Good morning, America...good morning, Feisty...

.

We the People are better off than 4 years ago.

.

Michigan and Ohio have improved...the Dakotas have improved..the entire country is doing better ..

.

the entire country is doing better.

.

ForeWard...

Jobless claims rose this week .

That's just great .

The states with lower unemployment, achieved despite Obama, will help the rest of us vote this guy out of office.

This presidency was brought to you by the letter "O", and $16T.

Vote Romney for Recovery.

Ontor wrote:

"Jobless claims rose this week .

That's just great ."

No, actually it's not great, unless of course you're one of those crazed right-wingers who revels in bad news.

What is great is that we have unemployment insurance that provides a buffer for those who are out of work. I know it's that disgusting socialism at work, but somehow unemployment insurance seems a better solution than letting people starve.

There is a huge groundswell of support for Romney. Many early voters for Obama regret their decision and would like to have their ballots returned to them. This tsunami hasn't crested yet, but it will on Nov 6.

The smell of desperation coming off the Obama campaign will lead to even more negative ads over the next few weeks, just making it harder for Mitt to unify the country.

Monday's foreign policy debate will be the final nail in Obama's coffin. I.can't.wait.

common - How do you validate your statement, "The states with lower unemployment, achieved despite Obama . . . "? Can you provide proof that President Obama's policies and/or actions did not assist those states? If you can provide unbiased emperical evidence, I'm sure that we'd all like to see it.

Frankly, I don't think you can.

If you want lower unemployment rate....stay the course. This is Morning In America.

.

The five states with unemployment rates below 7.8 percent included Iowa (5.2 percent), New Hampshire (5.7 percent), Ohio (7.0 percent), Virginia (5.9 percent) and Wisconsin (7.3 percent).

.

If Mytth comes in, then night falls, all we got is nightmare. - Mytth is going to outsource more jobs because that's how more wealth flows into the coffers of corporations which Mytth represents.

.

Pres. Obama tries to be President for all 100% of Americans...Mitt is more modest, only aiming to represent the 1%, but modesty in pursuing justice is no virtue.

I'm pretty certain it would be easy to establish documented evidence that would show recovery despite Obama, whether it's Republican governors and legislature, private sector investment in Oil and Gas (North Dakota as a great example, despite Obama's disdain for O&G), etc.

There is also a wonderful resilience to the American economy in her ability to bounce back from just about any recession to some degree.

I do find it amusing Mr Obama is trying to shift blame on everyone else yet take credit for Mother Nature.

actually according to gallop more than half are ready to dump the current occupant of the white house.

not sure how you define bringing us back -- fewer people working today that when he started, national debt increased by more than any other president, GDP dropping for 3 years in a row, housing struggling, college graduates cannot get jobs...

You said it .

What a great administration we have now .

Where there claim to fame are the millions still starving .

pig -- i would rather see the number employed increase given the weakness in the unemployment numbers.

your outsourcing comment has been debunked many times so no more to be said

obama has failed to represent 100% -- he disparages more than half of us regularly

romney will truly represent all Americans

So common, you freely admit what you give was an opinion since you cannot come up with valid proof?

@ billybooob-6210632 (#1.11)..my name is Pigotry - as a warning to all about a GOP design of pigotry - or GOP's government by pigs, of pigs, for pigs...

.

America deserves better...

.

it's democracy, it's democratic...4 more years.

Romney will truly represent the 1%, but not all Americans as you claim. His and Ryans policy's are completely against American values. His lies seem to be working with those that have weak minds but those of us that can think for ourselves are voting for Obama.

John, I'd actually suggest you do the work yourself. It's there, so just go do some googling. It's kind of hard to dispute the very obvious evidence of North Dakota, but go ahead and spin away.

Amen, Feisty---just imagine where we'd be if the GOP-controlled House had done ANYTHING related to jobs in the last two years. Instead they refused to consider any of the President's job proposals and wasted their time renaming post offices, voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act and causing the unnecessary debt ceiling crisis. No wonder their approval rating is at 7%.

Common - I think you are confusing "distain for oil and gas" with a desire not be solely reliant on them. Oil produciton on feeral lands is up 14% over the last four years. Gas production is overall lower but that's directly related to off shore production being down.

I'll also point out out that the States you mentioned used the stimulus funding to help balance their State budgets and to provide funding for infrastructue (which IMO is perhaps the single biggest immediate thing a gov't can do to help provide positive job growth conditions).

Yes, there is a wonderful resilience to our economy because of the diversity of it. That said, business sectors do not grow or contract at exactly even or equitable rates. Look at the different "booms" we've had for historical reference. However, we still participate in a global economy and our situation will be directly impacted by what is going on in EU, Asia, etc.

billybob, you are wrong. GDP growth rates have slowed, but they have not dropped, they are increasing. The last time they dropped was in 2009 at the bottom of the recession. Since then our GDP has been growing. source: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

sorry piggy

Common, you made the statement now try and back it up. Anything else is just your opinon which is clouded by Fox. You know that, and I know that. Thats my opinion.

No wonder their approval rating is at 7%.

SF,

You think this has anything to do with Lyin Ryan demanding to be called "Mr. Ryan" at the VP debate? lol

There isn't enough spin in the world to change the fact President Obama is bringing us back from the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression!

It does seem as if you Feisty are putting quite alot of spin into your statement. It doesn't appear to be working, except to those FR sheep you try to control.

funny girl? Its not funny when the right wing men runs your life and makes you a second class citizen. Feisty is simply stating fact.

I want higher employment. I want a great economy.

I want Romney for President.

This administration is NOT getting it done.

Let the grown ups take over.

Voters have cleared their lenses, shed their guilt with a vote for Obama in 2008, but now see that we need substance, leadership and focus on The United States of America.

