unfortunately we can't afford another 4 years without a leader...

mo -- to what end? bragging rights? if obama wins and the house remains republican then we can imagine that the flexibility obama wants to acquiesce to the russians may not happen.

We don't need a new President. We need a Congress that will work with the President.

If Wrongme thinks he would waltz in and lay down his thing, he is a lot more naive than I thought.

billybob-6210632....

If Mr. Obama doesn't get his way with the Republicans, then he will immediately revert to using Executive Order fiat or having his Progressive Cabinet Members issue "changes" to regulations.

Remember, he brought with him Mr. Bixelrod, Ms/Mrs Valerie Jarrett, and Mr. Emanuel from Chicago to institute the "Man on Five" governance (No Congressional procedures needed).

Mo,

He had four years to taken them to the woodshed, why didn't he do then?

unfortunately we can't afford another 4 years without a leader...

Which is why we must kick every single Congressman out.

Remember, they're the ones with the 10% approval rating. Obama's is a mere five times higher than that. It's the Capitol that needs some leadership, not the White House.

Proof of that? Well, look no further than Americans' satisfaction ratings with the economy versus those with foreign policy. Guess which one depends on both the Legislative and the Executive branches and which one depends almost solely on the Executive branch. Now guess which one Americans are not satisfied with and which one we're pretty content with.

Exactly.

Sirie

You are so full of it. Obama has led this nation through the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression while simultaneously managing two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and conducting another campaign against terrorists in the Middle East culminating in the killing of Bin Laden.

Obama has successfully ended the Great Recession which Bush failed to end in 2008 despite a $120 billion stimulus in early 2008 and Fed interest rate cuts of over 4%. Obama did this with his stimulus which ended a recession that was taking 800,000 jobs per month when he took office.

Obama had many other successes as well, ending the War in Iraq, passing banking reform, ACA, and improving our standing in the world.

Obama would have done even better with the economy except his second round of stimulus was blocked by those economic idiot Tea Party types in the House.

Sirie, you really do need to get another news source. You make some of the stupidest comments I have ever read.

Ever notice how the conservative crew seems to only attack in generalizations? Calling Obama a "bad leader" or his "failed term in office". There really seems to be a lack of substance to their comments.

On the other side of the coin, it is pure facts that the liberals here assert against Romney. He HAS flip-flopped on a large portion of his positions. Don't see a lot of defense on that item of note. He WILL say anything to get into office. His decision to break rank and withhold his tax returns (for what reason we'll never know) makes him look like a shade-ball. But his loyal followers claim it's not important..... as if voters do not need to properly vet him in this manner. OK...

His questionable ties to big business and his opinion that corporations are people. Do you conservatives understand how it all works? Citizens United gave birth to super pacs. Super pacs allow huge sums of money into the election process. Those huge injections of money equate to endless, uninformative and misleading TV ads and robocalls and so on and so on. And by allowing these corporations to invest in politicians allows your government to be bought and sold. This is what Mitt Romney believes in. And he hides behind the fact that someone else made that decision. If he had any balls, he would condemn Citizens United like he condemns Frank-Dodd.

In the end, there is simply not enough ammo for the right to fire at Obama. Therefore they need to fabricate items to use against, because theu certainly can't defend their candidate of choice. Something you will never see here.

Talk about desperate spin... NBC has no shame.

Here is what the Des Moines register actually thought of Obama's refusal to do an on-the-record interview:

Iowa newspaper blasts Obama camp for 'off-the-record' interview demand

"The editor of the Des Moines Register wrote in a blistering blog post Tuesday that representatives for President Barack Obama refused an on-the-record conversation with the newspaper's editorial board, which is preparing to endorse a candidate for president in the coming days.

Mitt Romney, the GOP nominee, conducted an interview with the paper's editorial board earlier this month."

http://www.ketknbc.com/news/decision-2012/iowa-newspaper-blasts-obama-camp-for-off-the-recor

Folks, if you want to see the Harry Reid led Senate do less then nothing for the next four years, vote for Obama. Obama has spent the past four years trying to bully his way through Washington, and it began when he said Republicans to the back of the bus. But now when he needs the votes, he can deliver on promises he broke when Democrats controlled both the House and Senate. So how is Obama going to deliver this time around? Or is he just pandering like he always does? While Romney lays out a vision for the nation, Obama is laying an egg. We tried Obama, he failed, time to move on.

Rick-3465734930302847479202934847

Care to add any substance to your argument? Or would you prefer we debate in generalizations all day? OK, I guess we'll just take your word for it. I'm changing my vote due to your overwhelming fact-laden post.

See what I'm saying people?

Ever notice how liberals vote party over country? Did Obama cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term? No, he more then doubled it. Did Obama pass immigration reform like he promised? No, he never even proposed it. Did Obama close Gitmo? No, still open today and with a new 750,000.00 soccer field. The list goes on, but why not take a read from a liberal bastion the Washington Post, they sum up Obama better then most. Or Tea Party Downgrade, are you going to accuse liberals of speaking in generalizations about Obama as well?

Washington Post Hits Obama Hard

As I’m sure you know, the Washington Post newspaper has always had a reputation for being extremely liberal, so the fact that its editor saw fit to print the following article about Obama in its newspaper makes this a truly amazing event and a news story in and of itself. Finally, the truth about our President and his obvious agenda is starting to trickle through the ‘protective walls’ built by our liberal media.

By Matt Patterson (columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner) Government & Society:

Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages.

How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?

Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.

He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor.

It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?

Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day.

But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass - held to a lower standard - because of the color of his skin.

Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?

Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon - affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.

Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow.

Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist.

Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is.

And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate.

All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.

What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks?

In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character.

Those people - conservatives included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all.

Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth – it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.

And what about his character?

Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles.

Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess.

It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence.

But really, what were we to expect?

The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?

In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job.

When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.

Do you remember Bainport? Romney's Bain Capital is moving a factory to China and is getting a tax cut for doing that. How very patriotic of the guy who wants to lead America...........................

In the first debate he claimed he knew nothing about that tax cut for exporting American jobs. Romney lied.

The Democrats have tried to close that loophole, not once but twice. The first time 2 years ago and the 2nd time last July. The republicons filibustered them both times.

Why are the republicons so against America?

Anti-outsourcing bill fails in Senate

miklkit

Do you remember Bainport? Romney's Bain Capital is moving a factory to China and is getting a tax cut for doing that. How very patriotic of the guy who wants to lead America...........................

How about all the $$ Romney stashes (or had stashed) over seas, when it could be trickling through the economy and "creating jobs"? Funny, he doesn't even want to have to pay taxes on it. There's some more of that patriotism for ya.

You would think that it would be common sense for any politician to support a tax penalty for shipping jobs overseas, and more so a tax incentive (Repubs love those - including Mitt and his dancing horse) for those companies that bring jobs state-side.

But you won't hear anything about that from the right wing on this board. Their too busy complaining about Gitmo, abortion and college transcripts. You know...... the more "important" things we're facing as a nation.

Bill Clinton signed NAFTA into law and that began the jobs moving overseas. So what, are Democrats now trying to cover their tracks blaming Republicans for all the job loses? China manipulates their currency to have an unfair advantage in manufacturing, and Obama has done nothing but give sound bytes on the issue.

Charlie Rangel was the head of the house ways and means committee for far too long. Most of the current tax law came from his pen, and even with or because of his position he cheated on his taxes. Apparently part of the do as I say not as I do world of liberalism.

Democrats have been promising tax reform for decades, they bring it up every election cycle, and shelve it the day after. I pick on the Democrats because they controlled the House for 46 of the past 60 years and the Senate for 40 of the past 60 years. They could have cleaned up whatever they wanted to in that time frame.

We need comprehensive tax reform, top to bottom and not politically motivated targeted crap that does nothing to address the bloated nature or our outdated tax code. 20,000 plus pages of tax code is more then we need. Clean it up, do it right, and take the tax code out of the political parties gift giving, vote pandering, IOU buying category of fleecing taxpayers for personal gain.

This is hardly an issue where either side of the isle doesn't stink to high heavens. To blame anyone for taking advantage of tax breaks begs a question, why shouldn't they? They weren't the ones that wrote the law, so why not ask those that did, and those that supported it why it was so good for America? Closing a loophole now that the jobs are gone is akin to Congress passing a law that pretends to control insider trading for members of Congress and their staffs. Symbolic only.

Clinton signed NAFTA, after it was pushed onto his desk by the GOP. Bill compromised on that issue, even though we would have been better off if he had refused to sign it.

Reagan raised taxes 11 times.

So much for the golden boy of GOP presidential history.

Bill Clinton signed NAFTA into law and that began the jobs moving overseas. So what, are Democrats now trying to cover their tracks blaming Republicans for all the job loses?

To this day I still am unsure why he did this. Unless he was unaware of the ramifications that would result. It's one thing to do try and allow blossoming nations the opportunity to contribute to the global market, but what we've ended up with here in the states is a funnel in which we export wealth and import poverty. Globalization was terrible for our country.

China manipulates their currency to have an unfair advantage in manufacturing, and Obama has done nothing but give sound bytes on the issue.

Yes, and Mitt Romney will "declare them a currency manipulator on day one". Phew! Glad he will....... and then what? Yes..... China will go on with its practices as if nothing ever happened. Or maybe Mitt will get us into a trade war with China. That will do wonders for our economy, won't it?

