Nice summary, Keith. "Campaigner in Chief." As a sales manager, I'd hire Obama over Romney. Sneaky, slippery, charming, has a well-spun answer for everything which hold up convincingly until you dig just a little into the substance.

But hire that guy to run the most influential country in the world? Come on.

Think about this......Do you have $100,000,000. in your IRA account,,,,,,do you have your money in foreign banks to avoid paying taxes that you pay......? and you want him to fix the economy......I have a unicorn to sell you real cheap !
(responding to Keith Best)

Insider.

If I had $100M in an IRA and, instead of moving my money into LEGAL overseas tax shelterd, I paid a full tax burden, I'd be an idiot at financial and economic management!

I'll take Romney's economic knowledge and experience any day.

Romney Won.
Obama appared weak.

It truly is amazing how so many Republicans simply cannot get their facts straight and ignore the historical record, usually because it doesn't support their preferred narrative. Barack Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996. He was not a FIRST TERM state senator when he ran for the US Senate in Illinois. You're entitled to your opinion but you're not entitled to your own facts.

Sid, if the goal of your retirement-account is failure, not success, than I would agree with you. Like Romney, I'm trying to save and maximize my retirement accounts using every, legal way possible. The Presidents personal wealth of $8 million isn't too shabby either - which is a good thing.

Have you taken a look at 401k or your Roth account lately!
If you or anyone that reads this,has either.
You don't have a dam thing to complain about, you should be 100% plus 20% up if you had the right mix!
That in it self is a miracle!
I my self have no intension of making Romney the Commander and Thief and Liar!
Get a grip man this is 2012 not 1849!

Very well said. Thank you. Go Romney and Ryan.

++++ http://www.famalegoods.com ++++++++++

Best online store

Best quality, Best reputation , Best services

---**** NHL Jersey Woman $ 40 ---**** NFL Jersey $ 35

---**** NBA Jersey $ 34 ---**** MLB Jersey $ 35

---**** Jordan Six Ring_m $ 36 ---**** Air Yeezy_m $ 45

---**** T-Shirt_m $ 25 ---**** Jacket_m $ 36

---**** Hoody_m $ 50 ---**** Manicure Set $ 20

---**** handbag $ 37 ---**** ugg boot $ 43 ---****

---**** sunglass $ 16 ---**** bult $ 17 ---****

'[09=-09-

++++ famalegoods.com ++++++++++

Best online store

Best quality, Best reputation , Best services

---**** NHL Jersey Woman $ 40 ---**** NFL Jersey $ 35

---**** NBA Jersey $ 34 ---**** MLB Jersey $ 35

---**** Jordan Six Ring_m $ 36 ---**** Air Yeezy_m $ 45

---**** T-Shirt_m $ 25 ---**** Jacket_m $ 36

---**** Hoody_m $ 50 ---**** Manicure Set $ 20

---**** handbag $ 37 ---**** ugg boot $ 43 ---****

---**** sunglass $ 16 ---**** bult $ 17 ---****
.ol9
p0'9-

Didn't the obvious jump out at you that they find twice as many incorrect facts, because that is actually the rate with which they contribute incorrect facts?

As Colbert famously joked to George W; "Reality has a well known liberal bias," as a commentary on just how false most Republican premises are. You are talking about the party of magic vaginas that prohibit conception during a "legitimate rape" or deny evolution or climate change. Are you really shocked that this party is called out in fact checks twice as much as Democrats, who are more science and reality based? I am certainly not surprised by this.

Sorry Watts, try again. Wishful thinking, shallow analysis and statism have a definite liberal bias. Most people identify with conservative ideas because they work.

Jack, Moveon.org, Democratunderground.com and our own DNC mirror CMPA, so they are in good company - and must be right.

@tim lewis: conservative ideas work? how do you explain the panic of 1907, the crashes of 1929, 1987, 1989? the meltdown of 2007-09?

How true, to have control of both the congress and senate for two years and not get anything done is almost incomprehensible. Then the next two years he could not get people to compromise, no matter how you look at it or spin it his term has been at best unproductive at worst a failure. America deserves better.

Mr. Minster, I will be happy to answer your questions. Yes, both professionals in our family have seen their income go up. Yes, our working children received an increase in their pay. Yes, our portfolio of investment earnings have increased and the market is doing better than it has in many years since President Obama has been cleaning up the devastating policies of our last "business friendly" President.

Climate change? If you do not think that food, fresh water, good soil, and the ability to breath fresh air are important to us, our children, grand children, and generations to come, then really do not place much value on the economy, jobs, or quality of life, for without food, fresh water, good soil, and clean air, your concerns will evaporate.

Contraception? Without contraception how many humans would now populate the earth? As a man your lack of concern about important issues to woman, which also in todays world are also important issues for spouses, our daughters futures and our sons futures, privacy between women and their doctors, families and their doctors, and women's personal rights and freedoms that are not any less important as American citizens as they are for men.

Whatnot? Equal pay for equal work. This is an extremely important economic issue. If you don't believe that, let's reverse this situation and pay men only 77 cents for every dollar earned by a woman.

Earnest, thanks for your honest responses and congratulations to you and your family.