Romney/Ryan 2012

I'm in the 99%, Romney represents me.

No John, Feisty is simply stating opinion. The questions remains, is it her opinion or the opinion of the Global Strategy Group who has a piece of the Obama campaign?

Romney can't pay for his 20% tax cut. He'll raise the deficit and we'll go into recession and you'll lose your job.

Enough said.

So, rukidding, does Romney have a plan? And if so what is it? So far he has said absolutely nothing but "trust me". He tells us everything except how he plans to accomplish anything.

He went over his 5point plan a lot. I know it has 4 more points then Obama but try and keep up.

Obama plan is tax and spend. Just keep digging.

Romney's plan will raise the deficit by 5 trillion. He can't pay for his 20% tax cut.

The Romney plan is available for those who may wish to read it rather than listen to and copy the talking points of the Obama campaign.

By the way, what are the Obama plans to take the economy out of the Obama gutter, reduce the Obama spending from his first administration, and the plan to create more jobs? I must have missed it during his sleeping session in his first debate, while laughing at Biden during his debate, or trying to learn more about Big Bird during the second Presidential debate.

Liberals hate and distrust Mormons, yet the state with the highest unemployment rate continues to re-elect a Mormon and votes for a president who tells tourists to stay away from that state. Go figure.

Mathew Up?

Overall leasing and production is DOWN from the Bush Years. This Chart only covers through 2010. We know that 2011 was lower than 2010.

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Obama-Oil-and-Gas-Record-2-with-EIA-correction.pdf

What is really disingenuous about Obama is he cut and allowed cutting for his first 3 years and opened up about 1 year before the election. Why? Polls show that $4.00 - $5.00 per gallon gas would mean no re-election.

IF you re-elect him, he will do the same thing congress did in 2008 & 2009. That is vote for opening more off shore areas for exploration and then rescind the tract opening legistlation with new legistlation in January of the next year.

DB Akron

We know 2012 is better than 2011 according to Andrea Mitchell (wife of Alan Greenspan). Our oil and gas production is up. Reduction in leased Federal land oil output is directly the result of BP oil spill and the moratorium on new drilling in the Gulf of Mexico until the problem that caused BP spill could be thoroughly investigated and fixed. We could not afford another failure of the magnitude of the BP spill.

It is deceptive of you to ignore the special case that affects these statistics.

Of course, all Republicans can really do to help Willard is exaggerate, distort, misinform, and sometimes even lie to support all their chosen one's misleading claims. How sad.

• All the spin in the world cannot save this President's butt; the country needs a man with a track record of putting people to work, not getting them killed and going to Vegas on yet another fundraiser....someone who sees the big picture and doesn't go running to "The View" to get his ass kissed and be "eye candy"....the country sees that this President hasn't passed ONE BUDGET in 4 years, that he hasn't worked on anything in almost 18 months since he has been out campaigning.....he is the worst President in the history of the United States and accumulated MORE DEBT than ALL OF THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS COMBINED.....it's over for Obama

State jobless data offers mixed picture for Obama and Romney

Just more signs of a very desperate Obama and his cronies grasping at straws. Perhaps they can conjure up some personal attack against Romney to take people's minds off of his record of incompetence and failure. After all, it was Obama himself that said: "if you have no record to run on, attack your opponent".

Roadwarrior, it isn't Mormons liberals hate it is MORONS. Sorry fella but you just aren't liked by most of the folks on this board. Whether to use hate, such a strong word, is questionable. I don't think those speaking out on either side hate America. Some on the far fringes of the right hate Obama for whatever reason. They really never say and it doesn't matter. On the left they point out some traits in Mr. Romney that are not desirable but I wouldn't call that hate.

United States GDP growth is #1 in the WORLD INDUSTRIALIZED NATIONS since 2008.

There's failure for you folks!

It's a WORLDWIDE recession folks.

and Obama's USA is outpacing the rest of the world by a large margin in recovering from it..

and he's a failure!

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

There isn't enough spin in the world to change the fact President Obama is bringing us back from the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression!

Even though he has had ZERO cooperation from the tea bagging obstructionists in Congress!

Now almost half of the country wants to go back to the exact same policies which drove us into the ditch with Willard!

Unbelievable!!!

• 20

• !

#1

Y'all just pucker up and keep kissing. Once you get past the stink you got it licked.

@Puppy Sheeple;

WOW, your name really says it all...at least you're honest about it.

Regarding your claim that the USA is #1 in the world for GDP growth...that is NOT correct. The USA has the LARGEST GDP - NOT the LARGEST GROWTH RATE.

Also, when analyzing the GDP of any country, most economists will look at the "GDP per capita" statistics...when one does that the USA isn't even in the top 118 of country's. The Top 5 are as follows: Luxembourg; Qatar; Singapore; Kuwait; and Brunei.

You might also find this interesting and informative:

"GDP is a measure of the total size and output of the economy. One measure of the debt burden is its size relative to GDP. In the 2007 fiscal year, U.S. federal debt held by the public was approximately $5 trillion (36.8 percent of GDP) and total debt was $9 trillion (65.5 percent of GDP).^[38] Debt held by the public represents money owed to those holding government securities such as Treasury bills and bonds. Total debt includes intra-governmental debt, which includes amounts owed to the Social Security Trust Funds (about $2.2 trillion in FY 2007)^[39] and Civil Service Retirement Funds. By August 2008, the total debt was $9.6 trillion.^[40]

Based on the 2010 U.S. budget, total national debt will nearly double in dollar terms between 2008 and 2015 and will grow to nearly 100% of GDP, versus a level of approximately 80% in early 2009.^[41] Multiple government sources including the current and previous presidents, the GAO, Treasury Department, and CBO have said the United States is on an unsustainable fiscal path.^[42] However, ahead of predictions, total national debt reached 100% by the third quarter of 2011.^[43] If counted using the total public debt outstanding over the annual GDP in chained 2005 dollars, the ratio reached 115% on Feb. 2012.^[44]

As the debt ratio increases, the exchange value of the dollar may fall. Paying back debt with cheaper currency could cause investors (including other governments) to demand higher interest rates if they anticipate further dollar depreciation. Paying higher interest rates could slow domestic U.S. growth.

