how long it would take them to get out of msnbc.com. So nbc goes from third to fourth in readership and revenue. Does this surprise anyone. When a commercial comes on, I just mute it and remind myself not to buy that product. With commercials making up over 50% of the air time, I just tune out them out.

And the title is fitting unchanged. Same old desperation garbage with the same old characters.

NBC should rename their website Comedy Central...These "PRESUMPTIVE" statements are laughable...As of 2008, CT had 750,999 registered DEMs, 418,531 registered REPS, and 845,311 Unaffiliated voters...In the current US Senate race, the polls show that the REP candidate is in the lead...and this is in a traditionally DEM state...So what does that tell you...Very simply, the INDS will be the deciding factor in this election...Everything else is just BS..

In the words of the great Yogi Berra "It ain't over till it's over"

It seems to me we have given "trickle down" economics a fair chance---30 years is certainly enough time to see that it doesn't work. With tax rates at their lowest in decades and unemployment too high, it is clear that lower taxes for the 1% doesn't create jobs. Yet Mitt wants to lower taxes even further.

Mitt tells us he pays effective rates of 13-14%. Of course we don't know this for sure because he won't release his tax returns, but assuming it is true, it is hard for me to see how our economy would be better off by Mitt and the 1% paying even less and the folks in the middle paying more.

Give it a rest IR, the partisanship of the "nonpartisan" Tax Policy Center comes across loud and clear in their study. As the WSJ has pointed out:

The study's biggest distortion is its raw assertion that Mr. Romney would refuse to close certain loopholes. In the appendix, the Tax Policy Center lists, among others, two giant tax deductions that it says would go untouched: the exclusion of interest on tax-exempt municipal bonds, and the exclusion of interest on life insurance savings. The study claims that Mr. Romney won't close these because they are incentives for saving and investment. One problem: Nowhere do Mitt Romney or his advisers say that these deductions can't be touched. Senior economic adviser Glenn Hubbard says these deductions are definitely "on the table."

Scholars at the American Enterprise Institute examined what happens to the Tax Policy Center math when this error is corrected. AEI economic research associate Matt Jensen found that "Both of these exclusions largely benefit the wealthy, and, according to the Treasury Department, added together their repeal would net upwards of $90 billion that could be redistributed to lower-income individuals. That would go a long way towards balancing the supposed $86 billion windfall for the rich and tax hike on the middle class and poor, and it could make the impossible suddenly possible."

The AEI analysis warns that these numbers change from year to year, but it concludes that by eliminating these two deductions and a few other smaller ones, Mr. Romney can make his math add up. In other words, poof, no tax hike on the middle class.

I like to be fair and balanced. You should try it yourself sometime, IR.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443404004577581570978359112.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

IR, Steeler,

Like maybe it will rain. Could snow, hail is possible with intermittent sunbursts. Hot/Cold.

Take ya pick - Romney's blowing a lotta weary smoke.

So, Bill, you refute the Tax Policy Center (which Mr. Romney was more than happy to quote in the debates during the primaries) with a study by the right-leaning American Enterprise Insitute filtered through Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal.

"Fair and Balanced" indeed.

It’s amazing that Willard Romney the talking lying buffoon, is the Republican choice for President and Paulie Ryan for VP choice. You people really sit your bar low.

Every plan Romney has is "pretend".

Tax plan will grow 12 million jobs.........fantasy.

Medicare plan will save Medicare........false, enhances its death....fantasy.

Romney energy plan........more of the same "drill baby drill".

study by the right-leaning American Enterprise Insitute filtered through Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal.

Ummm, would you care to refute the point that was "filtered" through the WSJ? Or is it sufficient for folks of your ilk to trash any point of view you disagree with? You have no game, pal.

*** Romney to talk energy:

Talk about what?

The GNOP's energy plan would take us back to the 1900's...

If it doesn't pollute our air, contaminate our drinking water, cause earthquakes or destroy the Earth's oceans,or give billions of tax subsidies to those who need them the least...

They don't want anything to do with it!

For all of their whining about our children, they're hell bent on leaving them a planet which will soon be uninhabitable if left up to their ideas!