Climate change is inevitable. To settle this question in my own mind, I researched and read articles published by real climatologists in climatology journals. As it turns out, just one summer algae bloom in the ocean (a natural recurring act of nature) generates more greenhouse gasses than everything man has dumped into the atmosphere. Junk science.

Obama pays his female employees 18% less than males. Unequal pay for equal work (the ladies probably work harder). Adding "hypocrite" to my long list of descriptors for your beloved President.

You need to study your history! The "harsh economic facts" are that the same policies that Romney is proposing (depending on which way the wind is blowing) are the same policies that got us into this mess. Bush gave tax cuts to the top 1% (ya know the "job creators") and where were the jobs?? Obama created more jobs in 1 year than Bush did in 4 years. Why should we give up Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Mortgage Deductions, College Deductions, Pell Grants, etc. so Romney (bought and paid for by the nations greedy billionairs) can keep on track dispursing money from the middle class to the top 1%. You are the one who should wake up!

@jack minster: you are living proof of the saying 'it's easier to fool people than to convince them they've been fooled'.

you say we have 23M americans unemployed. not true. the true number is close to 12M. look it up. but you believe what you've heard repeatedly from rmoney and other gopcons, who have indeed conned you. the first 'fact' on your list is not only 'subject to dispute', it's just plain false. your use of the phrase 'on the dole' stymies me. do you mean unemployment compensation, general assistance, food stamps, or what? if you were specific, i'd respond. the treasury's debt comes from 2 wars, too many tax cuts for the rich, and the necessity to repair the devastation inherited by this administration.

your belief that there's been no legislation is so ridiculous i have difficulty believing you're not just a troll. the following URL will take you to a graph that shows how deep a job loss ditch we drove into before obama took office and how quickly losses turned around after passage of the recovery act [you can also hover your pointer over the little rings at the top to see highlights, including key legislation]: http://www.barackobama.com/jobsrecord

David, http://www.trivisonno.com/food-stamps-charts 46.7 million on food stamps. Real unemployment rate if all the people who want a job suddenly re-entered the workforce? 11.63%. Real numbers, sir.

In 2000-2001, the small business owner for whom I worked did not trust Clinton's tax policies and regulations and clung to his cash. After the Bush tax cuts went into effect, he availed himself of those cuts and purchased a $500K printer. 13 new jobs got created right before my eyes. Now, multiply that by any subset of the 27 million small businesses across America, and there should be no surprise why those tax cuts created 8.6 million new jobs, is there? It's simple economics. Small business owners across America are ON STRIKE against the Obama administration, and rightly so. His plan: raise the rate, already the second highest in the world, from 35% to 40%. Most small businesses are taxed as individuals. Let's not forget the mandatory fines owed to Obama for not providing health insurance to employees. The owner couldn't afford to provide it back in 1997, but with the tax cuts and increased profits, he did start buying insurance for the small staff of employees. The company continued to grow and now employees 200 people. His risks and yes he DID build it. Obama would have you envy him, hate his success, use him as his own personal ATM. Simple economics my friend.

so 'the dole' means 'food stamps'? ok. not my usual language, but i'll try to speak yours. what have you got against low income people getting enough to eat? GOP policies ruined our economy, but the number on food stamps should stay low, eh? forget it. not worthy of a response. same for your definition of 'real unemployment rate' and 'real numbers'. people who work with statistics agree on definitions of terms so they can communicate effectively, but you come along and change definitions as you please to suit your agenda. no point in arguing with that either.

as for your employer who 'clung to his cash', apparently he didn't grasp that plowing his profit back into the business would have reduced his tax burden. by clinging he paid more in taxes and delayed his prosperity. he might be employing a lot more workers today. maybe that's why the job creation figure you give for the bush years is only a bit more than a third of what it was under clinton. if many small business owners are indeed 'on strike' against obama, they're cutting their own noses due to the same kind of economic illiteracy as you and your former boss exhibit.

oh, and btw, 35% is nowhere near the 2nd highest tax rate in the world. google it.

your economics isn't simple. it's simpleminded.

You bet - just ask Mitts previous employees how *they* feel. Hmmmmmm?? Betcha I know who *they* will vote for. Peace

@slyfox - you might want to ask the folks who work at this company in towns near where I once lived what they think of Romney. http://www.steeldynamics.com/about-sdi/overview/

Fact: The last "business friendly" President brought the economy of the United States of America to its knees.

Fact: President Obama has been cleaning up the massively devastating economic conditions left by that "business friendly" president and his rubber stamp Republicans.

Fact: Romney is supported by those who have moved the United States of America towards the creation of an Oligarchy and is supported by religious extremists that want America's laws to impose their religious beliefs on Americans, especially women, by removing American woman's individual rights and freedoms and privacy.

President Obama = Recognizing that a few Americans are not more important than the majority of Americans.

ask the employees at Sesatta corp. in Freeport, Illonois, who lost their jobs because Romney's Bain Capitol bought and dismantled a viable company and sold it to China. Oh yeah, he's gonna get tought on China!

LSB - is the purpose of business to turn a profit for its shareholders/owners, or is it to provide salaries for employees?