Higher debt increases interest payments on the debt, which already exceed $430 billion annually as discussed below, or about 15 cents of every tax dollar for 2008.^[45] According to the CIA Factbook, nine countries have debt to GDP ratios over 100% for 2010, the largest of which is Japan at approximately 197.5%.^[46]

Further, a high public debt to GDP ratio may also slow economic growth. Economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff calculated that countries with public debt above 90 percent of GDP grow by an average of 1.3 percentage points per year slower than less indebted countries. The public debt-to-GDP ratio in March 2010 is about 60 percent of GDP; CBO projects it will reach 90 percent around 2020 under policies in place in 2010. If growth slows, all of the economic challenges the United States faces will worsen.^[47]"

But I guess when you are a self proclaimed "Sheeple" no one should expect anything more from you!

Really? thanks for your edumacation on what a GDP growth rate is.

Now head over to the World Monetary Fund's website, and plot a graph of all industrialized nation's GDP from 2006-2012 (like i did) and see which country has the line going most steeply upward.

And get back to me boy.

DB Akron - actually I was off by a few points. It isn't 14%. Oil production is up 26.4% since the end of Presidnt G. W. Bush's term. source: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/1017/Presidential-debate-101-In-oil-drilling-spat-did-Obama-make-his-best-case/(page)/2

Hope you Republicans haven't staked your future of Mittie's jobs plans.Because he's been caught lying there too.

"Mitt Romney has done a heckuva job with his jobs plan.

At Tuesday night’s town-hall debate, the Republican presidential nominee replied with confidence when 20-year-old student Jeremy Epstein asked the candidates for reassurance that he’d be able to find work after graduation.

“I put out a five-point plan that gets America 12 million new jobs in four years,” Romney said. “It’s going to help Jeremy get a job when he comes out of school.”

The candidate’s statement, a version of a claim he has made for months on the stump and in a new ad, was bold, precise — and baseless.

Hours earlier, my Washington Post colleague Glenn Kessler had reported that the source the Romney campaign provided for the jobs figure was a trio of studies that either didn’t directly analyze Romney’s policies or were based on longer time horizons than four years.

Top Romney economist Glenn Hubbard acknowledged to Kessler that the three studies did “not make up the 12 million jobs in the first four years,” and the Romney campaign issued a statement minutes before the debate that expanded the jobs time frame to “the next four years and beyond.”

But the claim, though discredited, had become a key part of Romney’s message — and he went right ahead and repeated the falsehood during the debate.

Much of the burgeoning fact-check function in the news media is subjective; Romney’s tax cut claims, for example, are impossible to assess with certainty because he doesn’t say what deductions he would disallow and what other assumptions he makes. But the jobs claim is black and white: The evidence the Romney campaign furnished to support the claim did not do so.

Romney’s economists do think the economy would add 12 million jobs under his policies over the next four years, and they issued a white paper in August claiming that. But this paper is not based on Romney’s five-point plan, and elements of that plan, such as cracking down on China and consolidating job training, aren’t even mentioned in the paper. Rather, the 12 million figure is based on the economists’ assumptions that Romney’s policies would mean that “the current recovery will align with the average gains of similar past recoveries.”

This forecast is not terribly controversial, although claiming that Romney’s policies will cause this growth is equivalent to the rooster believing his crow causes the sun to rise. Several independent economists, and President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, project the economy will add 12 million jobs over the next four years without factoring in Romney’s policies.

More controversial is Romney’s linking of his five-point plan to the 12 million jobs. “I have a plan,” he said in a recent stump speech, “that’s going to get this economy going and create jobs, jobs and more jobs — 12 million jobs.” He often says that his tax policies would create 7 million jobs and his energy policies would generate 3.5 million to 4 million positions.

In a recent ad, Romney, speaking to the camera from a factory floor, says his “energy independence policy means more than 3 million new jobs,” his tax plan “creates 7 million more,” and “expanding trade, cracking down on China and improving job training takes us to over 12 million new jobs.”

But when Kessler asked for substantiation, the campaign referred him to a Rice University professor’s study for evidence that Romney’s tax plan would generate 7 million jobs — which turned out to be a 10-year number. The evidence for the energy policy creating 3 million jobs comes from a Citigroup Global Markets study that did not analyze Romney’s plan and was assuming an eight-year horizon. The remaining 2 million jobs, Kessler wrote, were justified by a 2011 International Trade Commission report that also didn’t analyze Romney policies.

“The big point is the 3+7+2 does not make up the 12 million jobs in the first four years (different source of growth and different time period),” Hubbard acknowledged in an e-mail to Kessler.

Kessler called Romney’s claim a bait-and-switch, a characterization Obama echoed whenhe spoke at a rally in Iowa on Wednesday afternoon. “Turns out his jobs math isn’t any better than his tax math,” Obama charged.

About the same time, Romney took the stage in Chesapeake, Va. This time, he dropped the reference to 12 million jobs. “I’m going to get this economy going,” was the extent of his vow. It wasn’t flashy, but it had the virtue of being honest."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-romneys-facts-are-curious-things/2012/10/17/11157cc6-189f-11e2-9855-71f2b202721b_story.html?hpid=z2

Whether we like it or not, neither our elections nor our economy are based on pure facts... "how it feels" drives us all. If the economy "feels better", it will BE better. If a candidate "feels better", they will be elected. And, in fact, this is more true in this election than ever. The economy is in the tank and most know that nobody will be able to drive a quick recovery. So how it is done, who it favors, and what good or harm is done along the way trumps the economy in this election. Trust is huge.