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

Well I see your still trying to sell that old trickle down mess Bill.Got to give you credit for sticking to your guns. I reckon I should point out to you that the TPC doesn't say the it won't come out the way it should because CONGRESS ain't going to go for this deal no matter what Ol' Willard wants or doesn't want. Gives him a rather conveniant out don't you think but the end result will be the same.

You have no game, pal.

I'm not your friend, buddy.

Well I see your still trying to sell that old trickle down mess Bill.

Heh, yet I have yet to see any GOP poster with any sort of coherent justification for those policies.

I'm not your friend, buddy.

I'm not your buddy, pal. :)

Bill in Fairfax -- Pay attention THE AUTHORS say it doesn't change their results.

And to critics who have said the Center study did not assume enough economic growth from Mr. Romney's proposed tax cuts of roughly $5 trillion over 10 years, the authors said their conclusions were essentially the same even when using growth estimates developed by Gregory Mankiw, a Romney adviser, a Harvard professor and former economic official in the George W. Bush administration.

The authors, in their follow-up paper, also answered commentators who said the Center should have assumed that Mr. Romney would end tax breaks for state and local bonds and for some insurance policies. By not including those among his protected tax breaks for investments and savings, these critics have said, he could raise additional revenues and avoid increasing taxes from low- and middle-income taxpayers.

The authors, in their response, illustrated that repeal of the two tax breaks for public bonds and for certain life insurance savings would not raise enough revenue. They added, "Our main result still holds."

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/tax-analysts-responding-to-critics-reaffirm-findings-on-romney-plan/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Bill, while I appreciate your effort to counter Independent's post, you've got to admit that Romney's tax policy is ambiguous at best. Until he states clearly what that policy is, it's completely open to debate and interpretation. WSJ has an opinion - but that's all it is.

Bill, while I appreciate your effort to counter Independent's post, you've got to admit that Romney's tax policy is ambiguous at best. Until he states clearly what that policy is, it's completely open to debate and interpretation. WSJ has an opinion - but that's all it is.

And here is the Alternative. Does anybody have a link that performs an analysis?

Personal income taxes: Obama would keep tax rates the same for families making less than $250,000 annually. For families earning more than that, he would raise the top two tax brackets to 36 percent and 39.6 percent. The highest tax rates have been 33 percent and 35 percent for the last 11 years.

Obama in February offered a long list of corporate tax breaks he wants to end, ranging from accelerated depreciation and inventory accounting to interest on overseas profits and various tax provisions benefiting oil and gas companies.

Like Romney and Ryan, however, Obama has not presented clear plans for dealing with the much larger, middle-class tax breaks.

Investment income: Obama wants to raise the tax rate on dividends to match the ordinary income tax rate for the two highest income brackets. He would boost capital gains taxes from 15 percent to 20 percent for that group.

Private equity and other financiers would see a portion of their compensation, known as "carried interest," taxed as ordinary income, a change from the 15 percent rate they pay now.

Alternative minimum tax: Obama has endorsed the "Buffett rule," named for billionaire investor Warren Buffett. It would require households making more than $1 million a year to pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes.

Estate tax: Obama backs restoring the 45 percent estate tax level after a $3.5 million exemption imposed on assets passed to heirs. The current estate tax level is a 35 percent tax after the first $5 million.

Corporate tax rates: The president would lower the top corporate rate to 28 percent from 35 percent. A corporation's foreign profits would be subject to an unspecified minimum tax rate. Businesses would get a 20 percent income tax credit to move operations into the United States while tax deductions for shifting operations abroad would be dropped.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/48739927

Yeah Alan, raising taxes on those who tend to pay less than effective rate than the middle class is such a bad thing. And by the way, Thomas Jefferson (who the GOP tend to love to death) supported a hefty inheritance tax as a way of 'resetting wealth'.

Like i said before the GOP will be in total shock if they vote Mitt in..He is a democrat ..he governed as a democrat ..He was pro choice moments before he realized he could lie his way to the Presidency. His " BRO MANCE" seems to have hit a snag ..two different schools of thought on abortion in the same party. The republican party has never been so divided ..lots of secret meetings behind closed doors . With one main topic .. " RYAN .." Some are saying he is way to naive and his knowledge of foreign affairs has to be a lot more then ordering " Chinese takeout "!