If you believe the latter, that companies exist to provide jobs, then you do not understand business. Companies gobble up one another every day. That's business. Move to France or the UK, try starting a business there, find out why European entrepreneurs flock to the U.S to start businesses. Free market, keyword FREE. Bain is free to risk starting Sensata; Bain is free to sell Sensata; people are free to apply for work at Sensata or elsewhere. Would you as President of the U.S. force Bain to keep Sensata in Illinois? Pay Bain taxpayer dollars not to sell it for a profit? That's not a free market. That's government intruding where it should not.

Romney left Bain in 1999. Bain bought a division of TI to create Sensata in 2006. Sensata bought a division of Honeywell in 2011, that included the Freeport plant. There's not much of a connexion there. You should ask the Freeport employees about how they feel about Honeywell selling them out. Or the alternative suggested by CNN, here: http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/09/18/why-romney-cant-save-the-sensata-workers/ Clearly a company can't answer to a parent's long-departed CEO just because he is running for POTUS, can they? That would surely be a breach of it's fiduciary duty.

One works for Bain and the other moved to the South... enough said.

No Earnest, not enough said. Please elaborate on your comment about my family.

@Amend, the problem is the system. The expression goes "don't hate the player, hate the game." As the best country on the planet, we should be the most attractive place to keep and invest money, bar none. We are not the most attractive thanks to having the highest corporate tax rate and toughest regulations thanks to special interests and insane bureaucracy. Expecting a person or company to ignore what's best for business in favor of a lesser choice due to some undefined ideal is absurd and irresponsible. We need to fix our competitive position in the world.

Is that how you manage your money? According to "what's right for America"??? Or does that standard only hold true for rich Republicans?

Do you know how much the Obamas donated in charitable contributions BEFORE Barack got serious about politics?

Through an invigorated economy and lower tax rates ... Government cannot directly create jobs but it can create an atmosphere that encourages job growth.

That's what has been sorely lacking, a favorable atmosphere for jobs.

...Next up, regulations. Ah, yes... "Over-regulation is choking the economy!" But does it pan out? Not according to the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics - they collect data from major companies whenever layoffs are announced. Take a look for yourself (2). In 2010, 0.3 percent of the people who lost their jobs in layoffs were let go because of "government regulations/intervention." That's it. One third of one percent of layoffs. So, according to the best source of such information, regulations aren't a major factor.

And last - "smaller government." A very popular mantra. But can you cite precedent? Can you name a country with a size even remotely comparable to the United States in which a "smaller government" policy has succeeded? If so, please share.

(1) http://business.time.com/2012/02/06/the-corporate-tax-rate-is-at-its-lowest-in-decades-is-big-business-paying-its-fair-share/
(2) http://www.bls.gov/news.release/mslo.t02.htm

A well thought-out response... Let's see if it holds up.

First, you bring up individual and corporate tax rates, suggesting that lower tax rates result in more jobs. Sounds good on paper, but it doesn't seem to pan out. I suppose we could do an experiment, and offer tax breaks for, oh... does ten years seems fair? If so, we tried it ten years ago, and the results are what we see today.

So how about corporate taxes? People like to talk about how the U.S. federal corporate tax rate is among the world's highest. These people don't understand that virtually no one pays the "maximum tax rate" any more than you drive your car at the maximum speed described on your spedometer. The actuall corporate tax rate, based on the amount collected? About 12.1% - the lowest percentage seen in 40 years (1). Perhaps you might pick a timeframe in America's history when the economy was doing very well, and look at the tax rates for that period. The 50s? 60s? Your call.
...

CyD252, if only Romney could figure out how to distill the facts into a single sentence.

Despite an unemployment high of just 6.4%, there were more jobs lost in the first 7 quarters of the 2001 recession than were lost in the first 7 of this recession. How? Why lose more in 2001 but unemployment is so much higher now? Weak job creation. Latest Bureau of Labor and Statistics data show employers have created 8.6 million fewer new jobs this time around than a decade ago. Lower job creation accounts for 65 percent of the recession’s decreased employment.

Well, our actual corporate tax rate (based on what they actually pay) is the lowest it's been in 40 years. I've provided strong evidence that regulations aren't much of a factor. Everyone - including business owners - have enjoyed a decade's worth of tax cuts to no avail.

So given all this, what exactly is Romney proposing?

Jack - Our corporate tax rate is not "the second highest in the world." You're missing a critical word: "maximum." Our *maximum* corporate tax rate is the second highest in the world. The corporate tax rate actually paid by businesses is much, much lower.

In fact, the effective average corporate tax rate (about 12%) is around the lowest it's ever been in this country. Corporations move their locations abroad not because other countries have competitive tax rates - but because the government of those countries are offering *specific* incentives to those corporations.

CyD252, correcting your fuzzy math: U.S. companies also rank No. 2 when measured by so-called effective rates, the amount paid after the myriad of tax breaks. The Tax Foundation puts the effective rate for U.S. companies at about 26%. Obama proposes increasing the maximum rate to 40%. Most companies are smaller than the giants you use as examples. In fact most companies are taxed as individuals. Dog-chase-tail, Ground Hog Day, here we ago again. Business owners remain on strike against Obama and that is why jobs don't exist. The electorate is realizing this, check the polls. Romney-Ryan lawns signs popping up affronting small businesses throughout Montgomery County (too bad it if it offends clients who love Obama, these folks don't want their business anyway). Do you own or help manage a business, CyD252? If not you should perhaps abandon this sale, because you ain't sellin' anyone who owns or manages a business. Obama has made himself our enemy. He is not to be trusted. The Cubans in Florida saw construction jobs fizzle and have swung almost entirely Republican. They were among the first Obamites to get it. When small businesses cannot trust the economic policies of their elected leaders, they retract. Cause-effect.