That's why we will see a healthy bump in our economy immediately after this election, no matter who is elected... just because of the relief that it's over and the increase in certainty.

Wake up! Romney and Obama are related to each other (look it up). They are also related the Bush's! The blue bloods have always run this world. There is no difference between the two!

Neither Obama nor Romney have anything to offer but US Bankruptcy, endless wars, tyranny and soon third world poverty.

Please vote LIBERTARIAN with me; even if only this once. Lets try to give our children a better future

i like the comments on out sourced jobs! whose fault is that? we the people everyone of us price shops. we are the reason jobs have gone overseas. we buy cars from japan korea electronics from japan. we havent been competitive in alot of areas. so when you complain about jobs overseas look in the mirror. you want to change that buy american! but we wont we will still look for that great deal!

....tomorrow will even be better ...under O'bama...

.

For one, DOW Jones Average improved from end of Bush's abysmal 7,000 plus to today's 13,500 plus.

.

Even Mitt wants to keep President O in the White House, because Mitt's own stocks's values have doubled.

pig -- other than dow you mention below what else you got? how about average median income for Americans -- can you remind me of the difference in the last 4 years? GDP growth?

Housing starts and sales are up, retail sales are up, retailers are forcasting the best Christmas season in 4 years. Cars as selling, banks are lending. Corporate profits are breaking records and CEO's pay is up. What more do you need Bb. There are plenty of economic indicators that show improvement over the Bush years.

John

Because people are betting on Romney.

If he looses it will collapse.

The Hope is in a Romney White House.

Romney can't pay for his 20% tax cut. He'll raise the deficit and we'll go into recession and you'll lose your job.

Enough said.

All of these small miniscule improvements are not from Obama, they are from the natural resilience of our free enterprise system. If you look at the real economic health indicators this economy is still very sick and needs the stranglehold of excessive regulation and taxation (Obamacare) policies removed from it's neck. Unfortunately, Obama's keynesian/krugman policies are going to curtail even the resiliency of this rock solid free enterprise system if he has a chance to continue.

Sure he can.

Cut spending by more then 20%. Not hard.

One and done for Romney if he makes those kinds of austerity cuts.

John did you miss this?

"Home resales fell in September as the stock of properties on the market fell, a reminder that America's housing sector is a long way from a full recovery despite recent signs of improvement.
The National Association of Realtors said on Friday that existing home sales dropped 1.7 percent last month to an seasonally adjusted annual rate of 4.75 million units."

http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/19/14557619-existing-home-sales-fall-as-inventories-drop?lite

URKidding

Mitt plans to increase defense spending by $200 billion per year ($2 trillion over 10 years). He has pledged not to cut medicare or social security. Medicaid is a health care cost that we will pay through higher insurance premiums if it is cut.

You say it is not hard to cut spending by more than 20%. Let's do some arithmetic to see if that is true.

Our 2010 budget was $3.45 trillion. 20% of that is almost $700 billion.

Defense is $700 billion. Romney wants it at $900 billion.

Medicare is $451 billion.

Social Security is $706 Billion.

So far, we have $900 + $451 + $706 =$2.057 trillion leaving us with $1.393 trillion for the rest of our government's operations. You claim a 20% cut is easy. Let's subtract 20% now and we are left with $693 billion for the rest of the government to operate.

Following is a list of things that will need to share that $693 billion.

International Affairs $45 billion, Science and Technology(including NASA) $24 billion, Energy $11 billion, Environmental Protection $43 billion, Agriculture $21 billion, Transportation $91 billion, Disaster Relief and community Development $24 billion, Education,Training, Employment, and Social Services $127 billion, Health Research and Services (including Medicaid) $369 billion, Income Security (retirement and disability, federal employee retirement, unemployment compensation, Food Stamps) $622 billion, Veterans benefits and Services $108 billion, Federal law enforcement $53 billion, General government (operating costs) $23 billion, Interest $196 billion.

We have to pay interest $196 billion. We need Federal law enforcement $53 billion. We need government to stay open $23 billion. Are we really going to hurt the veterans? $108 billion. We have already made commitments on Income Security, but for the sake of argument we'll cut it in half leaving $311 billion.

Now we have $2 billion left for the rest of the programs I am listing below.

So we'll just eliminate Medicaid ($330 billion, of course we'll just pay for that in higher insurance premiums), International Affairs (of course, US citizens will now be on their own when they travel overseas and who needs embassies anyways), Science and Technology (good by space Program), Disaster Relief (tough luck, storm victims), Energy, Environmental Protection (we'll just drink beer, right), Agriculture, transportation (we don't need to use the roads anymore), and Education (who needs that?).

I thought you said it would be easy.

Just watch the next four years and you will see.

Looks like we are screwed either way. Obama is even more under water on his budget than Romney

I would like to see unemployment rates for cities, rather than States. The reason why, take Nevada or North Dakota as examples, the areas outside of cities is so sparsely populated,, it hardly matters. Then as a comparison, take a City such as Chicago. From the air, looking at the lights at night, this population area runs from the Mississippi River on the west, to Pennsylvania to the east, and Wisconsin to the north. The southern part of The Great Lakes are outlined by this population mass. A similar view would be found in New York on the east Coast, and Los Angeles on the west coast. What is the unemployment rate in the large metropolitan areas. Neither Nevada, nor North Dakota have significant population to influence the Electoral College with their number of delegates. This is the real "spin" on the statistics. The mega population areas such as Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Boston are the areas who are going to put for the greatest demand for federal tax support, not rural North Dakota.