We need comprehensive tax reform, top to bottom and not politically motivated targeted crap that does nothing to address the bloated nature or our outdated tax code. 20,000 plus pages of tax code is more then we need. Clean it up, do it right, and take the tax code out of the political parties gift giving, vote pandering, IOU buying category of fleecing taxpayers for personal gain.

I can wholeheartedly agree with this. Our tax code is well too complex and needs to be simplified. But I also agree with President Obama that those at the top have taken advantage of the system, at the detriment to our society. I strongly believe that any person or company (one and the same, right?) should be held accountable when they outsource, or they siphon untaxed wealth out of our economy. I also think that the top earners in this country have been enjoying record low tax rates for far too long now. Cuts will not solve the debt alone.

Bill Clinton signed NAFTA into law and that began the jobs moving overseas. So what, are Democrats now trying to cover their tracks blaming Republicans for all the job loses?

Wrong! Greedy corporations want no rules. Pay Americans a sub-mimum wage, reduce their benefits, re-hire at 30% lower wages, pollute as much as they want, automate and outsource for the almighty dollar for not one penny trickles down. They sit on trillions in capital like spoiled children looking for their own government hanndouts of tax breaks (uncertanty) and no regulation

Well, my theory is that if Romney wins and the corporatio gets higher status the Jesus and these favorable to the 1% policies get inacted.....then, well....I ghuess I will have 'uncertainty' and will have to stop my consumer spending. Good luck with that extra tax cut....we wont be buying your products. YOu need consumers to get you going. Keep squeezing us and you may find you have no more customers.

The impasse is alive and well. EMployers look at workers as COSTS to be reduced, automated or oursourced. We are no longer assets. That is what went wrong, People's livelihoods in America are now considered a 'drag' on corporate earnings. It de-humanized the workplace.

Voters who are in the know can see the unkept promises,failure of transparency, unhealthy investments, outsourcing,sweet contracts,and the sale of General Motors manufacturing rights to Beijing, China were they are now building G M autos without Americans. This makes Mr. Obamas words gossip instead of any real value. He's caught lying several times including the statement he will reform immigration during his first year in office.( never happened) I just don't believe him. Mr. Obama is guilty of protecting the terrorist that killed Americans in Libya, and at the fort hood shooting. He (Obama) gave 2 billion dollars to Muslim Brotherhood since his time as president. Why fund this anti-American group with ties to terrorism?

And funny you should mention NAFTA. Tell me again how many REPLICANS voted for it? Free trade was championed by the GOP. NIce try though, sport.

Oh and wasnt Romnmey just touting his proposal for a FRee Trade Agreement in LAtin Amewrica 2 daya ago? Or did you conveniently forget that? *chuckle) Wow, you guys dont have a clue about where Romney even stands. What a joke!

Mr. Obama is guilty of protecting the terrorist that killed Americans in Libya, and at the fort hood shooting. He (Obama) gave 2 billion dollars to Muslim Brotherhood since his time as president. Why fund this anti-American group with ties to terrorism?

Man, you guys are getting desprerate (chuckle). I can tell these teabaggers are starting to panic.

Roger, your hate isnt selling and neither are your lies. You hate Obama, we get it. . FAce it, Obama kicked Romney's pathetic azz on Foreign Policy, your Libya story is going nowhere and nobody is drawing the paranoid conclusions you are on Ft Hood. Too late, you will just have to win on actual ideas.....which Romney has none

I know Romney has no actual plan but a vague 5-Point table of contents. And like a sheep, you probably dont even care there are no explanations or dertails on the 'how' in his plan. Hes a flawed candidate and a liar. He has no solutions, foreign policy and his numbers DONT ADD UP

Cure Romnesia, elct Barack Obama

Whatever Obama says he WOULD do, the question has to be asked then why didn't you do it. HE's been president not Romney. Oh ya things are really great BO.

Barack is the most corrupt administration ever and be certain your sins will fine him out!

Welcome President Romney who gives, yes gives more to charity that Barack is worth in total!

I can see why your pen name is Gypsy, You never replied to the un-kept campaign promises. Injected name calling added Romney garble, assume I hate Obama, but you passed on responding to WHY OBAMA FUNDED THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD. Why Obama is protecting terrorist that kill / killed Americans. This incoherent response only proves a extremely low I Q. Your unable to discuss the topic with any intellect or rebuttal to defend any position for or against.

The President seems to be providing more information about what he thinks that his opponent is going to do as opposed to what he is going to do. Talking of integration reform, the President promised that he would get that done dung his first administration and it did not happen. The President has a habit of saying things that sound good at the time but that are really just bs.

The Obama campaign has finally, the day after the debates, come up with the President's economic plan for the next 4 years. The plan is devoid of detail and budgetary information but is full of wishful thinking. Obamanomics is really impossiblenomics. This is one of the parts that I like the best"

Do some nation-building here at home: We’ll use half the savings from ending the war in Afghanistan to help pay down our debt and invest the rest in fixing our roads, runways, bridges, and schools.
End overseas wars and rebuild our economy. After responsibly ending overseas operations, the President will reinvest in our country by:

• Committing half of the money saved from responsibly ending overseas operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to reducing the deficit and the other half to investing in public infrastructure.
• Investing an additional $210 billion over six years to support a million jobs improving America’s roads, bridges, transit systems, railways, aviation systems and runways, and putting construction workers back to work.

Four years ago, without conditions of any kind to include any act of congress, the President promised that the 2012 federal deficit would not exceed 229.27 billion dollars yet in fact it exceeded 1.1 trillion dollars. That says a lot for the President's fiscal planning and sense of budget. For the past 4 years the President has been proposing a tax increase on the "rich" that congress has yet to pass. This increase in taxes would at most divert 100 billion dollars per year from the private sector to the public sector. The federal government has been trying to spark the economy by injecting more money. This move will have the opposite effect and will do little to solve our debt problem. so using 2012 figures the federal government will still have a trillion dollar debt to deal with.

According to the President's nomination acceptance speech, the troops will be coming home in 2014 so by 2015 the peace dividend will be in full effect. According to the President's plan, he is expecting to net more than 2 trillion dollars per year by bringing the troops home. It will take at least 1 trillion dollars to balance the budget and of course that has to be done before we can start running a surplus. Balancing the budget is done with just half of the peace dividend. That is why the peace dividend will have to be greater than 2 trillion dollars per year. So the President is claiming that we are spending more than two trillion dollars per year on the war on Afghanistan which is less than true. If the federal government cut out all defense spending that then cut the rest of the budget in half it would not generate the required savings. The President's plan is fantasy economics. The President's plan is mathematically impossible. It is the President who needs more math education.

M0-681343,

KEEP LIVING IN THE OBAMA DEMONCRAZY.

YOU DON'T EVEN DETERMINE THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT, THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE DOES.

An education about the Electoral College

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50133559n&tag=showDoorFlexGridLeft;

Tea Party Downgrade, 2-Lane Gypsy, miklkit,

blah, blah, Romulan, China.

CLUE:President Clinton gave China Most Favored Trade Nation Status in exchange for Chinese "Donations" (Bribes) as stated in President Clinton's Impeachment Hearings as "Chinagate". You honestly believe it was a coincidence that President Clinton was the Governor of Arkansas and the Headquarters of Made In China Walmart is also Arkansas.

Oh, yes, Tea Party Downgrade, 2-Lane Gypsy, miklkit, I tell YOU to sign a Blank Check and YOU do with witnesses. I cash the check for more money than you have, and your arses are in Debt for the rest of your lives. Who is responsible for YOUR Check that YOU signed without duress. So don't even say that the other party "championed", "pushed", etc. a US Law, the President is Ultimately Responsible and Accountable for signing something into US Law instead of Vetoing. Is that a low enough education example, do you comprehend that.

Tea Party Downgrade,

What was the Primary Reason stated by the Founding Fathers to break away from England.

What was the stated reason of the Founding Fathers against the establishment of a Democracy with the Result being the establishment of a Constitutional Representative Republic of America.

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

YOU HAVE 30 MINUTES TO POST THE CORRECT ANSWERS BELOW THAT LEGAL IMMIGRANTS TO BECOME US CITIZENS KNOW. NO LAME EXCUSES.

2-Lane Gypsy,

What were the US Laws that made Illegal the Causes of previous Depressions, that were Eliminated; that Resulted in the current Global Economic Crisis consisting of the Mortgage Crisis, Wall Street Crisis, Financial Crisis, Banking Crisis, Credit Crisis, etc.. And who eliminated those US Laws.

What is the name of President Obama's Buddy, "Mr. Corporate America".

YOU HAVE 60 MINUTES TO POST THE CORRECT ANSWERS BELOW. NO LAME EXCUSES.

November is going to bring a lot of heartache to the Tea Party folks and to all extremists in Congress. The fact is clear when you see state-by-state electoral polls.

Fanaticism doesn't work anywhere in the world and many countries in the world do prove the fact.

Tea Party Downgrade,

times up:

***********************YOUR GRADE: F MINUS***********************

2-Lane Gypsy,

times up:

*******************************YOUR GRADE: F MINUS*******************************

Will Haas,

Do you know why that President Obama Campaign Promise (Verbal Contract) is a Dump Truck load of manure.