Bill, Fairfax VA

Give it a rest IR, the partisanship of the "nonpartisan" Tax Policy Center comes across loud and clear in their study.

YOU give it a rest. Robert Samuelson, the author of the article IR posted, has border-line Obama Derangement Syndrome (although not in the final terminal stages like you are). If the Tax Policy Center's numbers were unfairly biased, Samuelson would certainly have pounced on them.

As the WSJ has pointed out:

Now, there's a nonpartisan source for you.

Nowhere do Mitt Romney or his advisers say that these deductions can't be touched. Senior economic adviser Glenn Hubbard says these deductions are definitely "on the table."

Romney can say anything is "on the table" but if he gets elected, the Etch A Sketch will be shaken and suddenly a lot of stuff that was on the table will have disappeared. Wealthy people spent a lot of money on lobbyists and bribing Congress to get all the loopholes into the tax code that benefit themselves. They will not tolerate losing ANY of them, and Romney will leave the loopholes alone as his wealthy campaign donors wish.

Paul Ryan already proved that closing loopholes is just empty talk, when he opposed paying for keeping student loan rates low by closing loopholes that benefit the wealthy. If Romney closes any loopholes, it will be the ones that benefit the middle class and the working poor, who don't have high-priced lobbyists to protect THEIR loopholes.

@InPalmSprings - 'Like i said before the GOP will be in total shock if they vote Mitt in..He is a democrat ..he governed as a democrat ..He was pro choice moments before he realized he could lie his way to the Presidency. His " BRO MANCE" seems to have hit a snag ..two different schools of thought on abortion in the same party.' - lets see they have tackled the double-think of - we need to lower the defecit, which we will do by cutting $X in spending and 3x$X in taxes(revenue) and when, magically, the deficits increase, well then it doesn't matter, even though it has been a central issue to their platform for 40+ years. We hate all forms of socialism...but we will defend Medicare for our seniors and farm subsidies? We want big government out of your life, but are ok with warantless wiretaps, indefinite holds, federal ban on all abortions, outlawing homosexual marriage/unions. Yes, I wonder how they will deal with the hypocrisy of someone who wanted individuals to decide at the state level, then wanted a BIG BROTHER, UNFINANCED, MANDATE when he decided to take it to the federal level. Oh well, let me have another cup of Victory coffee...

“The Romney policy, spelled out in a white paper and on a conference call with reporters on Wednesday, focuses on developing domestic fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal - in large part by shifting federal responsibilities to the states, and by expanding exploration and production nationwide... Romney's plan would make states the custodian of energy production on federal lands within their borders"

Coming soon to a national park near you - shale production, oil rigs & fracking!

IR, yes it looks like we will once again be picking the lesser of two evils. Neither of them have a clue. I think it's very sad that Romney is the best the Republicans have to offer. I'm seriously considering voting for a 3rd party candidate because I'm so disgusted with both sides right now.

If there is a democrat in the room that can talk policy wihtout lies and name calling, please stand up.

The problem, Bill, is that Romney REFUSES to talk about which loopholes he will and will not close.

It's the classic opening of Raiders of the Lost Ark scene: Toss him the Presidency, and then he'll tell you what his plan is.

What you are asking us to believe, Bill, is that once he's elected, he's going to close loopholes that benefit the people who are currently donating very heavily to get him in office.

Yeah, right. Hey, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you...interested?

KowRipper: Gary Johnson, Libertarian. Far, far, far more fiscally responsible than the Romney-Ryan "we'll balance the budget in 28 years, given perfect economic conditions" ticket, and none of the medieval social policies.

@Spartan117

The problem, Bill, is that Romney REFUSES to talk about which loopholes he will and will not close.

From the Obama Tax plan

Personal income taxes: Obama would keep tax rates the same for families making less than $250,000 annually. For families earning more than that, he would raise the top two tax brackets to 36 percent and 39.6 percent. The highest tax rates have been 33 percent and 35 percent for the last 11 years.