Yes it is. It's also down from the high of 14.9% in December 2010. Why so high for them and why so long? Mostly because of the collapse of the housing market which has not yet recovered. Nevada was disproportionately impacted when compared to other states.

Those were mostly service sector jobs supporting tourism, and since no one has $$$, hardly any are going to LV except Obama.

The other negative impact on Nevada's employment was the failure (again) of Obama's green dream companies.

Gee Common, how many times has Romney been to Vegas to be rolick in Adelson Chinese cash? I mean we are talking a whopping $100M commitment from the Chinese/Adelson money making machine.

Sadly, so much of Nevada's economy depends on America as a whole believing that 'life is fun. Wasting money is occasionally fun too.' But I think if there is one thing that's fundamentally changed since 2008, it's the idea that life in America is supposed to be fun. The right wing has participated in a four year full court press to convince us all of how miserable we all are in an attempt to change the political landscape. It's sort of sad and it will probably not work to their advantage if and when they regain the presidency.

After all, after the treatment of the last four years, not just of the president, but of the 'libtards' by the right wing on message boards all across America, what possible motivation would we have to cooperate with you?

You are very incorrect on the Nevada job sector losses commonamerican1. Source: http://nevadaworkforce.com/

A quick review of specific workfoce/job sector info is located in the powerpoint titled "Nevada Labor market Breifing: Sep. 2012".

Romney can't pay for his 20% tax cut. He'll raise the deficit and we'll go into recession and you'll lose your job.

Enough said.

Nevada has almost NO industry besides casinos.

What do you expect their economy to do in a recession, exactly?

Top three Nevada sectors (in order) are: Tourism. Mining, and Agriculture. While tourism is at the top Nevada has significant dollar generation from the other two.

Eric-913730

Romney can't pay for his 20% tax cut. He'll raise the deficit and we'll go into recession and you'll lose your job.

Enough said.

• 2

• !

#3.

Obama can pay for none of his programs with tax increases alone yet he is unwilling to cut the programs that the democrats have used historically to buy votes. The democrats put us in this mess buying votes with new houses and now all you libtards are complaining about being unable to get out of it. If the dems had not blocked the Bush administration's to control the financial disaster brought about by the unregulated housing market we would not be in this mess anyway.

Rick, maybe you've been misinformed?

The Reform Act of 2005, S. 190 proposed deregulating Fannie and Freddie and put them under the authority of a new board who's Director is appointed by the President.

Further, the Act never made it out of a Republican controlled committee. It was reported on and died there. It was NOT blocked by Democrats.

(source: www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s190 )

Rick, not only did it NOT make it out of committee. President George W. Bush opposed it both times it was proposed. Source: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=24851

And regarding your "tax increases alone" comment, perhaps you forgot about the "Grand Bargain" where the President proposed 3 dollars in cuts for every 1 dollar in increased revenue that was rejected by the Republicans.

Ford took no bailout money .

GM is costing the tax payers about $26 billion that will not be paid back .

And GM is in trouble again .

And the majority of the military support Romney now .

Ontor, I don't believe that statement to be true, G.M. in the last two months have actually re-opened up two plants and a R and D facility in Warren Michigan. One of the plants open was in Lordstown, Ohio and the other I believe to be in Trenton, Mi. This don't sound like a company that is struggling. It has shown profits since the bail out. Pretty sure you are just spouting right wing rhetoric designed to make Americans feel bad about themselves enough to vote for an absolute tyrant.

ONTOR, the donation figures seem to suggest otherwise:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/10/armed-forces-show-overwhelming-supp.html

Obama clearly wins the donations battle. The most supported Republican candidate? Ron Paul.

@Middle Class Mom

NEWS ALERT: GM & Chrysler DID IN FACT GO THROUGH BANKRUPTCY!!! The ONLY difference between Romney's vision for the two auto manufacturers was that the "bailout" would come form "PRIVATE INVESTMENT" NOT on the backs of the United States TAXPAYERS...of which we are still owed at least $30BILLION (it's actually over $40 BILLION but then we have that "tricky Washington math").

If you're going to add to an argument...it is always BEST to first get the FACTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IndiReasoning - there were NO banks or private investors willing to and/or capable of helping out GM or Chrysler and keeping the companies intact. That's why the government stepped in. Gov. Romney's plan would NOT have worked. Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2012/1017/Presidential-debate-101-Did-Mitt-Romney-want-Detroit-to-go-bankrupt

To quote you - "it is always BEST to first get the FACTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

@Mathtew;

GM nor Chrysler remained "intact"...GM shed Hummer, Saab, Pontiac, Saturn - Chrysler is now OWNED by FIAT! Last time I checked, FIAT was NOT an American Company!!!

FYI: It was cheaper for FIAT to assume Chrysler than for them to build their own US distribution for the FIAT 500 that they decided to bring to the US Marketplace. Especially good deal for FIAT, using US Taxpayers $$$$ to do so.

Who got screwed? Us Taxpayers, Hummer, Saab, Pontiac & Saturn Dealers and those Pension Plans vested in GM.

Who won? the Autoworkers Union, FIAT and the "Big O"!

I'm still waiting on that Us taxpayer return on investment...aren't you?

Good Day!!!!

IndieReasoning - "Intact" as in the companies still exist. Yes, some lines were shed. But compared to a total dimantlement as advocated by others this was a preferable option.

Had Chrysler NOT been saved, then the merger between it and FIAT could not have happened. This merger infused additional capital into the company and allowed for the business to expand. Oddly enough, that means more US jobs. The American worker won. It's even been touted as a "model merger" by many investors in the US and in Europe.