Do some nation-building here at home: We'll use half the savings from ending the war in Afghanistan to help pay down our debt and invest the rest in fixing our roads, runways, bridges, and schools.
End overseas wars and rebuild our economy. After responsibly ending overseas operations, the President will reinvest in our country by:

• Committing half of the money saved from responsibly ending overseas operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to reducing the deficit and the other half to investing in public infrastructure.
• Investing an additional $210 billion over six years to support a million jobs improving America's roads, bridges, transit systems, railways, aviation systems and runways, and putting construction workers back to work.

President Obama's Previous Cuts to the US Defense Budget.

The US Army Corps of Engineers Longterm Projects and Programs pertaining to Infrastructure.

President Obama's stated Cuts to the US Defense Budget. So just like prior to Hurricane Katrina the US Army Corps of Engineers did not have the Funds for the Upgrades, Building New, Modifications, etc. of the Levees at New Orleans due to the previous President Clinton chopping the US Defense Budget.

This means LESS Jobs for US Citizens, as US Military Must Buy Only US Products, Goods, and Services.

The insanity of President Obama's Campaign Promise will be that the additional money will go to the States, with the Illegal Aliens already displacing the US Labor Union Construction Workers. So nope, no increase in Jobs for US Citizens.

There is also the factor of President Obama as Commander In Chief Ordered Reduction In Forces of 90,000 US Military Personnel to be thrown on Unemployment further straining the Veteran's Affairs (Administration) plus the US Economic Effects, and the Unemployment of 108,000 US Civilians employed by the US Military. In 2013 there are even more US Military to be RIFed and more US Civilians to be thrown on Unemployment.

President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Penetta, 2012, "A 10% Defense Budget Cut will cause a Million (US) Civilians to become Unemployed". With President Obama demanding a 11% Defense Budget Cut in his Proposal to US Congress.

Sadly, the majority of DEMONCRAPS only rely on Popularity not Substance, Opinions not Facts, Emotions not Logic, Academic Idealism not Experience, Appearance not Performance, Lame Excuses not Results, etc.. And Demoncraps are worse than Islamic Jihadists and will defend President Obama Wrong or Right to their Deaths.

2-Lane Gypsy should be renamed one way. It is not the fault of greedy corporations as you put it, it is you, the consumer. If you are so concerned with profits of corporations stop buying their products. Nike for example was one of the first to outsource manufacturing. Their 120.00 shoes never dropped so much as a dime when the cost to manufacture was a fraction of the cost overseas. Nike spends more on advertising and buying athletes endorsements then they pay in wages. If everyone stopped buying Nike things would change in a hurry. If American consumers were loyal to the American worker manufacturing would have to return.

We have environmentalists driving their SUV's to rallies. We have consumers wearing the products of the very corporations they espouse to hate for outsourcing. Just like the voter has the power to take back Washington we don't. We send the same people back time and time again and they profit by screwing the taxpayers. People vote party over character. So climb down from your soapbox and face the facts. Clinton never had to sign NAFTA but he did. Clinton and Clinton alone had the power to prevent that from becoming law. But far more important are all those wondering where the jobs went that shop based solely upon price, with that made in China label proudly displayed on every item they own.

No POTUS is able to keep all their promises in the first 4 years of office.

Name one in the past 50 years who was abou tto fufill every campaign promise.

chirp chirp chirp, crickets.

It's hypocritical how many of you hold Obama to a perfection standard, when you never did the same with any other POTUS before him.

Just like how none of you ever cared about the BC of any POTUS before him.

When Obama is POTUS, every accusation flies.

if we go over, Americans will pay an average of an additional $3,500 in taxes in 2013.

but, if we re-elect Obama, there won't be anything to pay taxes on so happy days would be here again.

Keep in mind, that additional $3,500 number is an average. The tax increase for the vast majority of people will only be a fraction of that amount. It's the people at the upper end that will see most of the impact.

What no one wants to say out loud is that the fiscal cliff is a mole hill.

When, not if, we go over that cliff all of the republicons will be freed from their pledge to Emperor Norquist. That means that they will be free to negotiate in good faith with the Democrats. That means that we will have a new budget before anything bad happens.

No republicon is going to take responsibility for a 15% cut in the Military/Industrial Complex.

Obama has made taxing the rich a campaign issue because that puts 95% of the country against the 5%. Even Obama knows that there are more votes in the 95%. But Obama also knows there isn't but a drop in the bucket for revenue to be gained by only letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the rich. The real revenue is in letting the Bush tax cuts expire for he middle class, and that is exactly what he plans to do. This has been well orchestrated, it does not happen until after the election, and both Obama and the Democrats feel they can effectively blame Republicans when it happens. Remember, Obama will have more flexibility after his last election, and that means prices and taxes are going up for everyone. We have to fund those Cowboy Poetry Festivals somehow.

Obama will easily win because he is better at tricking the Latino community and others to trust him even when he is obviously lying. What he says is wonderful, but what he does is a different story. Obama just keeps saying he is going to do the right thing and never says exactly what that is. Americans are hearing what they think he said and not looking at what he has done or in most cases not done. A candidate like Romney that wants to work with people doesn’t stand a chance against a big talker like Obama.

nibor - but, if we re-elect Obama, there won't be anything to pay taxes on so happy days would be here again.

Sure YOU alone, nibor, will be taxed to pay for the 47%, as well as Sesame Street (LOL); instead of paying for that with money borrowed with interest from China.

You alone, nibor, still have to pay for the previously not Budgeted for $2.1 Trillion President Obama Spent, so that the Benefits and Entitlements of the 47% will not have to be chopped.

So sure, nibor, take one in the arse from President Obama for the rest of the Team. Then the rest of the Team (US) will have happy days again.

Actually, the deficit has been reduced by about $356 billion per year over the course of the last three years, though that has been partially driven by the increase in Federal revenues driven by the overall economic recovery.

During his first year in office, direct Federal revenue was about $2.2 trillion, down from nearly 2.7 trillion the fiscal year prior. Since then, it has recovered to about 2.45 trillion, which is still significantly lower than it was before the collapse, but enough to partially offset the losses.

The 2009 budget he inherited had spending benchmarked at just under $3.7 trillion and has only been reduced to $3.56 trillion during the current fiscal year.

So in a nutshell, if the promise was that Obama would reduce the deficit by half during his first term, he failed. He only reduced it by about 24%, which is still the most in raw dollars that any president has ever reduced it during a 4 year period, but not enough considering how large the gap actually was.

Michael Thompson,

How dare you speak the truth..The Right are going to have a complete meltdown

Spot on. Obama had a full term to do something about immigration, just more blah, blah, blah.

Michal that is the most ridiculous post I've ever seen. The deficit increased as a whole and moved us from some 10 trillion to some 16 trillion and you can't double talk your way around that!

Michael - One of the biggest reasons the deficit fell slightly was because the Republican House refused to let Obama spend like a drunken sailor as he did in the first two years when Democrats controlled the House. Look at the Budget request he submitted and Congress refused to go along with.

There is a difference between the deficit and the National Debt. The deficit is the difference between revenue and spending for a fiscal year. The National Debt is the money the government has borrowed over the years to pay for running the government.

Michael,

The 2009 budget which started in October of 2008 did not include any stimulus spending which is completely Obama. If the $800B was spent over two years then spending should be down way more than that.

You also write that the budget deficit has been reduced by $356 billion a year over the last three years or a total of $1,068,000,000, please tell me where you got that number from because that is just not true.

Drew: I advise you to look that the numbers. Reality is reality. The incoming president does not control the budget for his first year in office because he is inagurated six months into the fiscal year.

Look at this page. It's from the Heritage Foundation, which is a conservative think tank's page, so you won't feel all icky by having to go there. About halfway down the page is a chart tracking federal spending and revenue from 1992 to the present.

In 2008, President Bush's deficit was approximate $487 trillion driven mostly by two factors: 1.) the tax cuts disrupted the steady growth of revenue that was there throughout the Clinton years from 2002-2005 and 2.) He inscreased discretionary spending by 57% over the course of his 8 years.

When he came into office, discretionary spending was $825 billion. When he left office, discretionary spending was $1.3 trillion. When Barack Obama came into office, discretionary spending was $1.3 trillion. Right now, it is $1.289 trillion.

In 2009, Barack Obama's deficit was $1.484 trillion driven by two things: 1.) Revenues dropped by $500 billion from the year before due to the collapse. 2.) Entitlement spending rose by about $500 trillion due to the collapse and the sheer number of people that went on benefits.

In the interim, that surge has receded some. Revenue has partially recovered and entitlement spending has been reduced some, enough to reduce the deficit by about $356 billion from its 2009 high, but there is no case that can be made that Obama's deficits are being driven by a massive increase in new spending.

The reason discretionary spending is called discretionary is because those are the parts of the budget that can be controlled. Obama has not increased those expenses at all. In fact, he has slightly reduced them. What has increased during Obama's administration are basically entitlement costs - mainly because of continued healthcare inflation and because in 2008-9, so many more people applied for and qualified for benefits under the laws that existed at the time.

There have been a few changes to entitlement laws, but not many to this point.

You can either look at the Heritage Foundation's page where the chart is located about halfway down the page or you can look at the Office of Budget Management's page, which is the source of the Heritage Foundation's information.

The deficit peaked in 2009, the last year the Bush administration directly controlled it and has decreased every year since, falling 24% by this year.