Obama in February offered a long list of corporate tax breaks he wants to end, ranging from accelerated depreciation and inventory accounting to interest on overseas profits and various tax provisions benefiting oil and gas companies.

Like Romney and Ryan, however, Obama has not presented clear plans for dealing with the much larger, middle-class tax breaks.

Seems that neither campaign is willing to be specific.

A vote for Corporate Raider Willard "Tax Cheat" Romney is a vote to end the Middle Class as we know it, and Kick Grandma to the Curb.

Vote for President Obama, He fights for us. Every single Jobs bill President Obama has introduced has been obstructed, and blocked by the Fundamentalist Republican't Corporate Teabag Party. EVERY SINGLE ONE!!! and not one jobs bill has came from the Republican'ts!!

Vote for President Obama, and lets give him a super majority Democratic Congress also.

Shameful that 41% would consider voting for a Tax Cheat like corporate raider Willard Romney. SHAMEFUL!!!

And by the way NBC CNN only one poll, ONE POLL out of several shows Wisconsin as a toss up. The rest show Wisconsin as a strong Obama state. Why is that I wonder?

And thats my opinion.

Alan, NJ

And here is the Alternative. Does anybody have a link that performs an analysis?

Personal income taxes: Obama would keep tax rates the same for families making less than $250,000 annually. For families earning more than that, he would raise the top two tax brackets to 36 percent and 39.6 percent. The highest tax rates have been 33 percent and 35 percent for the last 11 years.

Obama in February offered a long list of corporate tax breaks he wants to end, ranging from accelerated depreciation and inventory accounting to interest on overseas profits and various tax provisions benefiting oil and gas companies.

Like Romney and Ryan, however, Obama has not presented clear plans for dealing with the much larger, middle-class tax breaks.

Investment income: Obama wants to raise the tax rate on dividends to match the ordinary income tax rate for the two highest income brackets. He would boost capital gains taxes from 15 percent to 20 percent for that group.

Private equity and other financiers would see a portion of their compensation, known as "carried interest," taxed as ordinary income, a change from the 15 percent rate they pay now.

Alternative minimum tax: Obama has endorsed the "Buffett rule," named for billionaire investor Warren Buffett. It would require households making more than $1 million a year to pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes.

Estate tax: Obama backs restoring the 45 percent estate tax level after a $3.5 million exemption imposed on assets passed to heirs. The current estate tax level is a 35 percent tax after the first $5 million.

Corporate tax rates: The president would lower the top corporate rate to 28 percent from 35 percent. A corporation's foreign profits would be subject to an unspecified minimum tax rate. Businesses would get a 20 percent income tax credit to move operations into the United States while tax deductions for shifting operations abroad would be dropped.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/48739927

All in all, I favor Obama's plan A LOT MORE than Romney. Even an independent would do that. Nobody wants to go back to cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans and then seeing what happens next like a third grader after mixing vinegar with baking soda. While I don't favor replacing the AMT with anything, even the Buffet Rule, and I would much rather repeal the Bush tax cuts in its entirety (even though that is politically unfeasible), I can live with Obama's gradual increase in revenues rather than a sharp drop down a mountain under Romney/Ryan.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

The whole key is that someone initially said that a fetus is actually a baby at the moment the egg is fertilized. That someone had a religious background, sold the idea to their superiors, and the idea spread throughout religious communities. But it had no basis in science. Those of us who hold to the belief that a fetus is just a fetus during the first trimester don't have a problem with abortions during that time, and there are others who have no problem with aborting right up to the moment of birth. Personally, I feel that once you get into the 3rd trimester you've made your decision and you are past changing your mind. You've made a personal commitment and should stick to it, unless the life of the mother is threatened.

When the mother's life is at risk, the anti-abortion crowd is saying that one person's life is more important than another person's life and that the Mother should be willing to sacrifice her life to protect the fetus, unconditionally. Why is the fetus more important than the mother and why does anybody but the mother have a say in making this decision? You are not God and can not speak for God in making that decision for her. You may have a different opinion, but the decision is not yours to make. Period.