Chrysler rec'd 12.5 billion dollars in TARP money from the US. A total of 11.2 billion was repaid. The US will probably not directly recover the remaining 1.3 billion, BUT jobs were saved and cars are being produced.

So how does the loss of 1.3 bllion compare to the impacts of the bailout? Where is the return?

The bailout means that since jobs still exist (because the company does) we are not paying unemployment (savings to the taxpayer from wlefare and unemployment NOT being paid to hundreds of thousands of workers) - it means that cars are being produced and sold (taxes, i.e. revenue being generated for both the state and feds) - it means that workers are buying things (investing and growing our economy overall).

We've gotten a significant return Indie, and it will continue. Had we NOT bailed out the industry then we would be in significantly more dire straits.

And good day to you, sir. I hope your evening goes well.

We all know it was to save the large union pensions as it is clear and well document that when it came to Delphi the UAW was saved, but did not do the same for 20,000 salaried retirees and pension participants, nor pensions of smaller unions. Saying if the government hadn't jumped in the companies would be no longer be around and mass loss of jobs is only opinion. Look how many times airlines have gone through ch11 and are still around (US Airways, United, Delta, American, etc.). Yes, jobs were lost, but not to the hysteria that people want to think if no one would have stepped in. Also, no bank was willing to lend to GM if there was no guarantee that they wouldnt turn around and just file for bankruptcy as they would be the last one the list to obtain anything due to it being a new loan.

Look at it politically too - surprised that the two big states (Mich & Ohio) that are the battle grounds also have a large population effected by the GM bailout?

Additionally, the Volt, what a failure as GM is losing money on each car, which was recently estimated to be around $49,000 per car! Yeah, great return.

From The Detroit News: #ixzz29rIU8z7h

Well this puts paid to all the Romnesia guys that think the Military supports Romney.Our soldiers don't like the idea of endless wars anymore than other Americans:

Armed Forces Show Overwhelming Support for Obama

Foreign policy, military funding and plans for U.S. troops abroad are providing plenty of chewy campaign fodder for President Barack Obama and his GOP rival, Mitt Romney. But fundraising reports shed light on what the armed forces think about the the candidates.

Former Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul received significant support from the military for his strong stance on bringing troops home, and that briefly continued even after Romney pulled ahead as the clear GOP candidate.

Now, though, the military's support has shifted toward Obama. Romney has consistently received little financial backing from military donors.

Despite the fact that Paul once raised almost twice as much as Obama did from the military, the president has received $536,414 from military donors, compared to Paul's $399,274 and Romney's $287,435, according to research by the Center for Responsive Politics. These numbers are based on donations greater than $200, as reported to theFederal Election Commission.

Below is a table of contributions from military and civilian employees of the military for the 2012 election cycle:

Donor Obama Romney Paul

Defense Acquisition University
$0
$1,000
$0

National Defense University
$300
$0
$0

National Guard
$7,507
$4,490
$16,333

NATO
$250
$0
$0

US Air Force
$69,532
$54,170
$90,611

US Army
$165,646
$87,218
$115,458

US Coast Guard
$12,122
$4,700
$13,819

US Dept of Defense
$176,121
$71,043
$39,500

US Marine Corps
$16,168
$16,120
$30,855

US Military
$2,112
$5,491
$2,755

US Navy
$86,656
$43,203
$89,943

Total
$536,414
$287,435
$399,274

Contributing $176,121, the Department of Defense is Obama's biggest supporter, with theArmy not far behind with $165,646. The Navy sits in third at $86,656. In comparison, Romney's top military contributor is the Army with $87,218, followed by the Department of Defense with $71,043 in contributions.

However, although Obama's fundraising totals are higher than his opponent's, eight of the 11 military branches the Center for Responsive Politics analyzed have given more to Republican presidential candidates -- most notably the Navy, the Air Force and the Marine Corps.

The Obama advantage comes even though he said $500 billion in military spending would be cut as part of the sequestration process to help balance the budget, while Romney has alluded to a multi-trillion-dollar increase over the next decade.

Despite the president's $100,000-plus lead over Romney and Paul in funding from the armed forces, the numbers didn't turn in his favor until March when Obama began receiving donations doubling Paul's.

On a month-by-month basis, the latest fundraising numbers are from August, which show Obama with a $140,761 to $90,273 lead over Romney. Both candidates received most of their August funding from the Army, with Obama pulling in about $21,000 more.

Below is a table of contributions from military and civilian employees of the military for the month of August:

Donor Obama Romney Paul

Defense Acquisition University
$0
$250
$0

National Guard
$2,750
$2,940
$0

NATO
$250
$0
$0

US Air Force
$17,285
$17,800
$0

US Army
$47,907
$26,727
$0

US Coast Guard
$4,970
$2,750
$0

US Dept of Defense
$36,822
$21,667
$250

US Marine Corps
$4,500
$3,350
$201

US Military
$750
$491
$0

US Navy
$25,527
$14,298
$0

Total
$140,761
$90,273
$451

Although Vice President Joe Biden and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) discussed national security and military funding during their debate last week, voters still are waiting for a more in-depth treatment of the issues from the presidential candidates. That may occur at tomorrow's second presidential debate at Hofstra University in New York.

Correction: This story was changed to accurately reflect that eight of the 11 military branches analyzed have given more to Republican presidential candidates, not Romney alone. Additionally, the sentence detailing which branches give the most money to Romney has been updated with correct numbers.


http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/10/armed-forces-show-overwhelming-supp.html

Wow.... here is the facts: (nod to my nemesis Feisty)

Taking the entire 4 years and all the "so called" jobs created... Obama'a policies has created Zero %

From when he took office and all the non farm payrolls... Its stand at zero... in other words all the Jobs created and loss comes to .... zero 1 job created.... 1 job loss.... 2 jobs created... 2 jobs loss. Here you go..... 5 million jobs created 5 million lost over 4 years under Obama... The video is from CNBC... sorry guys...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/zero-jobs-created-cnbcs-rick-santelli-takes-on-the-obama-campaigns-job-creation-claim/

Romney/Ryan 2012

How can anyone be so STUPID to vote for Barry again with his record? Get a clue.....