You are correct in that the debt has continue to grow, but the debt is probably going to continue to grow for the next decade, no matter who we elect. Even Romney isn't projecting that he will balance the budget within his hypothetical two terms of office. He is projecting 10 years, which means that there will be at least 10 more years of stacked on debt.

The bottom line is that we cannot balance the budget because one party has completely abrogated their responsibility to balance the budget by totally surrendering one of the necessary tools of doing so to a private citizen. Until the right wing of the nation realizes that the ability to modify the tax code both down and occasionally UP, the nation will never recover fiscally.

Michael,

How can you completely leave out the stimulus spending and the money borrowed to finance it. Also the fiscal year starts in October and the President takes office in Jan so it is not 6 months.

I also like the way that the increase of tax revenues you attribute to Clinton and not to the Bush tax cuts when if you look at history tax cuts always lead to more revenue. You also left out that revenues shrunk in 2001 and 2002 because when Bush took over we were in a recession and then after 9/11 the country basically stopped working for at least 3 months.

I do agree that Bush spending did raise the deficit but by your writing Obama spending reduced the deficit.

Michael,

Support who you like but be honest in what you write and do not make up things that are easily disproved.

Thank you micheal I appreciate that and I most certainly appreciate your concern about me feeling "icky" that was my laugh for the day!!!! Have a good one.

Tax cuts do not lead to more revenue. Growth in the economy over time leads to new revenue. Meaning that, yes, after you disrupt the growth of revenue by reducing the amount of money you tax, eventually if the economy is growing, tax revenues will catch up again.

At the present time, our revenue is $2.4 trillion per year. That is almost exactly the same as it was in 1999. Here's the list directly from the Heritage Foundation's site:

2000 - $2.6 trillion

2001 - $2.5 trillion

2002 - $2.3 trillion

2003 - $2.2 trillion

2004 - $2.2 trillion

2005 - $2.5 trillion

2006 - $2.6 trillion

So at the very least, the tax cuts stunted the steady growth that revenues had experienced during the Clinton years by 5 years. You seriously want to try to have this debate with me?

Okay, let's keep going? How exactly did Clinton and the Republican congress balance the budget? By slashing spending? No. Because they didn't. From 92-2000, they essentially slowed the growth of government spending and allowed increases in revenue to overtake and eventually pass spending.

So when the Republicans gained full control of government, what did they do? The increased discretionary spending and decreased revenue, thereby allowing spending to overtake and pass revenue.

This is basic home economics. If your budget is already balanced, then don't cut your hours at work and make sure you take in less money.

Here's a clue. Spending is going to increase. Get over it. Why? Because things are going to keep going up in cost. Even Clinton and the Republican congress didn't stop the growth of government spending entirely. The trick is to project how fast your costs are going to go up and balance that with how fast what you're bringing in is going to go up.

Not to be so economically stupid that you establish some arbitrary limit on how much you are going to spend that has no connection to reality like the Bush administration did. Their own treasury secretary TOLD them this was a stupid plan. So what did they do? They told him, "Deficits don't matter" and they fired him for saying it.

Michael you are making up your information. The below chart is from the White House

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

Please note that after the second Bush Tax cuts of 2003 is when revenue started to climb because we started coming out of the 2001 recession and was 25% higher than in 2000.

2000
2,025,191

2001
1,991,082

2002
1,853,136

2003
1,782,314

2004
1,880,114

2005
2,153,611

2006
2,406,869

2007
2,567,985

Well, if I'm 'making it up,' the Alison Acosta Frazier and the Heritage Foundation are also 'making it up,' because that is where I am pulling my information. I suspect your numbers are based on direct tax receipts, not total Federal revenue.

I've tried to link to my source three times and it won't let me, but if you care enough to look at her chart, it would take basically 10 seconds to google search it.

Her article was written 6 days ago, so it's not as though it's out of date.

@Michael Thompson, Charlotte, NC

Don't beat is azz to bad leave some for me.

Michael,

My numbers posted are the total Federal Receipts from the White House which I guess should be the most reliable and they clearly showed revenue increased after the Bush tax cuts. If you want to go back to Reagan when he took office the revenues in 1981 were almost $600m and when he left in 1989 the revenues were $991m which further proves my point that tax cuts add to Federal Revenues.

Actually, they don't. They so the exact same trendline Heritage's numbers show, just lower and 1 year earlier. Revenue still did not return the the 2000 level until economic growth propelled them to catch up. Yes, eventually, at some point as incomes rise, as the tax base expands, and as there are more dollars out there, the Federal government will be gathering up more of them as a raw total.

Want an easier way to look at it? Here.

Receipts as a percentage of GDP, which is table 2.3 from your site. I assume that First Read won't let me link my site here because it's ideologically opposed to theirs while the White House site is technically neutral.

But here:

2000: 10.2%

2001: 9.7%

2002: 8.1%

2003: 7.2%

2004: 6.9%

2005: 7.5%

2006: 7.9%

2007: 8.4%

2008: 8.0%

2009: 6.6%

2010: 6.3%

2011: 7.3%

2012 (est): 7.5%

Notice how the percentage drops after the tax cuts and never fully recovers and the collapse bottoms it out again? Still think we don't have a revenue problem?

The last year that the budget was balanced, tax receipts were about 10% of GDP. Notice how we started running deficits again once tax receipts dropped below that number?

The 'revenues increase after tax cuts' line is sort of a right wing Jedi Mind Trick. They wave their hands and show you the raw numbers and how a few years after the tax cut happens, well, gosh, golly, shazam, they're right! Look at that, there are more raw dollars going to the government!!!

But what they never bother to explain is that that would be the case anyway under any scenario except that if the tax rates had been left alone, even more raw dollars than that would be going to the government and that the massive decade large hole that was blown in the side of the economy never would have happened.

Look, I can do it with your Reagan years too:

1979: 8.7%

1980: 9.0%

1982: 9.4%

1983: 9.2%

Woops, wait a minute...

1984: 7.8%

1985: 8.1%

1986: 7.9%

1987: 8.4%

1988: 8.0%

1989: 8.3%

Crap... it never actually catches back up again until you actually RAISE the tax rates, does it? And guess what you're doing all those years you're running a lower tax rate as a percentage of GDP than you need to be running? You are blowing up the deficit.

Michael,

First it is nice to have a civilized conversation here with insulting each other. I do look at raw numbers because that is what counts. If you believe as I do that tax cuts stimulate growth then revenue will increase because the economy is growing. The percentage of GDP will be lower as the tax rates are lower but it is the money that matters, now if government can do the correct thing and not take extra revenue for new spending programs then spending should drop as more people go to work.

Blowing up the deficit is exactly what that voodoo economics has done.

94% of our national debt belongs to just 3 people.

Reagan

Bush

bush/cheney

Did you know that if those Bozos could have balanced their budgets we would have almost no national debt today?

ReaganBushDebt.org

U.S. National Debt Graph + Voodoo-Economics Slides

Unfortunately, as the Obama years have shown, what you are suggesting is more or less impossible. I think the majority of the right wing have it in their heads that this guy came into office with the sole purpose of just blowing up the deficit and has brought about all of these new spending programs and so forth and that just isn't the case. True, he hasn't done much to bring the discretionary spending levels down to where they were prior to 2001, but really, other than the stimulus spending, there's basically nothing new that he's spent.

Like I said, discretionary spending was $1.3 trillion when he started and $1.289 trillion now. So what does that mean? Well, it means a couple of things. 1.) It means there's a certain amount of spending that's now automatically just hardwired that any officeholder has almost no control over unless he wants to just push to end the programs that are hardwired entirely. And 2.) It means that unless the officeholder is going to do that, revenue is going to have to grow as steadily as expenditures grow if you feel compelled to try to keep the budget balanced.

If you look at the last few years of the Bush administration, the budgets were running right around $3 trillion per year. That means that Obama structurally faced an $800 billion deficit as soon as revenues dropped to $2.2 trillion without any stimulus spending at all.

And if you assume that hardwired expenditures were going to rise at the same rate, the natural rate of growth that has been present for the last decade would have resulted in about $3.5 this year in expenditures this year, just based on what was already budgeted before he arrived.

That's the major problem with just looking at it in terms of raw dollars. That assumes that everything the government is going to buy is going to remain the same price from the moment you cut taxes. And that just doesn't happen. That's been the problem for Reagan and both Bushes. It doesn't work... not because in theory it's a bad idea to allow people to have more money in your pocket, but because in the short term you are going to stunt revenue growth and by the time you catch back up again, you've created a structural debt that you can't get rid of unless you raise taxes back up to about the same rates you had them before.

Notice when the did the deficit reduction act of 1993, in order to get the same effect as when the budget was balanced before Reagan, they had to get a net result that was actually higher than it was from '79-83? That's because they were playing catchup.

Basically it's all a matter of percentages.

If you want to have total expenses of about 20% of GDP, then these days you need revenues of at least 22%, so you can eat into the debt. But right now, it's not even close to that. It's about 15.5-16%. That is the basic problem.

Just as a point of comparison, total receipts during the years we ran a mostly balanced budget averaged 19.875%. The average of total receipts during the first two Reagan years was 19.3%and 17.76% thereafter when was running deficits and driving up the debt. During the elder Bush term, the average was 17.8%. During Obama's term, it has been 15.35%.

Yes, there is a spending problem, but not nearly so much of one as there is a revenue problem when you compare it to the other administrations of this era. Total revenues have been so low in comparison that the deficit and increasing debt was basically inevitable. It would have happened to any president.