The only belief they have on the issue is that life starts at conception. It is no great conspiracy against women, only that murder is illegal, and that stopping life is murder. The conflict they are presented with is that many support the death penalty at the same time, which makes no sense to me. Personally, I don't like either, as I too believe that life starts at conception and should be valued as such until a natural death.

Please argue on facts rather than crazy conspiracy theories (they're out to get women), as you are dead wrong that they attack women's rights. No one has a right to murder, either via abortion or the death penalty. Women are no exception to this rule.

Are you proposing that women should be allowed to murder?

in the middle - no, what he's arguing is that life DOESN'T begin at conception. If you don't agree with that premise, don't ever get an abortion. However, you don't have the right to impose your religious beliefs on people who believe differently.

The decision that anyone has the right to make a choice for a woman IS a war against women. Ryan wants to outlaw birth control; in vitro fertilization; abortion even in the case of rape or incest or to save a woman's life. THAT is a war against women.

Women are intelligent enough to make their own decisions about our bodies.

Do you understand now?

Obama/Biden 2012

Mine is not a religious belief, so stop acting like you know me and being dishonest. Mine in an understanding of law and biology. Murder is illegal. And, if I understand that life begins at conception, then the only conclusion I can come to on the abortion issue is that it is murder by definition. After all, if we do nothing to stop it, that thing growing (life) in the womans body will be a human by your definition in a short period of time.

People who believe that life begins at conception are not evil. We only believe that the law should be equally applied and protect the unborn human life, who is not the mother. We are not against the mother, but for the child. You say I hate women, but I say you hate babies. Let's stop the ignorant hate speach for a few.

Now, do you understand?

Also, your comments about Ryan are not entirely true. Some yes, but your leaving out many details.

Anyone but a politician/2012

in the middle - YOU stop acting like you know anything. Yours is NOT an understanding of either law OR biology. Scientists agree that life does NOT start at conception. YOU make that assessment - just you. Doctors agree on this which is why a majority support a woman's right to choice.

People who want to control women use your antiquated argument all the time. It is a means of control - nothing more. I love babies - and cannot fathom what a woman must go through to decide to have an abortion. I don't know that I could do it - except when I know a child is horribly disabled and could not live any kind of life. I have seen babies born that can never even roll themselves over. I can understand the decision to terminate this kind of pregnancy prior to the fetus becoming a child.

YOU are the one talking IGNORANT hate speech and then you pat yourself on the back for it. Now, do YOU understand?

It is a woman's right to choose and should be left to her. If you don't agree - don't ever have an abortion. It should be your choice. You have NO right to tell another woman what to do.

And, my comments about Ryan's bills are 100% accurate. The fact that you don't know what you are talking about shows a lot about you.

Obama/Biden 2012

.....Sanity,

Wow, if that made you made, this is really gonna upset you.

Let's agree for the sake of argument that it is a womans choice, because it is her's and only her body. Then, should we stop requiring the fathers to pay child support? Following your argument, the father has no ownership, and therefore no responsibility. I know several men that would agree with that.

Or, we could agree on the point that the child is just not alive yet, but property only. I would say in that case that the father has equal ownership and rights since it required his labor to create, and should therefore be allowed to force the child's birth even in instances where the mother wants to abort. If it is half his, and you support the personal ownership approach to your argument, you should be fine with this as well, because he has the right to protect his own property, right?

You can't have it all ways. This tends to be the issue with people in your camp. They want it all with no negotiation.

Oh, and also, you, I and everyone in here knows for every doctor, scientist or mad man that you can find to support your theories, I can match you with mine. So your implied claim that you are superior and have professionals to support you is flawed, as I can do the same. What we are discussing is theory only.

One last thing, just so you know, I don't personally care if a woman gets an abortion. I just want the laws applied correctly, and for people like to you stop telling me that I hate women. I was raised by a single mother, am married and have a daughter. I love them all.

Now, sit back, chill out, and try not to blow a fuse buddy.

I'm sure that there are ALOT of women out there who would not choose abortion unless it was necessary.....one can be both anti-abortion AND pro-life. But, the bottom line is that the decision lies with the woman, her doctor, and her spouse (or significant other). There are a lot of circumstances that come into play when making that decision....and it isn't an easy decision by ANY means. No one, especially the Government, has the right to make that decision for ANY woman....they don't know the circumstances or the reasoning behind the decision made.