His record is one of great achievement, turn off fox and find the truth. Yes, we are much better off now then when Obama took over.

John

In a pigs eye. You can get away with that in a DNC meeting. (do nothing club)

But in the real world your words are hot air with no balloon. Just a waste.

I am worse off then 4 yrs ago. Everyone I know is worse off. The Country is in worse financial shape.

Go stare at yourself in the mirror and talk that nonsense. No one else buys it.

The depths of greatness to hire Bush's economic adviser Barnanke and stayed the Bush economic course of bailouts, stimulus and tax cuts to the rich on steroids that added over $6 trillion to our national debt in less than 4 years. You've got to be kidding, right? Your post is a joke, right?

Andrewcaz

You need to get professional help as you have lost touch with reality.

Hey Johnny...stop being a GOOB.....

"Great achievement"??? I think I just threw up in my mouth a little...

In your dreams Bucky, Obama will return to finish the work that he has started in righting the ship from the terrible administration led by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Yeah...you're right Johnny boy....BARRY/BIDEN/BIG BIRD 2012..."FOWL WE CAN BELIEVE"....HA HA HA. LIB TARDS are such GOOBERS.....

Obama claims that reducing the deficit $207 billion while adding $1.8 trillion to the national debt in the same time period will grow our economy.

If you're gullible enough to believes this like J. Willard Marriot believe this, then you're too much of a fool to realize that reelecting Obama condemns our country to suicide by Obama.

I have yet to understand why anyone would vote for Obama. He gave the go ahead one order to kill one man. That's his only bright spot in his 4 yrs.

Pitiful

rukidding47

Not the only bright spot. He did have his democratic congress lift the ban on horse meat for human consumption and have them redefine pizza as a health food for his wife.

So now the school children can get pizza topped with horse meat served to them in schools.

But in very small portions.

Would not want them to get to big.

LMAO!!!! You guys are freaking cracking me up today! I had no idea about the horse meat for human comsumption ban was lifted!!! Now I'm hungry dangit. C'mere trigger...got a little treat for you!

NPCDan

No problem as its being sold in NY deli's. Won't be long with Obama tanking our economy that it will be replacing beef in your local food store.

Could MSNBC's report about how the government started a program to send all the wild horses on Government lands to the slaughter house, be Obama's big October surprise? He's going to supplement food stamps with horse meat? I'm sure the record high number of people receiving food stamps will appreciate that more than finding a job.

That's the biggest pile I've seen today. Is that counting the people who have simply quit looking for work? I thought not. It's a hell of a lot easier to have your income handed to you, rather than working for it. Check the increase in the number of familes on food stamps. And as for "creating" 5.5 million jobs? Hogwash. When you lose 5 million jobs, then create 5 million jobs, what is the net result??? You seem to be a math whiz, cypher away!

G-9

Oh may, I didn't read about the quarter million Obama's campaign hired for the final push to election day. Have to to included them just like they've been including the summer and seasonal jobs each time they were created for the past four years.

G-9, if you would pull your head out, close your mouth, and listen to the complete comments made by both, they say unemployed and underemployed in that 23 million figure.

"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" The Boxer - Simon and Garfunkel

I see the Romnesia infected are hard at it today. But don't worry we will cure you of that disease Nov 6th. If any of you still have lingering symptoms after that,the ACA will make sure you are covered for treatment.

So fellow Democrats,we need to take pity on our Romnesia affected brothers and get out and vote on Nov 6th. Its the only way to help cure these afflicted souls.

Vote Obama/Biden and help cure Romnesia.

Eric

For shame! you didn't mention the fact that Obama pushed for and got the Bush tax cuts to the rich extended in 2010 which had him paying lower taxes rather than implement his tax reform.

How can you forget how Obama got on national TV this past April and told the nation that he wanted to pay the higher taxes his tax reform would have him paying if he could only get his tax reform implemented.

How can you forget that he never even propose his tax reform to congress when the democrats had control of congress in 2009 & 2010 and passed everything he wanted.

what happened

You totally forgot that Mr. Obama had to include the Bush tax cuts for the rich to get an extension of the umemployment insurance. Mr. Obama is for the people, Romney is for the 1%.

You also forget that to get a senate bill out of committee, you need 60 votes. Mr. Obama never had a super majority (58 dems, 2 indepentents. Liberman rarely voted dem; so 1 short of 60).

Nonsense.

Mark, you must have been asleep last week.

common,

Go to the BLS web and read how the BLS determines the unemployment rate before you state what you "know."

Obama is leading in early voting because his campaign drops off busloads of his race to vote. I saw it yesterday and it was ridiculously obvious. Those of us that own a car and are educated will show up in droves and it will all be over soon.

Romney/Ryan 2012

Because I would rather vote for a mormon than a MORON.

dimples or pimples -Are you suggesting that the Black Community have no right to vote?

Would you say the same thing if a busload of the White Community was dropped off to vote?

Well get ready because Senior Citizens are picked up and taken to polling stations - next you'll be saying I saw a bunch of decrepit old people dropped off to vote - or Latinos, or Asians

Whom don't you hate? Oh I got it fat old white guys and their old bleached blonde fat old wives wearing a Walmart $2.99 straw hat with tea bags safety pinned to it

Obama will not get Ohio.