Name a POTUS in the last 30-40 years(or ever), that was able to keep all their campaign promises.

You can't.

Obama is far from perfect, and he hasn't fufilled all his promises.

He has made good on quite a few of them though.

It's highly doubtful that McCain/Palin would have us better off right about now, and chances are a McCain WH Admin. would have us worse off.

No 1 person/POTUS is the solution to our problems. It will take everyone involved(citizens and the 3 branches of gov.) working together to get us out of the mess we are in.

Comparing Obama to Romney, my money is on Obama doing better for us as a whole.

I just can't trust Romney to look after anything other than his own bank accounts.

Nothing positive can come out of people in both parties fighting amongst each other for who’s right/wrong. One party always criticizes the other and vice-versa and goes against their ideas to prove each party is correct. This is why there is such grid-lock in Washington and nothing gets done. Has either side discussed their plan in detail how we’re going to avoid the fiscal cliff? Both Obama and Romney have great ideas, I just hope that whoever wins takes the other candidate’s ideas and criticism into consideration and works on them for the good of us all. While Obama has made many mistakes, he also has had good ideas, there is no way “everything” he has done is bad and everything should be reversed. I hope republicans truly work with him instead of opposing every idea he has in an effort to benefit on the next campaign. On the other hand, if Romney wins, he will do many great things but also make mistakes and there are things his administration will not disclose, just like other administrations have omitted in the past due to national security, cover-ups, etc. Every administration will always have secrets. I like Romney’s ideas about how states should be in control of their medical programs.

Michael Thompson, Charlotte, NC,

STOP USING DNC FUNDED, SPONSORED, DONATED TO ORGANIZATIONS INFORMATION.

What did President Obama spend $2.1 Trillion on that was not previously Budgeted for that requires the current and future cuts "Across the Board" to all Programs, Projects, Agencies, including the 47%.

YOU HAVE 30 MINUTES TO PROVIDE THE CORRECT ANSWER. NO LAME EXCUSES.

Name the Discretionary Spending that President Obama has spent hundreds of Billions USDs on each year; including President Obama's Secret Wars (not Iraq, nor Afghanistan).

YOU HAVE 30 MINUTES TO PROVIDE THE CORRECT ANSWERS. NO LAME EXCUSES.

Fact: The President Clinton Budget was "sandbagged" with US Congress Appropriating more money than he could spend. The REAL US Economic Indicator was the Interest on the National Debt: President Clinton $18.9 Billion, President Bush $16.6 Billion.

Fact: Misery Index as the Report Card for US Presidents, the higher the number the more MISERABLE US Citizens are:

President Obama, 10.68

President Bush, 8.11

American Lobo,

The US Citizens are holding President Obama to his Verbal Contracts (promises), that based on his Verbal Contracts was hired.

You go ahead and have a lower standard and present lame excuses for a Breech of Employment Contract.

And again do NOT use the VERY LAME EXCUSE "Obstructionist" Congress; as President Obama to circumvent US Congress "The Will of the People", keep clicking "Next", see something Unconstitutional, TOUGH, that is what YOU Voted for:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions

Michael Thompson, Charlotte, NC,

times up.

*************************YOUR GRADE: F MINUS *****************************

lol, The Heritage Foundation is a DNC funded, sponsored, donated to organization?

Are you seriously this uninformed about the organizations that advance the political beliefs you purport to espouse?

The Heritage Foundation is now too liberal to quote to the right wing?

Sheesh.

Just for your edification:

"Heritage is primarily
funded through donations from private individuals and charitable foundations.
Businessman Joseph Coors
contributed the first $250,000 to start The Heritage Foundation in 1973^{[citation
needed]}. Other significant contributors have included the
conservative Olin, Scaife, DeVos and Bradley
foundations.

In 2007, Heritage
reported an operating revenue of $75.0 million dollars. As of February 2011,
Heritage reported 710,000 supporters.^[39] Heritage
Foundation is also a part of the Koch Foundation Associate Program.^[40]"

That's pretty astute, MT. Definitely accurate.

Except that the pro-slavery pro-segregation party was historically democrat

MOMINNJ-

And Republicans once believed in equality for all rather than just for those that can afford it. Welcome to the 21st Century.

It takes LEADERSHIP to bring people together. You need go no further then your workplace. Diverse groups working together well if there are good leaders/managers. Total chaos and divisiness if not. Same with the country and it all rises and falls on leadership. So, Obama fails in that department, and it is by far his BIGGEST failure in a long list of failures.

Drew - I agree with you and I have been saying so for months that Obama lacks LEADERSHIP and is in over his head. His lack of LEADERSHIP comes from the fact that he never ran anything or worked as a supervisor or held any kind of a job that produced a product or service and required leadership, compromise and an overall solution to a problem.

Example: Obama put together the Boles-Simpson group, and then walked away, he did not participate in the discussions nor intervened or show any leadership. It's time for a change, no guarantee change will work but we know Obama can't and hasn't gotten the job done.

Very good point on boles-simpson and it made me think about his inability to work with international leaders as well. It's a problem for a president!!!!

Talk about desperate spin... NBC has no shame.

Here is what the Des Moines register actually thought of Obama's refusal to do an on-the-record interview:

Iowa newspaper blasts Obama camp for 'off-the-record' interview demand

"The editor of the Des Moines Register wrote in a blistering blog post Tuesday that representatives for President Barack Obama refused an on-the-record conversation with the newspaper's editorial board, which is preparing to endorse a candidate for president in the coming days.

Mitt Romney, the GOP nominee, conducted an interview with the paper's editorial board earlier this month."

http://www.ketknbc.com/news/decision-2012/iowa-newspaper-blasts-obama-camp-for-off-the-recor

I actually think that Obama should have pushed for implementation of the Bowles Simpson plan. He was not involved because a blue ribbon panel including democrats and republicans elected officials, think tank economists and union leaders participated.

People like Paul Ryan participated and when he had a chance to act he not only dismissed, walked away from it but he flat out rejected it with his no vote. Talk about someone without leadership - Paul Ryan. If Ryan and one more on the commission had voted yes, it would have been mandatorily taken up for vote consideration in Congress. Paul Ryan and the other GOP who refused to give one inch are the reason, the debt commission went nowhere.

Obama tried to promote his Grand bargain with Boehner but the Tea Party smacked their own leader "back to his senses". Despite Obama offered cuts, cuts that his side bemoaned, Boehner was not allowed to offer ANY taxes/revenues.

The GOP candidates and the eventual "winner", Romney, hypotetically refused to accept $10 of spending cuts if they have to offer $1 of taxes/revenues. In recent debates Romney again lied that new revenues are not needed, even despite his $7 trillion dollars of new spending. What Mitt and Ryan are doing is called a lack of leadership.

Ryan may know how to propose cuts to social services and entitlements to make the numbers lower, but he puts no thought to the real world consequences of his disastrous plans. That is not leadership.

Romney may know how to run a business to over leverage and load struggling companies in debt for his own profit, but we do not need him as President lest he do the same with our deficit. That is not leadership.

By the way no amount of leadership by Obama would get past the Tea Party idealogues if they had no thoughts to compromise. No amount of Obama glad handing, back slapping, visiting or schmoozing the GOP or whatever the latest talking point is would have made the TP types listen.

Good point, Michael. Sadly, I think there will only be bi-partisanship when both parties are motivated to have it. Doing what is best for America apparently isn't enough motivation. Fear of losing their jobs would be and the GOP is more afraid of Grover Norquist and a primary battle than they are of the American voters. That will keep the House under GOP control and means nothing more will happen.

But you know what----if we have to live with gridlock, I'd rather have President Obama making the tough decisions that can be made indepent of the Congress than Mitt Romney. Especially in foreign policy---Mitt's lack of knowledge and understanding (from someone who has sought the Presidency for 6 years) is astounding to me.

@sfcret & Drew

I understand you can't reason so you resort to patting each other on the backs.

Racist comforts Racist.

Really solutions? Where in our post do you find anything that makes us racist? Hmmm and my marriage with interracial so now what???? Typical smear stuff from a leftist.

Solutions is a good example of a left winger that can't rebut what was said so he plays the "race card".

Yellow Dog - You might want to check the so called "grand bargain" deal. It was President Obama who walked away from the deal because he figured he could get a better deal from the "gang of six". When that failed he went back to Boehner and then it was to late.

Had Obama interjected himself in the Boles-Simpson discussions and shown some leadership it might have turned out different. Obama was not in the least bit interested in Boles-Simpson but used it as a deflection, just like the commission on jobs he appointed. Never met with them and they never came up with anything.

Romney has stated he would bring back jobs to the U.S. by waving the tax requirements for those companies bringing their business back (part of Boles-Simpson). Obama only wants to give tax breaks to Companies that won't send jobs overseas.

Drew..Leadership is base upon integrity in supporting the positions you have proposed to this nation.. Can you honestly say that Romney displayed those characteristics as recently as Monday when he changed positions on foreign policy 180 degrees to align himself more towards the Presidents position in order to gain independent votes?

All well and good, but for our 2nd term Prez to make anything happen, we need to eliminate a lot of the dead weight in congress. Those who pledged allegiance to their dark under lord (Grover Norquist), while thumbing their noses at the nation, hold us hostage, and getting our credited rating lowered for the first time in history. Hell, we should just try them for treason and be done with it.