CBS poll of Undecideds: Who would be better for the Economy?

Romney 65%
Obama 34%

Romneys state was 47th in job creation. He shipped jobs overseas and you all would give him the wheel for this country. He says that 47% of us see ourselves as victims and youd let him lead? He flip flops on every possible issue, lies to your faces and you give him a pass. I don't get it, what has he done that makes you think he can lead this country?

Short's drinking the Kool Aid. Those were the undecideds at Romney's campaign headquarters.

Really Feodor ... Making stuff up as we go along now???

I'm all for simplifying the tax code and eliminating loopholes to lower the rate itself which is exactly what Romney is suggesting. It may be a chicken/egg scenario, but you can't blame the chicken for trying to protect the eggs.

If you can't see what regulations do to the economy, it's because you don't want to see it. Here's three easy ones. 1) In response to the gulf oil spill, Obama cut off shore drilling by 2/3, and the rigs went to Brazil. This regulation cost jobs and each of us money every time we fill up because our potential for energy is reduced and increases the price of all goods, especially food. 2) i saw first hand an amount of busy paperwork required by Sarbanes Oxley that cut into the ability to do meaningful work and grow sales and revenue. Busy work cuts sales, growth, and in turn, jobs. 3) regulations in "Obamacare" are having a direct effect on jobs as well. By forcing employers of a certain size (50 Full time employees?) to cover or pay a fine, companies are cutting hours to avoid both.

Romney still owned the plant when the jobs were sent to China? He does not having left Bain permanently in 2002 (after being on a leave of absence since 1999). So how exactly does this episode somehow contradict his position of dealing with the Chinese????

Again, if the system is set up that way, it's not a dodge. Paying taxes in no way represents commitment to a country. If so, 49% who pay no federal tax are unpatriotic as is every American before 1913. There is no connection. It is every persons duty to themselves to pay as little in tax as legally possible. That is the true tax burden, if you insist on such a term, not some soft number you determine should be paid by voluntarily bypassing opportunities to pay less.

Yes, in business, profit is all that matters. It's the reason to be in business. To maximize profit in a competitive landscape you need to be as efficient as possible. You need to provide exemplary service to grow and sustain that business and nimble enough to adapt to changes in the market. I could go on here but it's business 101. Read Atlas Shrugged for a better defined explanation.

We sustained ourselves just fine with minimal taxes prior to Wilson. If the fed would stick to what they are supposed to do in Art 1, Sec 8 of the constitution we'd be much better off.

To argue the details of this failed policy accomplishes nothing except for what big government wants, which is to confiscate the fruits of our labor and redistribute them among special interests. One big root of our problems is the IRS. If not for the money stolen from the citizens, our welfare-warfare state could not exist. It is with this source of funds that the "teenagers" elected to office commit their mischief. Truly the last 100 years have been tough on our Republic. Permiting the illegal and unconstitutional income tax to continue, will help drive us past the tipping point.

My examples are exact and truthful and explain what is wrong with most regulation. You go back to "blanket statements", i gave you specifics, instantly, off the top of my head, and im no pol. 40,000 new laws go into effect this year. Do you really wantbto make the case that anywhere near that number is necessary?

Where have you ever heard anyone cry out for zero regulations? You haven't. But this is always the argument of the liberal mind. It's federal control or nihilism, as if there aren't 1000 degrees and variations in between.

Please provide a link to this "social contract", I've never seen it.

The responsibilities you speak of are voluntary. You seem to want government, again, to force people to do what you want. If you have government forcing you to give, you arent giving, they are just taking.

LEGAL is the key term, And your characterization as "unpatriotic" is just as politically-driven as my observation on how political affiliation factors into these silly off-shore charges.

The fact is, anyone with two economically-activated brain cells (something The President could use) would do exactly the same thing, if they had sufficient wealth to protect. If you didn't, you'd be an idiot.

I've always believed Romney should SWIM in his wealth and success. Release all his tax returns, the whole nine yards ... SImply to PROVE he has more Economic Acumen in his little pinky than the entire Obama Administration!

Wealth is a measure of Economic Success. Economic Success doesn't come from smoke and mirrors and Government intervention. It occurs when people KNOW what they're doing!

Romney KNOWS. The President?!? Not so much ...

@Mike- that was my point, that off shore tax shelters that let people skirt their domestic tax burden should not be legal. Patriotism is not a partisan concept, so I'm not sure how it politicizes the discourse. It seems fairly apparent that the only reason off shore tax shelters exist is for the reasons I stated. That has nothing to do with party affiliation. It has more to do with greed. I find it difficult to reconcile that motivation with the idea that such a thing is indeed patriotic. I also find fault with those to tout Romney's success as a business man as a reason why he would be a good president, or that it makes him seem somehow more successful than Obama. Romney was born into privilege. I don't fault him for that, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that his station in life wasn't eased by said privilege. It's not like he was born in a shack on a dirt farm and worked his way to the top. He was cradled by his family's affluence. It isn't hard to rise to the top when you were already born into it. What Mitt Romney knows is how to use his birth rite to his advantage. that is not a reflection of intellect or business acumen. That's just good fortune.