Unlike in 08, when Obama's people focused inordinate resources on name recognition (and signs), given his relatively unknown status, this year they haven't had to do so, since, well, he's pretty well-known now. Anybody who thinks signs matter also thinks that wearing an NFL jersey matters in the outcome of a football game. What matters, generally, is who has the better ground game, both in electoral politics and in football. We'll see how things shake out.

Oh, we all know the name!! It's associated with the worst president ever.

Just factually (I know, a bad word) false.

The economic trend is undeniably favorable and there is nothing Romney has proposed that would make it anymore favorable.

Your use of CAPITAL letters, excess boldface, and multiple !!! does not make your posting more persuasive. And you're also an ignoramus -- "Obama is not the first black person to be president"? Pardon me?

Your suggestion that he's "not AMERICAN" demonstrates that you are just a wingnut.

MarkfromLA

Hey MORON! Obama is half white half black or milano,a zebra whatever you want to call him. Even Samuel Jackson and other well known blacks say he is not the first and not 100%, idiot. You socialist liberals are real losers with no common sense, no education. If you didn't have a messiah and a government check you might as well be DEAD. Go jump back in the sewer you came from. You SOCIALIST liberals don't have an original comment of your own.

I understand that you want to blame republicans, and Bush in particular, for all of the problems.

So why hasn't Obama done anything to address these 'problems'? Why have his policies actually made things worse for so many Americans?

Oh, and your false argument that the republicans have stopped him holds no water as the democrats controlled Congress for the first two years of his presidency and Obama couldn't even get his own democrats to vote for his proposed budgets.

mike that's just factually false.

We are creating 150,000 jobs amonth instead of losing 800,000 when Obama took office (that's almost 1m jobs a month swing to the postive).

Stock market is up 40% or so.

Iraq War is ended.

Auto industry stabilized and doing fairly well.

Housing starts are up, foreclosures are down.

Credit industry stabilized.

Things aren't perfect but to say there has been no progress is just ignorant.

We were LOSING 800,000 jobs per month when Bush left. We are a hell of a lot better off than that now.

Oh, and don't forget the 16 trillion dollar deficit. Let's give credit where credit is due.

dimples, Obama has implemented no policies, aside from the stimulus, that increased the debt.

He has in fact reduced the deficit some 30% from where Bush left it.

HERE ...I WIL SAY IT AGAIN....IT IS A FACT....You cant spin it ...look it up.. We have 23 million people unemployed....the same amount when Obama took office....

Growth today is less than last year ..which is less than the year before

median income is down $4000 per household

150,000 month barely(that was one of his best months) does not even keep up with the growth in population.

Mark dont even try to justify the deficit...16 trillion plus...The President does not have a response for it ...how do you?

there is no defense to this ...I cant believe you extreme lefts even try..

These uneducated, no common sense Socialist liberals, are blinded by FACTS and TRUTH. Anyone can make up numbers, Obama government has and only the ignorant liberals eat it up. Unemployment started when the democrats took over the congress in 2006 -2010 and no good came out of the Obama congress the first 2 years. He has not implemented 1 policy to help the economy and the work force. The unemployment is still near 1 million short of where Obama started. He has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but DESTROY this country. Government doesn't make jobs or the work place. Business's are waiting to see who wins the election. If Obama wins, companies will be laying off and not reinvesting in this country. Then we will see how fast the unemployment goes through the roof. 21 new taxes will be going into effect due to Obama care. There goes the country.. I hope you liberals will help your children pay for your total ignorance in politics!

mike pa

Use Google. You might find that the 23 million unemployed was made up by Eastwood during the RNC empty chair stint. The BLS indicates 12 million unemployed. The BLS does not evaluate "underemployed" as they cannot come up with a credible metric to measure underemployed.

Fuzzy, you are factually wrong in your current unemployment numbers, that President Obama has "not implemented 1 policy to help the economy", and the very concept that "unemployment started in 2006. Heck, President Reagan had 10 consecutive months with over 10% unemployment alone and if I recall correctly, he was President long before 2006.

Snail -

Are you really that slow?

How about we count all of those people who used all of their unemployment benefits and are no longer counted? How many of them would rather be employed?

Mark ...that number includes the people who have given up looking for job....The participation in the work force is not even close to what it was when Obama got into office...that is a fact and that is why the unemployment is where it is...you can say no to it all you want ...but it does not change the facts..

MaRK and J.Willard ...the only President who 's recession and Economy was worse or just as bad as this one ...Was Regans...At the same point in their Administration ..4yrs in..Regan had way different results than President Obama...not even close. Regan was producing 250,000 jobs a month even more ...Growth was at least twice of Obamas(I am probably selling that short). Lets face it Obama showed us what he truly knew about the Economy during the debate....which was absolutly nothing....

Yes, and that Ohio governor's wonderful (ha) approval ratings demonstrate that folks are so satisfied with his performance.

By the way, it isn't spelled New "Hamshire"

Yes, and that Ohio governor's wonderful (ha) approval ratings demonstrate that folks are so satisfied with his performance.

Change is a hard thing for people to swallow. While his approval rating may be down, it is probably due to the measures he saw necessary to truly head in the right direction. Kind of like an efficiency expert in business. When they come in and start making their changes, everyone but the management who hired him despise him. At the end of the day when the desired outcome is achieved, everyone thinks he is a genius.

Please provide a link to a legitimate source demonstrating that California was not included in the BLS employment statistics. Even a link to FoxNews (which I don't generally think of as legitimate, but whatever) would do.

http://thoughtfulwomen.org/2012/10/11/low-unemployment-numbers-california-feels-left-out/

There ya go Mark.

Mark,

Just to save you some time, the link by talk to the hand indicates that California "feels left out" not that it was.