Bubby, OKC, USA, Steeler Fan-380417, Yellowdog-Mark D, Michael Thompson, Charlotte, NC,

And again do NOT use the VERY LAME EXCUSE "Obstructionist" Congress; as President Obama to circumvent US Congress "The Will of the People", keep clicking "Next", see something Unconstitutional, TOUGH, that is what YOU Voted for:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions

That is SO distasteful it's ridiculous. Coming to a vagina near you? Wow, that is waaaay over the line my friend.

what's wrong Drew ?? aren't they REPUBLICAN candidates who said those things ? isn't that the party you support ?

or do you just pick and choose what you do and don't support and flip flop a lot ?

ROFL

i think Detroit Storm's post is HILARIOUS :) if you don't like it and you are republican.. then you have some serious issues to figure out, huh ? because that's the party you represent

So you think it's funny to make light of rape and say "coming to a vagina near you?" Figures!

No Drew, it is as offensive as the remarks that prompted it. It is called shock humor and is used to show just how disgusting the original comments are. It is called a devise in the English language

Tim is correct Drew, try not showing off your low IQ and try educating yourself - you will do MUCH better with everything if you do that.

the comments were purely disgusting and the fact that YOU SUPPORT the party that made and believes those comments is even MORE DISGUSTING

YOU are the one who thinks its funny to make light of rape

or.. will you flip-flop your stance ? or pick and choose what you support and don't support or just constantly change your mind ?

please.. i'm interested in hearing your thoughts

You do know that making all abortions illegal has been a part of the republicon platform since 1976? Those two are only saying out loud what all republicons actually think.

I used the term thinking loosely...............

The era of the reckless Tea Party zealot will be over. They have hurt the country enough.

True. Obama can put the country out of it's misery once and for all.

Yeah Obama is brilliant in a DIABOLICAL MANNER. Think on this. HE had an intelligent briefing within a couple of hours of the Benghazi attack and KNEW who had claimed responsibility. He goes into rose garden the following days and says: ......no act of terror will change our resolve.....(blah, blah, blah) AND then promptly sends Ambassador Rice out to spread a COVER UP story. MY POINT? Very lawyer like him to slip in the word terror so that later on when caught in their dispicable lies he can claim that he pronounced it a terror attack! Goodbye prezzzz we are on to you!

Obama is great, if your a European Socialist Country!!

WelcomeUSA - Obama is great, if your a European Socialist Country!!

Obama's US on Road to Greece......bump.....bump....bump....stop the Obama Campaign Bus...screech......oh that's only SOS Clinton under the bus (Libya).....drive on......bump......bump.....next stop Greece.

He will just pass out a pamphlet with disclaimers in the back and say thats a good plan. Pretty pictures never work out when concerning money

With any luck, Obama will spend the next 4 years unaware he has been unemployed for the last 4 years. The situation will seem normal to Obama.

Romney to the rescue, he will put America back on the right track.

Take Back America

Romney/Ryan

I think he wants sequestration to kick in so he can shift money into obamacare and make deep cuts in area's that will outrage people, but he will turn around and try to blame it on republicans although HE signed that legislation into LAW! He is a typical politician of the highest order.

Dangerfield: You just described the republicon economic plan.

Well latino's are a little more conservative then you might want to admit to, and they aren't as easily manipulated as the elitists are hoping for!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes if he wins it is because he has promised a bunch of illegals that he will make them legal. I would think immigrants who came to this country legally and are LEGALLY able to vote would be offended by this. Because not only with this new crop of illegals be taking US citizens jobs but they will be taking your jobs also. And if you are here legally you most likely are paying taxes on your income so do you want some of your hard earned money to go to people who didn't go through the same work you did to become a citizen. I think it is appalling and a slap in the face to every US citizens and especially those who have immigrated to the US and did things properly to become a US citizens. And to bring this up at election time when the idiot had 4 years to do something just shows what a lying, cheating BS'er he is.

Drew-

Well latino's are a little more conservative then you might want to admit to, and they aren't as easily manipulated as the elitists are hoping for!!!!!!!!!!!

Precisely.

The Elitist Governor and Republican House of Representatives is exactly what Latinos dispise.

Salud

Stay thirsty my friend!!!!!!!!

Oh, I forgot to ask you a question. So, is it your thought or belief that Latino's are only interested in immigration? Hmmm, seems to me that they are interested in a whole range of matters.

Not true, he had both houses in the first half of his first term!

Oh yes excuse me. He had both for the first 2 years when he wasted it all on his stupid obamacare. Gosh I am glad you caught me on that otherwise people would have thought he wasted the whole 4 years instead of just the first 2. Of course he did nothing in the second 2 years anyway because half of that has been spent campaigning. He did though have that little interval where he brought suit against one of the states in his supposed union that was trying to follow the constitution by enforcing immigration laws. Oh yes then he did get to that little executive order that will allow many of the illegals in our country to become legal without going through the proper channels or requirements. And yes let's not forget his Supreme Court battle over his Unconstitutional healthcare whatever it is. But wait the Supreme Court say well if you change this wording then it will be Constitutional. But wait that adds a new tax which obama promised he wouldn't do. This prez and his admin sucks and have done nothing for this country in the last 4 years and if re-elected he will do nothing but destroy our country in the next 4 years.

The affordable care act was done in the latter part of the second year. Lets not forget that two weeks after he was elected he had to call an emergency meeting with his advisers to deal with this fiscal crisis. President Bush was still in office and did nothing because he had less than2 months left. He spent most of the first year trying to get things together to keep us from a depression. In the beginning of the second year he tried to start looking at his campaign promises. He put a lot of programs to help people in place. Once the mid term election was done and the dems lost control of congress it was a wrap. All the republican stated that they wanted was one thing "for president obama to be a one term president" Never mind doing the work we pay them $175K a year to do. Everything was designed for us to get frustrated and not vote for obama. The one mistake is they don't have a good challenger. Romney is too rich. He's out of touch with everyday people. Just look at some of his comments. He doesn't know or understand our struggle. President Obama may have made mistakes and maybe you just don't like him but any working class, poor, veteran, student, home owner, elderly person or foreigner that votes for Romney is crazy. He will eliminate every program that is now in place. He has to to pay for the 5 trillion in tax cuts for the rich. The economy is coming back it will take the same amount of time. Bush destroyed our country in 8 years. President Obama is good for the wroking class. If Romney gets in we're done.

Tired---I am in most of the groups that you said would be crazy to vote for romney but please tell me what has obama done for those groups. You don't need to explain the foreigner one I already get that and what he did for them was underhanded and not approved by anyone but himself. I am a working class and poor veteran soon to retire and I am paying a mortgage on my home. The only thing that has been good for me during this administration only appears good. The 2% reduction in taxes which really is a 2 % cut in social security which is already hurting because of the federal government raiding it's funds to use for their own agendas. I am so sick of people saying Bush destroyed our country. He also inhereted a bunch of garbage from Clinton that had already started tanking the economy but you didn't here him whinig about it and saying it was Clinton's fault he tried to do something about and with a dem congress. And the bleeding heart liberal fear mongers running around saying he is going to cut back all programs and give to the rich is a bunch of partisan BS. People have to know that a prez by himself can never do that without approval of congress when it is submitted in the budget. And the thing that really upsets me in this election and I have heard it from many is "I won't vote for romney because he is rich" Tell me which one of those lying, cheating, power hungry, greedy pigs in DC aren't rich. That is such a lame excuse but all those bleeding heart liberals have you all believing the wealthy are bad even though a large part of the dems supporters are dripping in cash. Please wise up to that fact if nothing else. You think the dems don't protect the rich????????? Where else would they get their campaign contributions???????

Most of the Dems contributions come from small contributors that together don't equal one of Romney's private contributors. I don't think one person should be allowed to contribute over $30 million! If you can't see the improvements from when our country was losing 500-700 THOUSAND jobs a month to now, you aren't looking. He only had a filibuster proof majority for part of that time, less than a year, I believe, as the Senate contested races and Kennedy's death ocurred during the first year. Funny how people are so quick to forget how bad it was and how close to absolute collapse we were!

Obama is a liar, and all he has done is hurt America, he is the great giver of American Tax payer money, and he lies all the time, just look at Libya this socialist president tried to blame a stupid movie for the terrorist attack in Libya at first instead of the telling the truth, Obama is the great LIAR IN CHIEF.

Take Back America

Romney/Ryan

stclaire....ok, let's deal with your conspiracy claims, 1 by one. You provide the specific facts and details, and I will jump over to your side in a minute!

1) "The great giver of American Tax Payer Money" - starting with OBAMA'S first official budget (Not Bush's last one which was in effect for Obama's first year) show me the specific detail that proves he is "the great giver of.....blah, blah, blah.

2) He is a socialist - specific examples to back up your claim, please.

3) Libya - explain to me why the WH would want to lie to the American people about whether the attack was a spontaneous uprising or a coordinated terrorist attack? What possible gain do they get from taking what they knew (as you say) was a terrorist attack and then the decision being made, WE CAN'T LET AMERICA KNOW THIS!! BLAME THE MOVIE! Explain, please.

Rob, Please wake up and smell the coffee !

1) Obama has had NO BUDGETS during his entire term of office while our country's national debt has increased about $5 trillion+ ! Obama's budget "proposals" were so bad they received absolutely NO SUPPORT ... even from within the Democratic Party !