I totally agree that abortion is okay in the first trimester if it's necessary for whatever reasons; i.e., the baby is seriously deformed and would not live long outside the womb, the baby was conceived during a rape (legitimate OR illegitimate, Mr. Akins) or incest, etc. But, I don't think I could personally (and I said PERSONALLY) condone an abortion after the first trimester. The only way this would be allowable is if the problem didn't show up until after the first 3 months, which oftimes happens.

But, as I said....there are many considerations that have to be weighed before ANY decision is made to have an abortion. For myself, I don't know if I could go through the pain and future problems of having an abortion, but I DO know that if there were certain reasons for it....I may change my mind. But, it's MY decision, my husband's decision, and my doctor's decision.

It's just interesting that it's mostly the male species that are so vehemently anti-abortion......I'd like to see just ONE of them get raped, get pregnant, and then we'd see what decision they'd make....interesting, hmmmm.

Anyway, again, the above is only MY opinion, and I'm not forcing it on anyone else. It's an individual, private, and difficult decision for anyone to make, but they should have the right to make it without the government getting in the way. As a note, I'm also a Christian, and I don't always agree with what my church teaches. I read the bible and it's my perception of what is said there that matters the most to me.

Didi - well said. But, in the middle will never get it.

in the middle - many mean already walk away when a woman is pregnant and don't pay child support. I think, should abortion be outlawed, there needs to be a law forcing the father to be with the mother the entire 9 months of her pregnancy; go to all doctor's appointments and see the baby develop (baby after the first trimester); has to be there for the birth; has to hold the baby; AND has to pay child support. I mean, fair is fair, right?

This is not about "ownership" over anything but the woman's body. As a man you think this is okay. Why doesn't that surprise me.

As a woman people like you are totally offensive as you don't have a clue but you're more than happy to want "controls" over a woman's life.

If your daughter got raped and pregnant my guess is you'd do everything you could to help her terminate the pregnancy. And, let me say I hope your daughter NEVER has to face anything like that.

So, chill out buddy. You don't have a clue and never will.

Obama/Biden 2012

What is really upsetting to me is that so many mothers, young teens in most cases, get pregnant "accidentally." They end up deciding to have the baby, but the father has disppeared, and our courts do NOTHING to find them and make them pay child support. The mother, and her child, end up on welfare, which is a never-ending battle; and it becomes a way of life for them and the child (and the child's children in most cases). The money to support them comes from you and I...the taxpayer. This is what the GOP wants to do away with. They want to cut birth control, family planning, teaching birth control in our schools, etc., but they also want to do away with welfare. You can't have both, people.....if you want to control a woman's right to an abortion; then you've also got to give them the wherewithal to support that child (e.g., welfare). AND, you have to go after the father for child support....maybe if more of them were forced to pay for their thrills, they might think twice about not using protection!!!

All I know is that if a child of mine got pregnant and decided to carry the child....I'd be out hunting down the father and dragging his butt into court immediately! He would pay for that child until the child turned 18. Maybe that would stop him from impregnating a few more other unsuspecting girls out there!!! If the government wants to do away with welfare, then maybe they ought to at least consider providing legal assistance to the mothers to go after these jerks!! After a few years of this happening, I can pretty much guarantee you that unwanted pregnancies, especially in our young women, would go down significantly. Anyone else agree???

My daughter would be allowed to make that decision her self, because that is the law and it is her life. However, I have raised her to have tremendous respect for life, and she does, so who know's what decision she would make. I would not push for an abortion though, because I can't do that, as I have already made clear.

Also, you're a peice of crap to suggest any woman/daughter/mother/wife be raped just to prove a point. Bye, and if your so fine with abortion, then go abort yourself.