Very, very tired argument, Amend ... And one I think does not play well for a President trying to defend his crappy Economic Leadership.

a. The accusation that Romney somehow "owes" it to the country to protect less of his assets so they can be redistributed (That's REALLY what we're talking about, right?) is disingenuous. As a nation, we NEVER make this demand of the wealthy, including past Presidential candidates like Al Gore, John Kerry, or the entire Kennedy clan! What exactly makes this so "sacred" this year?!? (Yeah, that was rhetorical.)

b. Romney's wealth does illustrate one HUGE ADVANTAGE over President Obama. It DEMONSTRATES -in large part - Romney's vast success at creating and developing Economic Growth and Opportunity! Something you'd have a very hard time finding much of in The President's background or tenure as POTUS!

When you blend Bain and the 2002 Olympics together you a well-rounded, much needed picture of what needs doing in this country and who's best suited to get it done!

With President Obama? Not so much ...

@Mike- "redistribution" is a funny word. one could easily say that the level of wealth polarization towards those at the top of the hill is also a form of redistribution. Like I said, it's easy to gain when you already have. Personally, I find it a tired argument that those at the top are somehow more deserving of success, and that's why they are wealthy in the first place. Certainly there is nothing wrong with becoming wealthy, but it is a reflection of a bias to think that those who are wealthy deserve preferential treatment due to their wealth or that they are somehow benefiting the rest of us by being wealthy, i.e. this over used title as job creators. Regarding Romney's wealth, again I disagree that it shows any real skill set on his part other than his ability to work things towards his advantage. A person with real business sense builds businesses. He simply shuffles money from one place to another and collects a fee for doing so. His tenure at the Olympics isn't all that impressive either when you come to understand that he used massive amounts of federal money to "save" the Olympics, something the new Mitt Romney would staunchly oppose. So yeah, we can blend Bain and the Olympics to get a good picture of what we'd get from a Romney presidency. That's why I'm voting for the other candidate.

@Amend: To the extent the wealthy actually create something, I do think they do "deserve their success". Mitt Romney did build things; he did not just shuffle money around. You're going to have to do better than that.

And like it or not, wealth is necessary to finance everything - from infrastructure improvements to construction to manufacturing - through investment of their excess wealth. That wealth goes a lot further being invested than it does being sucked up by the Government and thrown out a window.

So vote for President Obama, and find a nice spot under the window.

You are exactly wrong sir. And again you tie patriotism to taxation.

Individualism does not have to stand against nationalism at all. If we understand at times we work together, all over the place in Rand, you can have groups working together but still in their self interest. Its what a place of business is. If you own it, and i agree to work for a wage, we work together, yet self interested. Sorry you can't understand that.

Actually, your thinking is closer to these evil European government constructs than Rand. You spout on about patriotism and nationalism. You speak of invisible social contracts and a greater good that goes undefined that benefit some masses, but never the contributor. You damn the successful and celebrate "keeping your head above water". You conflate taxes and patriotism as if there is some correlation. Combine the propaganda you have used just in the thread of this article, and you have a concoction that is clear to any thinking American. A concept that is highly unamerican. Good day sir.

Oh ... I gotta see this. Care to share your source?!?

"You've got to be kidding!"

Perhaps the major turning point in the debate — the "aha" moment for millions of undecided Americans — was when Mitt Romney so eloquently listed the key statistics of Obama's record. This is how Obama's regulations are having said affect!
The facts about Barack Obama's record are simply indisputable — and disastrous!

—23 Million Unemployed or Underemployed

—47 Million on Food Stamps

—5.5 Million Homes in Crisis/Foreclosure

—$4500 Drop in Household Income

—$5.5 Trillion of New Debt

—$716 Billion in Medicare Cuts

—$2.6 Trillion for Obamacare

—$1.9 Trillion in New Taxes in Obama’s Budget

—100% Increase in Gas Prices

"Four more years of this?

"You've got to be kidding!"

Another set of regulations that is causing problems, especially for smaller community banks, is Dodd-Frank. Dodd-Frank is crushing the smaller banks - they simply don't have the tools and resources to understand the law, never mind comply. You can expect another wave of consolidations, just for that reason. Once again, Obama proves that he is a fascist and a tool of the bgger banks. If he really wanted to do something, he would have done something to split them up (like TR and the trust biusters did to Standard Oil) instead of guaranteeing them because they were too big to fail.

Hate to break the news to you Mr. Best, but Romney's record of lying to voters and pretending that he is someone he is not is his personal record. This guy took foreign money from people who were slaughtering people in their own country to start Bain and he has either been fore some thing or against something first before flipping to the opposite position, not because of his values, but because of his need to dishonestly trick voters, so he could build his personal resume, with the goal to obtain the title of U.S. President.