2) Obama is on record as having said "we are going to redistribute the wealth". Whether "technically correct" or not, most U.S. citizens consider that "Socialism".

3) Libyan coverup ... put your glasses on so you can see reality ! Obama has been selling that "Obama is dead and Al Qaeda is on the run". The Libyan murders go counter to his argument and prove that Al Qaeda is alive and well. Obama merely was dumb enough to believe he could hide the truth until AFTER the elections. Obama has sought to put off MANY things until after the elections because he is desperate to maintain his power

All great points, jim. When Obama is sent packing, I wonder what the staff of evening TV at MSNBC will do next? You know, Tingle Boy, The Fat Eddie Munster, Butch Girl and Larry the Lip.

jim....no budgets? So then what have we been doing? Not spending money? Fact of the matter is, if you look at the fiscal years that Obama is responsible for, discretionary spending is at it's lowest levels in decades....yes, decades.

Socialist....you do realize under your definiiton of socialism, this country has been a socialist country for many many years.....you understand under your definiition, our tax code is socialist. Social security is socialist. Medicare is socialist. Assistance to our veterans is socialist.

Libya...your explanation makes no sense. Are you suggesting that OBL is not dead? Are you suggesting that Al Quada leadership has not been decimated over these last 4 years? Are you suggesting that Al Quada is still as powerful as ever??? Think of it this way....Al Quada is reduced to carrying out attacks on American Consulates that are way off out in the middle of nowhere in some god forsaken country instead of attacks in NYC and Washington DC. See the difference??

Rob in Warwick, Critical thinking and reading skills are not your strong suit are they ?

1). Yes, no budgets have been completed and signed by Obama during his entire term of office. The rest of your post is just an alibi.

2). I clearly said "MOST" U.S. residents consider redistribution of wealth to be socialism. At no time did I claim that to be my definition. Try taking a remedial reading course!

3). Your intended distortions are well noted. I did not say Osama Bin Laden was dead. But you are "TRULY NAIVE" if you have the inability to realize that killing one AL QAEDA leader does little more than give someone else the opportunity to step up and take his place.

Obama wants to pretend AL QAEDA is no longer a threat. The killings in Benghazi just burst Obama's little bubble and he then saw the need to LIE about "causality" to further his political ambitions.

Thanks for playing .... you still don't make the debate team.

lol...if you think you won that debate.....then let me take a wild guess you and bet you think Romney won the last debate. LOL

In other words if you are fiscally responsible and working and creating your own living and you are smart enough to set aside a little here and there for your retirement years vote for romney.

If you are irresponsible and you have kids only so you can get the liberal handouts and credits for how many you have and if you are spending every dime you have on fancy cars and homes and entertainment because you know the government will bail you out when you are broke and don't wish to work anymore vote for obama.

I guess you did lay out a very nice portrait of the differences of the 2 agendas.

bobm-346250, how arrogant and callous you are! Maybe some people only make barely enough to survive, let alone save the huge amounts required for putting kids through college and financing a retirement... did that ever occur to you? So simply because some people lack the ability to gain a job where they make a generous income they are tagged as 'irresponsible'? Unbelievable... do you not realize that not all people in this country are in jobs paying enough to afford some of the luxuries in life, let alone for saving? If we all were making a good salary, sure... perhaps the argument could be made that some are irresponsible in how they manage their income. However, that's far from the case... in fact, there are many people out there who are financial geniuses based on the fact that they can make a pittance stretch far enough to put a roof over their head and food in their own mouth, not to mention support any family as well!

It's astounding... you might as well be Mitt spouting that '47%' crapola. Disgusting.

bobm-

..because you know the government will bail you out when you are broke..

Like the Bush Bail-out for the banks.

Like tax breaks for the Oil companies.

Bob would let grandma die in the gutter, as long as corporate fascists are allowed to survive.

Salud

In other words, if you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth, were fortunate enough to be able to go to the the very best prep schools, then onto college, or were lucky enough to inherit money or a business.....vote for Willard. If you were fortunate enough to be able to be totally responsible for your own actions, and not rely on ANY Governmental assistance, like Romney's Grandfather, or his running mate, Ryan........oh never mind!!! Romney's Grandfather collected WELFARE, and 'poor little' Ryan, collected Social Security survivors benefits. You know...GOVERNMENTAL BENEFITS!!!

Bobm,

Where does this guy fall in your continuum?

You are in the late 20's i the early 80's and you pay for your own flight training. You finally get a job as co-pilot at a major airline and work you way up the seniority. About the time you are about to make good money as a captain your airline is taken over by some private equity guy and it is driven into bankruptcy. You get another job at a start-up but the pay is much lower and then you develop a medical condition which essentially ends your flying career. All of a sudden the stability of social security and medicare look pretty good to you. You will need them. You played the game by their rules. They took your company and pension plan away. The made millions in fees. By your definition you are a "taker" I guess this pilot should vote for Romney's plan. Right?

Sorry for your bad luck and hope that your medical condition is OK. I really don't think Romney, or anybody else is going to take away your social security benefits that you paid into. It's a shame that things don't always go as we plan. Just keep plugging away and best of luck.

Drew, Ryan, the running mate, and many Republicans, do indeed want to make drastic cuts to many programs, what they call 'ENTITLEMENTS.' This does include changes to Social Security. Romney already stated his proposal that higher income folks(what does that even mean?) will receive less of their future benefits.Their plans also includes having younger workers place a portion of their Social Security dollars into their own private accounts. This will ultimately cause the Social Security fund to cease, as less and less money goes into the program.

The other issue on private accounts is that at the same time as some of the "younger" funds are directed to specific private investments, the funding of current retirees still needs cash from current tax payers to fund those commitments. To do this funds have to be borrowed for some number of years until commitments to older retirees ends (by death of the retirees). I'd like to know where those funds will come from. You see I am now over 55 and will be grandfathered in to both social security and medicare.

badge, well then I think we should just continue raiding social security and see how that works out for YOU. And, by the way I realize that both DEMS and REPUBS are responsbile for the soc security/medicare mess.

DREW wrote..'badge, well then I think we should just continue raiding social security and see how that works out for YOU.' Read this MORON; I'm not even collecting Social Security yet. I've contributed into this forced system for over 40 years, as many my age have. Whom do you think paid for your sorry arse parents and Grandparents to collect. WE DID! 'Raiding the system,' you ignorantly write... Collecting this benefit isn't 'raiding the system!'..... Politicians need to STOP RAIDING THE SYSTEM FOR OTHER PROGRAMS, GO AFTER ALL THE FRAUD AND WASTE, ESPECIALLY DISABILITY FRAUD. I'll bet you didn't consider it 'raiding the system,' when your family collected from this valuable program. PUTZ

Firedup, I am neither arrogant or callous and I don't believe that those programs should be taken away but to vote a candidate based on that person handing everything to you free than aren't you being a little reliant on the government. My parents never had money and I never had money but it wasn't their goal in life to hopefully someday rely on the federal government to support them. When I decided I needed furthur education I knew I couldn't go to them and I knew I couldn't raise the case so I went into the service. I gave something for my education and this is still available to those who aren't too lazy and actually want a college education or a trade. That is how the liberal have led people to believe. So why should you go out and bust your butt to try and succeed when you can just sit back and let the government fund everything you need. Not everyone can go to college and not everyone should go to college. Everyone thinks going to college is going to give you this grand life style and pay when you are done but that is not reality and people need to learn this. Where will the electricians and the plumbers of the world going to come from. We have put ideas in young people heads for so long that they all think they need a cushy office job and not have to get their hands dirty. That is the big excuse that is given for illegal workers in the US is that they do jobs citizens wouldn't do. Well that is BS because when this nation was growing we took any jobs we could get to feed, cloth and give our families a place to live. The incentive to go out and become self sufficient without having to use government help has been left by the wayside because liberals want everyone to believe the government will support you. Pretty soon when they have convinced everyone of this where will the money come from? Remember the words of JFK. It wasn't just a flashy phrase it is what we should live by. "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." And the first thing we can do is strive to become independent of the government and try to be sel sufficient but also realize there will always be people who need some help and we will be there to help them not support them completely.

Both the voucher proposal for Medicare and the privatization of social security essentially puts the government in the roll of "collection" agent, not a guarantor of services. If that is the case, why have them there at all. Just let people fend for themselves and hope they are smart enough in their 20s to segregate funds in accounts for old age medical care and retirement accounts. You think that builds a workable society especially since the "failures" will come to your gated community with weapons in hand. You better have your arsenal in hand, too. Does that kind of wild west society make any sense to anyone?

The failures as you call them are a product of their own doing. Government is also a factor in creating failures because it tells you that if you can't or won't work to survive they will care for you. That is BS. Make an attempt if you fall a little short than ask for a supplement to help you through the bad times--don't completely rely on the government supporting you. Does anyone else out there realize as you put people to work you are cutting spending and you are raising tax revenues. What is so hard for the libbers to understand about that. If you give a person a fish he will eat for a day, if you teach him to fish he will eat for life. If you make a person work and reap and enjoy the benefits from that he will work forever. It you give a person food stamps, heat and rent assistance and free health care he will remain dependant on the government for the rest of their lives.