Detroit Storm, Mitt has no energy policy, he has no ideas, and stands for absolutely nothing or anyone except the 1%. Blackcat - you are correct, I make my own economy, I actually never lost any money from my 401K, took it all out of stocks in April 2001 and put it in municipal bonds. True, it has not made as much as I did in the 90's with my stock, but I never lost a dime and am actually still gaining every month. I know how to budget my own money and do so according to what I make. I wanted to make more money so I went back and upped my business degree and received a big promotion and raise for it. My husband and I have been married for almost 34 years, we have survived and raised children in every economy from reygun to now, this is nothing compared to the 80's. Case in point - trickle down absolutely never, ever works for the working/middle class.

I'm wondering how many times at the GOP Cult Fest in Tampa, will we hear, "drill baby drill"?

"drill baby drill" sounds dirty when Bachmann says it

Mitt the Bobble Head and his new best buddy Paulie boy will take this country down within a year if elected.

Does anyone actually believe that the end products of "Drill baby drill" will be to the benefit of any of us here in the US beyond the few jobs it creates? Yes jobs are important, no one disputes that -- I want to know how many jobs and longer term outlook for these jobs. We certainly won't be paying less for petroleum based products here and that's the other issue people gripe a lot about.

I'm simply amazed that they didn't ask Sarah "Drill Baby Drill" Palin to speak at the Republican Convention.....isn't she the one that coined that phrase? As a note, they didn't like it when SHE said it....why would they think people would like it if Romney says it???

I'd like to see Fred Thompson, former actor and Republican Candidate for President in 2008, as a speaker during the RNC, but Fred is to busy making those commercials for reverse mortgage company's. Gotta love those Repugs., make a legit dime at any cost to consumers.His speech could include something like this, "Hey, it was their decision, to sign the papers.I didn't influence them illegally at all. Morally yes, but what the heck were only talking about money here".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Thompson

So, basically, now we have a Republican judge in Texas advocating civil war if President Obama is re-elected, right?

Check above, we have the idiot from Albany advocting liberals "blow their brains out"

Anyone else see a pattern here?

It's called DESPERATION!

It's the water. The enemy is hiding in our water and it gets into our soup disguised as a fly. Precious bodily fluids syndrome.

Tea Party is a preventable disease. If you or a loved one is showing signs of Tea Party, (i.e intense paranoia, failure to grasp concepts of government, and refusal to pay taxes for basic services) please seek the assistance of a mental health care professional immediately.

Well, that would be the ultimate 'taking your bat home' attitude. If we can't win, nobody will win!

Perhaps if the GOP ran on issues instead of vaguely eluding to a policy whilst reaffirming their commitment to extreme social conservatism, they may stand a chance. Instead, we get to hear more about how a woman's reproductive organs are the business of religion, or how the poor silent minority are discriminated against and suffer in silence; those poor millionaires and billionaires (time for a tax break I think)!

Civil war? I think the only people who should rebel are the moderate republicans in the party, time to extricate yourselves from the T-Party crew and actually propose sensible ideas...

I wasn't all that surprised by that silly judge in Lubbock. After all, he lives in what is called "the buckle on the Bible Belt". He is scary. I'm wondering now how much of what the judge said will be spewed by Rush Limbaugh. And we all know how crazy his listeners are....

Obama 2012. The future of your daughters depend on it!

couple this with the whole Mayan 2012 thing, and the Preppers will be out buying every gun and can of Spam they can find.

It started with floridation of our drinking water,,,,LOL.

I'm sure Rush is AMS certified meteorologist. He definitely knows his stuff.

See - my God is bigger than your god!...

GNOP - can't handle facts...THEY CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

Show us the 1040's Mythe! What are you hiding?

Difference between Republicans and Democrats---4 years ago the Republicans prayed for bad weather so as to ruin the nomination speech of then-Senator Obama, despite its impact on anyone else. Today---the Democrats are hoping that the storm doesn't do a lot of damage to anyone.

I think the bigger storm will be inside if the Ron Paul delegation decides to go for broke.

Detroit-Storm - I hope the Paul delegation creates a real problem at the convention. At least it will show not all Republicans have fallen in lock step with Romney. I see there are more and more Republicans NOT going to the convention. Funny how that happens!

Obama/Biden 2012

At least Ron Paul stands for something and believes in something.

• When Hurricane Isaac hits the GOP Convention....
• How the hell is Pat Robertson going to spin that as God telling us all he's angry because of The Gays?