I respectfully disagree. This is all new Obama Debt and Obama failures not Bush! Obama tried to help America with his plan but he barrowed and spent more than any President in history. This has nothing to do with Bush. Obama has failed investment and a failed foreign policy. Tell me you feel good about the way the Obama administration has handled the Libya situation. You can look at things the way you want but he is not truthful with us about everything. Obama and Biden have said so many conflicting stories that it sickens me.

@Dr. Rick- I never mentioned Bush when I addressed the collapse we experienced, and I stand by what I said regarding the recovery; it isn't going to be fast, easy or cheap to fix the situation we were/are in. That's not an issue of blame. That's just being pragmatic. It's disingenuous of people to assume the recovery would occur otherwise, like there was some magic pill that would ease the pain, and speed up the process. Not-to-mention those who continue to overlook the gains from the policies put in place. The economy is still shaky, but it's nowhere near where it was in 2008.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx

Romney up 7 points over Obama in the popular vote, and now North Carolina moved its 15 Electoral votes over to Romney putting Romney firmly in the lead despite any margins of error.

No candidate ever in history with numbers like Romney's by the second week of October has ever gone on to lose the Election.

Just sayin.

Romney's claim was that Obama had a supermajority for two years. This is wrong for several:

"Supermajority" - This is defined as a two-thirds majority (67%) - and this never happened. In the House, Obama had a filibuster-proof majority of 59% - if you count two left-leaning independents. But never a supermajority in the House. And in the Senate? It was barely a majority at all - Senator Franken was not sworn in until July 7, 2009 - one and a half years after Obama took office. And this scant majority was enjoyed until the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy on August 25, 2009.

That gave Obama a razor-thin Senate majority for seven weeks.

And considering that this was during the summer, I strongly suspect that Congress was not in session for all of those seven weeks, though I admit I haven't checked the calendar to confirm this.

Romney put Massachusetts back to financial health working with nearly 90% Democrats. Your candidate rammed through ObamaCare without his own Senate majority leader understanding what is contained therein (fact check, Nancy Pelosi video admitting same). Way to garner cooperation from House Republicans, whose great legislation is DOA when it reaches the Senate and which the Media never reports. Go to individual GOP Congress member websites, read the sensible Bills they've sponsored or co-sponsored, and ask why this is the first you're seeing it. Many Republicans are angry with Congress. Why is the Congress approval rating so low when really the 112th may be the most talented ever in history?

Obama. Taking all the credit, giving away all the blame, creating the largest divide between Haves and Have Nots we've ever seen, and the greatest chasm between Congress/Senate Republicans and Democrats we've ever seen.

Again, go ahead, it's a free country, you go ahead and trust this guy if you want. But don't spin facts.

Speaking of spinning facts, Jack, don't try to pull this "Romney worked with Democrats when he was governor" malarkey. Unless your definition of "worked with" means vetoing virtually every piece of legislation that comes across your desk. Romney issued 844 vetoes in his four years as governor. He was so veto happy that even his own party's lawmakers got annoyed at him. The people of Massachusetts learned to dislike him, too - he started off with an approval rating of nearly 60% - four years later, it shrank to less than 35%, with disapprovals at a whopping 65%. Seems like the better you know him, the less you like him.

Bruce, in one of the most solidly blue states, where if your last name isn't Kennedy you are placed under a microscope, as of Tuesday, Rasmussen had Obama 57, Romney 42. The Big Dig - Mass residents hated this disruption and I hated driving in it but now that the dust has settled, the entire project makes sense. Every move Romney made there wasn't necessarily popular at the time, yet it all worked out and he did in fact turn around its economy working with Dems in its House and Senate. Those are the facts. You can sling all the Wikipedia facts you want and nothing changes them.

@Jack- it is disingenuous to state that all Obama has accomplished is Obama Care. How is it that the economy didn't spiral into a complete free fall after he took office? One can say that more might have been done, but no one can say that nothing positive has been done by this administration. Nor can it be said that we aren't starting to see the seeds of the recovery taking hold.

Amend, keep it fact-based. The problem is that Obama has only greatly accelerated everything Bush did wrong, and reversed everything Bush did right. Poverty is spreading at record levels across many groups, from underemployed workers and suburban families to the poorest poor. This is consistent with the effect of Obamanomics on incomes. The group that has suffered the most during the Obama Presidency has been black Americans, whose real incomes have fallen by more than 11%. Bush inherited a recession too, but his numbers during the same period were enormously better.

A key driver of higher wages in the 1980s and 1990s was a surge of capital investment in computers, plant and equipment, which made American workers more productive. When Mr. Obama pledges to raise taxes on investment income (capital gains, dividends and small business profits), he is making it costlier to innovate and modernize. That plays out over time into slower gains in productivity and wages.

There is no secret or magic as to how to turn around these declining incomes. Increased investment in business expansion and start ups increases demand for labor, which drives up wages. That investment buys new tools and capital equipment for workers, making them more productive, which provides the cash flow to increase wages.

If he had stuck to these tried-true policies, we'd be golden by now. It's economics. And it's true that all he has pushed through is ObamaCare and spending.