Bobm,

You are certainly loving the "libbi" generalizations, it seems like. We are talking about safety nets, which help people through difficult times. How can some repubs say "we need ditch diggers too" and then turn around and say "why aren't those people able to make enough money to blah, blah, blah?" Perhaps because ditch diggers aren't paid enough! Ever think that more people are on food stamps so they don't starve in this recession? Most people are only on food stamps for less than 1 year and off welfare well before the federal time limit. Isn't that what safety nets are for? Not everyone has a private retirement plan or can afford more than what they pay into social security. Medical insurance is tied to employment, so when one retires, what are they to do without medicare? Come on people, we are a society. No man is an island unto himself.

It's about time someone recognizes our ILLUSTRIOUS President as a TRUE LEADER

Leading a spreading underwear stain.

You must be talking about Obama and Biden, but very soon true Americans will down grade Obama the very same way he earned our America her first down grade in her history when we vote Obama out of office in a very FAST & FURIOUS WAY.

Take Back America

Romney/Ryan

You should check out the emails released that clearly state Hillary and Obama knew the Lybia attack was claimed by a terrorist organization on Sept. 11 - released today.

Obama is a liar and Honestly - How you do not see this as a biased strategy is laughable. What reporter knowingly conducts a "off the record interview" then days later during an election is allowed to release it.

Just another way Obama lies then smiles in your face and you love him for it.

Keep grazing sheep....

Real Talk Here-

You should check out the emails released that clearly state Hillary and Obama knew the Lybia attack was claimed by a terrorist organization on Sept. 11 - released today

Please post the links for all to read these emails.

Unfortunately, you are the sheep.

This is Classic Karl Rove/Drudge BS lies that you are trying to shove down your fellow American's throats.

You still think these 20 year old tactics are effective.

And yet you spew this BS on these blog sites thinking you are swaying voters.

Pathetic.

Salud

Tomas, pull your head out ... the truth about the knowledge of the Libyan assassinations is everywhere !

Why Obama had his administration lie and lie frequently to distort the truth is the only unknown ... and that appears to be for political reasons, an "inconvenient truth" liberals do not want to acknowledge.

Keep drinking Tomas .... it cannot blur your perception anymore than it already has !

Tomas,

This news site published them. I suggest reading.

Twist the truth just like Obama does, the truth does not fit very well with the democrats that is for sure. Lies are all they know.!!!!

Take Back America

Romney/Ryan

stclaire-3822173

Twist the truth just like Obama does

What are you blathering about? It's no lie that Romney was caught on tape saying trash he wouldn't have dared say in public when he thought only his wealthy cronies were listening. The video is on the Internet for anyone to view. Romney can't spin his way out of that problem. His only hope is that enough voters come down with a bad case of Romnesia by election day.

Well since we're talking about lies, it's a whole lot worse when you lie to people about 4 dead in Libya!!!!

Obama has been caught on tape saying "we are going to redistribute the wealth". Those who earn their "wealth" and live frugally do not want Obama "redistributing the wealth" because he thinks it creates a "level playing field".

Drew, I never heard anyone say four people were not killed, so where is the cover up? If it was terrorist's or a group of American haters does not matter, four of our fellow Americans are dead and their killers need to be brought to Justice. My only question would be why weren't they better protected at the consulate, so show me where someone is trying to cover that up and I'll get your point. Other than that it just sounds like political BS.

Get Real, Ask yourself this question: Why has Barack Obama and various members of his administration gone about for 2 weeks after the killings trying to convince the American people that it was the result of "spontaneous demonstrations" against an anti-Mohammed film clip that few have seen ?

Why tell a "WHOPPER" of a fish tale if you are still investigating the tragedy and do not know the answer ?

It really is a shame too because I really like a lot of his policies and I'm a democrat too btw.

Obama has has 4 years to deal with the illegal immigrant issue, he ignored it, period. Obama the great LIAR had the first 2 years all to himself, democrats controlled the house and senate and white house and he did NOTHING, so he must not care very much, he only cares now that he needs their votes.

Take Back America

Romney/Ryan

St Claire: He is not omnipotent like Romney claims to be. Romney would become a lying president the first day in office when he doesn't do all those things he said he would do on day 1. Everytime I hear that I think not another thing for day one. And on day 2 after our country is diismantled completely what do you expect him to do. Send us to China like he did our jobs and companies. You might change your tune then except you wouldn't believe him then either would you. You would just allow him to do it. Some people don't use the brains they were born with. Why I have no clue!

Actually check the records and transcipts. You guys make up all this crap and show no evidence. Not onevideo not one speech not one article. Not one. And in fact videos, records, speeches etc. counteract and prove false what you say. And I wonder what you would think of our President ifhe had done exactly and I mean exactly what Romney has done in his campaign. woudl you vote for him? Or woujld you attack him for every single thing he has done?

stclaire-

Take Back America

Romney/Ryan

So America is only for people who think like YOU?

Discusting.

REAL AMERICANS aready took America BACK for the PEOPLE when Obama won in 2008.

REAL AMERICANS are going to KEEP AMERICA for the PEOPLE this Novermber 6th.

I suggest you pack up an leave.

Salud

Do you really think your ill-founded suggestions carry any weight ?

Obama was elected on the warm and fuzzy vagueness of "Hope and Change". Now that reality has set in and his record of weakness is clear, we can only "HOPE" there will be a "CHANGE" in the White House effective with the election results in November of 2012 !

jim-1455434: YOU are SO ACCURATE!

From the lies and deaths of Benghazi, to the pension plans at Delphi,for UNION MEMBERS ONLY, to the economy only getting worse and people just giving up looking for work, Billions to FAILED Solendra,Blue Ridge Utilities and Deleware Utilities and the company who accepted millions in Michigan to produce batterieds for the Chevy Volt. Trillions in a Defecit,LACK of participation or concern during the BPAmacco Oil Spill in the Gulf, TO a TAX LADENED

TO ALL of his blatant lies and deceptions !.

...and why is it, that being successful and making money,while taking risks, is NOW VILLIANIZED by Obama and his mindless parasitic microbes ???? IF OUR fore founders and the rest of our country had adopted this SICK, PERVERTED attitude, our country and our accomplishments would HAVE NEVER OCCURED!

Obama HAS TO GO! ANYONE, who votes for Obama, confesses publicly, how MUCH THEY HATE AMERICA!

The current batch of Republicans can't seem to think straight. Maybe it's because they've bought the same lies since Reagan. Now HE WAS A REAL PIECE OF WORK, and too many Americans couldn't help following him down the garden path to corporate lah lah land. 32 years of corporate lies, obfuscation, blaming victims,stealing from the poor/working/middle classes to enrich those with too much already. Damn! Americans can be so foolish!

How appropriate. This country is in the worst shape it has been in decades, and Obama puts out 20 page pamphlet that is going to let us know how everything is going to turn around. A 20 page pamphlet to cure all of our problems, and took 50,000 pages to produce that garbage Obamacare, that he never read. I wonder if he used stick figures in his comprehensive, nothing new, little book. What a desperate loser.

............. DREW-3832283, JIM-1455434, ERIC-1132156

.... YOU WANT TO BLAME OBAMA FOR WHAT HAPPENED IN THE MIDDLE EAST? Not to discount the American loss of those four men killed ... May God bless them and their families ....

THIS IS WHAT BUSH DID or DIDN'T DO ON AMERICAN SOIL ....

What Bush Knew Before Sept.11

"We were trying to figure out what they (al Qaeda) would do. We never had specifics about time, place, MO (method of operation)."
U.S. intelligence official, commenting anonymously.

President Bush was told in the months before the Sept. 11 attacks that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network might hijack U.S. passenger planes - information which prompted the administration to issue an alert to federal agencies - but not the American public.

CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin says the warning was in a document called the President's Daily Brief, which is considered to be the single most important document that the U.S. intelligence community turns out. The document did not, however, mention the possibility of planes being flown into buildings.

An agent in the FBI's Arizona office did, however, speculate about that, writing in his case notes about Zacarias Moussaoui that Moussaoui seemed like the type of person who was capable of flying an aircraft into the World Trade Center.

It was the observation of an agent taking notes as he thought about his case - an observation whose significance simply did not register at the time.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer says that while President Bush was told last summer that bin Laden's al Qaeda network might hijack planes, he did not receive information suggesting that airplanes might be used as suicide bombs, as they were on Sept. 11.

Fleischer emphasizes that "until the attack took place, I think it's fair to say that no one envisioned that as a possibility."

The revelation about the president's security briefing comes as House and Senate Intelligence Committee investigators prepare for public hearings beginning next month on whether an intelligence community which spends $30 billion a year should have been able to provide a more specific warning in advance of Sept. 11.

The New York Times reports that an FBI agent in Arizona warned his superiors last summer that bin Laden might be sending students to U.S. flight schools.

Investigators have since Sept. 11 suspected bin Laden's al Qaeda network of masterminding the terror attacks on America, which killed more than 3,000 people.

**********************************************************************************

Republicans don't want to see the bigger picture .... the middle east has been at war since forever ... the attacks on the embassy happened in the middle east .... Bush was for-warned too ... and did nothing and they attacked us AMERICAN SOIL .... HUGE DIFFERENCE .....

MIDDLE EAST - 4 KILLED

AMERICAN SOIL - 3000 KILLED .... YES REPUBLICANS EXPLAIN THAT ONE .....

MAY GOD BLESS AMERICA .... AND AMERICA VOTE FOR OBAMA 2012