If the Ron Paul movement were really about Libertarian principles instead of Paul's cult of personality, his supporters would be talking about Gary Johnson more.

I wonder what Ron Paul, an OBGYN, has to say about all this vagina talk and the stupid rape statement etc. As a physician he could clear that up right awaay. Yet, he hasn't said a peep. Will he? What's he waiting for?

Adler - the convention????

I wonder what would happen if the Republican Convention nominated Paul for the presidential nomination in lieu of Romney. It could happen, people....scarier things have happened!!! He's more in line with what the GOP is looking for than Romney. They just have to decide which puppet will be easier to manipulate!!

@Bruce-1628250

Oh that's an easy one Bruce.

If Issac devastates the GOP convention the Robertson,Tony Perkins and John Hagee crowd can just amend their admonishments to "God hates CLOSET homosexuals".

It IS the GOP convention after all...

BTW if they really want to tempt fate on whether or not God hates the Gays then I double dog dare them to have Marcus Bachman and Rush Limbaugh at the convention.

Good one kennyw!!! Very good!!! But they might tie the double-dog to the roof of the car!

Ohhhhh. Nate has it moving closer and closer.

No worry, Willard an Little Paul will get a bounce after Tampa. Then Obama and Biden will get the bounce after their convention. However, the debates will put the President back to the top.

Job1's chances of making it as a political pollster: .0000001%

Actually Jobless1, Obama and Biden will be bounced in November 2012.

Job1's chances of making it as a political pollster: .0000001%

Wow, that's amazing. Because according to No Joe Bo Jo that's almost precisely a woman's chance of getting pregnant if she was raped. What a coincidence!

Bob in VA - Joe Thomas - the chances of either of you being accurate in your assessments about anything is nil; zilch; zero;; nada; zip!

Obama/Biden 2012

Unchanged? Give it up MSNBC, Obama slides further into oblivion everyday.

Obama holds lead in Ohio, but slips in Florida and Wisconsin, poll shows

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-holds-lead-ohio-slips-florida-wisconsin-poll-104836458.html

Really just shows that the time has come to put an end to the electoral college. I'd bet if there would be a decent sampling taken from all states not just those that matter for someone running for office, every race would be a bunch closer.

Force the candidates to address ALL people in ALL states instead of just the same handful of states each time around. Not only am I not really behind either candidate, it really makes no danged difference when a simple majority in less than 25% of the states ends up being the deciding factor.

Agreed!!!!

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right - and I'm stuck in the middle with you!!!

Steely Dan

@mod Dem....you are going to confuse the GNOP'ers with facts....they cannot comprehend that there is a limited suppy of commodities....

It's the GNOP way...more for the rich - less for the poor....their theory...cut taxes...raise leg...trickle down...

GNOP - they can't handle facts..THEY CANT'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

Show us the 1040's Mythe....What are your hiding?

Agreed! A voice of reason!

The oil companies will still control the number of refineries, so they can control the price of oil. Increased production by American sources may reduce or prevent our dependence on foreign oil (which in turn may cause havoc in the Middle East) but it will not significantly lower the cost of energy.

Just look at what is happening with Natural Gas - increased domestic supplies are not prompting domestic energy independence, they are fueling demands for higher exports so the price doesn't drop too far.

You mean the oil companies won't give us a reduced rate for allowing them to plunder the oil from our land?

I'm truly shocked.

</sacrasmoff>

Who is sacrasmoff? Is he a Russian politician? A relative of Madoff?

But in all seriousness, put some blame on the Wall St and Chicago Mercantile traders while you're at it. They're the ones who create panic with everything: storm 1000 miles from the Gulf? Bump up oil futures. Storm may hit Florida, bump up oranges (even though they don't ripen until winter...) Too much rain? Bump up crop futures. Not enough rain? Ditto.

Yeah, and the REALLY stupid thing is that so many people put the blame on our president for the rising gas prices. They have NO idea about how the commodities market works or how speculators in this market control the prices of most of the items we use; i.e., oil, oranges, etc. The President has NOTHING to do with these prices, people!!!