@Jack- yes, lets keep it fact-based. the fact is that the only comparison to the economic conditions we find ourselves in today could be the 1930's. There was no capital available to stop the bleeding. That's why the government intervened with record spending in an effort to staybalize the economy. Sure, Obama could have done nothing and let the market figure it out on its own, but almost everyone agrees that that would have been worse. Your comment regarding capital investment positively effecting the economy sounds correct in theory, but how do you then explain the situation we are in today considering that those with wealth are more wealthy than ever before with access to plenty of capital? Wouldn't that, based on that theory, then translate into a situation where we were experiencing a robust economy, and not the fiscal nightmare that occurred in 2008? Where is that capital, why isn't it being infused into the economy in an effort to create growth, and why should we continue to extend tax cuts on those funds if they indeed aren't making their way back into the domestic market? Where are the dividends in that investment?

Amend, I think I and my party including Governor Romney in both debates are clearly offering a historically-proven path to recovery, very different from the trickle-down government liberal ideology you and your party espouse. Although the election outcome is far from certain, it is now a mathematical certainty that Romney is favored to win. The math is much fuzzier right now on the Senate and House results. Assuming Romney wins and Republicans regain majority positions in the House and Senate, then you and I will learn over the next few years how conservative economics and bi-partisan legislation stack up to Obama's numbers, as Romney and team will also inherit a true mess as Obama did. Unemployment number identical to when he started. Then I will pick up our chat.

If Obama and the Dems win again, I will also pick it up and you can say Told ya so.

See you at the polls.

Great job cutting and pasting you plagarizing loser: http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2012/09/27/how-obamacare-could-harm-47/
What kind of a charlatan are you, trying to pass this tripe off as your own?

Chiropractor, eh? Why am I not surprised? Real doctors like the reforms that Obamacare is bringing.

Great job cutting and pasting you plagarizing loser: http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2012/09/27/how-obamacare-could-harm-47/
What kind of a charlatan are you, trying to pass this tripe off as your own?

Great stuff!

Great job cutting and pasting you plagarizing loser: http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2012/09/27/how-obamacare-could-harm-47/
What kind of a charlatan are you, trying to pass this tripe off as your own?

Dr. Rick, thank you for itemizing how these failed Acts together known as ObamaCare are hurting everyone. You and your peers who worked so hard to achieve knowledge and skill so far beyond the understanding of most people, the risk and sacrifice you took upon yourselves, the exorbitant malpractice insurance fees you must pay to protect yourselves - getting told by your government that you MUST NOW PROVIDE SERVICES to 33 million additional patients, told what diagnostics and treatments you are permitted to use, told what to charge (I personally feel you life-savers should all earn more than Scarlett Johansson and George Clooney), and who you will serve. Anyone who works in your industry, in insurance, clinical trials, etc, needs to get to know what you just wrote. You may find this link interesting: http://masterofpublichealth.org/2012/infographic-the-supreme-court-got-it-wrong-obamacares-unconstitutionality-by-the-numbers/

Sharpie we tried isolationism until Pearl Harbor settled that issue for us once and for all time. Gary is convincing, but his reality versus actual reality are separate.

It will take more than prayer, Dr. Rick. It will entail doing something different than what has been done before. More of the same will be just that. We have had a century of living in a dark age in the past. Choose to live yourself on a planet that we are not choosing to destroy. Vote to live.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/

Or buy into the same old darkness whether red or blue like Don.

Quoting your link:

The RealClearPolitics average of polls has the 2012 race much closer, with Romney's lead at less than half a point. In some of the key battlegrounds, Romney has also either drawn closer to Obama or surpassed him. The RCP average of polls in Ohio shows Obama up by a little over 2 points, with the average in Florida showing Romney up by the same margin.

fivethirtyeight is the only poll analysis worth anybody's time - realclearpolitics is basically just an average, 538 weights polls based on historical accuracy relative to other polls and actual ballot results.

Dear OMG
Only small minded people have to throw around insults. We have many people commenting on their different opinions and views. When you start name calling and insults others for their views, it only makes the person doing the name calling and insulting look childish and foolish. My posts are my opinion and you can agree or disagree with them and if I want to lend a helping hand to people in need in comes from a my heart . You are allowed to disagree with me as much as you like, many of the people responding to my posts have, But you are the only person who name called.
You should live so that when your children think of fairness, caring and integrity, they think of you. Shame on you.
Apparently you don’t have any children!

That's a little hypocritical, don't you think? You copy someone else's work and pass it off as yours (just because you agree with them doesn't make the writing yours) which makes you a plagiarizer but then get mad when someone calls you a name. I personally think it's far more shameful to be a cheat and pass someone else's work off as your own but that certainly gives me an insight into why you would vote for Mitt Romney.

Progressive Rehab.....Reactionary Politics

It depends on where they started.

Good thing, no matter how much some would like to frame it as such, our government isn't a business.

Nice Job Mark

As a freshman Illinois state Senator, President Obama earned a reputation for voting "present" 130 times. Some say he couldn't make a Yes or No decision on tough issues.

With one notable exception. Senator Obama did make his mark by vigorously opposing legislation that would have provided equal protection for unborn babies who survive abortions. The legislation: “[Provided] that a live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.”

The legislation was introduced after Jill Stanek testified in 1999 that, while working as a nurse at Christ Hospital in Illinois, infants who survived induced abortions were being left to die in a utility room.

Obama called an unborn baby "a fetus outside of the womb." Here is the actual audio: http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=YUkbuhXzbvI&feature=endscreen

Who among us feels it is acceptable to toss a viable human being into a linen closet to die, and would support a law which stops medical personnel on the scene from giving the healthy baby water and a warm blanket, some formula and a diaper and a soft pad to lay upon? (Lord forgive us.)

Obama. He voted for this four times.

Must-see short clip from a botched abortion survivor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwFIEprF_9

Obama cares about women? Really?

Stop making sense.

@Kenya- this movie has been discredited as political tripe. it would be just as easy to paint Romney as a cold hearted mathematical plutocrat bent on sucking all the wealth out the country in the desire to give it to those he deems worthy while leaving those he labels "takers" to eat cake.

Well, Romney's job with the Olympics was to SAVE a largely Government-supported program, so what's exactly the conflict?!? Part of that problem was inadequate private/commercial investment/interest. So he had to go somewhere.

Point is Mitt Romney turned it into a HUGE success!!

What has The President ever turned around, besides his jumper???

Clever last line there Mike, but I would suggest he probably turned around your 401k also, and reversed the employment trends of the Bush administration. Don't go getting a case of Romnesia on me.

"Point is Mitt Romney turned it into a HUGE success!!"

... Thanks to a government bailout for which Mitt successfully begged. I'm not sure that asking for a bailout speaks positively to his fiscal management skills. After all, there are many, many people (and companies) in this country who rely on government handouts because they also couldn't manage their budgets.

You guys should open for someone in Vegas!

Anyone who thinks the Olympics is a private enterprise, inappropriate for public funding, isn't exactly being intellectually honest, are they?

Of course you know that in 21 years Social Security isn't going to be around for anyone when you turn 70. But hey, knock yourself out working for the next 20 years. Maybe you'll get lucky!

Don't count on Mr. Romney. He cannot help or even provide solace to anyone including himself. He'll be looking around for solace any day soon now, but probably not apt to find it on this earth that he knows. Look up Gary Johnson, and treasure living rather than dying. He is your best bet for locating actual happiness esp. for aging adults.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/

Come on, liberals - let's take the high road and skip the juvenile name-calling, ok?

Morgan, funny you should bring up sportsmanship. The GOP is experiencing a statewide shortage of Romney-Ryan lawn signs. I spoke with Mike Stoll, Deputy Director of the Romney-Ryan campaign here in PA; he has trucks sitting outside the printers waiting for signs to roll off the presses yet, Republican Committee members can't get enough to satisfy demand.

Part of the problem is that certain individuals are driving around in pick-up trucks plucking Romney-Ryan signs off lawns. I heard from another Committee Person last night in King of Prussia where finally one of these thieves was spotted. The State Police are looking for that one, but it's happening all over.

Strictly a classy move. Like the uncivilized behavior here on the blogs.

What can you do.

try to follow your discussions when your spammed like we have been by one of your locals (we are in northern ohio
Sharpie

1:54 pm on Saturday, October 20, 2012

Here's a short current video to watch - "Bain-owned factory workers plead w Romney to stop plan that will send their jobs to China", Oct. 19, 2012.

http://current.com/shows/the-young-turks/videos/bain-owned-factory-workers-plead-with-romney-to-stop-plan-that-will-send-their-jobs-to-china

This kind of destruction and disregard for your fellow citizens will create karma that follows one. Profits at the price of people is money that will haunt those profiting in the short term far longer than one can possibly imagine. A global economy is a myth. People live in real places, and we are bankrupting our own real country where we really do live. This election vote for someone and something you believe in, and who believes in you as an American citizen. Wish China well, but champion yourself and your own people first. Anything else will fail you, your fellow Americans, your country, and ultimately, your world. Stand for something worth living for. Vote Libertarian for one election. Gary Johnson, Libertarian candidate for President, wants to change tax laws so that American business has an incentive to remain and return to the USA. Start living for freedom, right here in your own country. Vote Libertarian for one election. Live free.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/

makes it hard to follow with an answer because of the actions from one of your locals spam
Sharpie

2:40 pm on Saturday, October 20, 2012

Wish the Chinese well, and wish the rest of the world well. Take care of your own people, or go live in China. We live here. Maybe Mr. Romney would like to live in China; that is his prerogative. He is free to go live there. We should be taking care of Americans who live here in America. Keep it simple b/c it is. Vote for someone who cares about Americans first. Vote Libertarian for one election.

www.garyjohnson2012.com

Lawn-sign swiping happens on both sides of the aisle, and it's disrespectful no matter who's doing it.

who cares. It's bad enough we have to listen to both of them and the garbage that flies from their mouths, but now I have to drive down the street and see the multiple signs. Nobody picks them up after the elections and EVERYONE knows who is running! They should all disappear in giant pile of garbage that they are.

Pamela, you should contact your local Municipal Manager if political signs remain up 24 hours post-Election. Typical laws regarding signs, although they may differ among municipalities, state that signs may not be posted until 30 days prior to an Election, and must be removed within 24 hours after.

Acta non verba. Or perhaps in your case, Acta non garbage?