Here is a challenge to all who comment on the debate: Be civil. No name calling, no labels, no negativity. Disagree on ISSUES not personal animosity. Can you do it? I doubt it.

If there are more than 2 parties listing candidates on the election ballot, why is only the democrat and republican voices heard? I think anyone running for the office of the president of the United States and is on the ballot for the election should have a voice in the debate.

GJ. Great challenge. I committ.

KW. I agree but only to those poll over a certain %. what that is? needs research, probably over 10%.

In the last (long) comments thread, I answered challenges that over-regulation was a major cause of unemployment. I provided data from the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics showing that regulation was cited as a reason for 0.3% of layoffs in 2011 and 2012. (1)

During the Oct. 16th debate, Romney said "Regulations have quadrupled. The rate of regulations quadrupled under this president."

The truth is that the number of regulatory legislation passed under Obama is about the same as it's been under all previous administrations over the past 18 years. In fact, it's *slightly* less. (2)

(1) http://www.bls.gov/news.release/mslo.t02.htm
(2) http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/18/mitt-romney/federal-regulations-quadrupled-under-obama/

Over the past three years, the bound edition of the Code of Federal Regulations has increased by 11,327 pages – a 7.4 percent increase from Jan. 1, 2009 to Dec. 31, 2011. In 2009, the increase in the number of pages was the most over the last decade – 3.4 percent or 5,359 pages.

Over the past decade, the federal government has issued almost 38,000 new final rules, according to the draft of the 2011 annual report to Congress on federal regulations by the Office of Management and Budget. That brought the total at the end of 2011 to 169,301 pages.

That is more than double the number of pages needed to publish the regulations back in 1975 when the bound edition consisted of 71,244 pages.

The figures were released on Monday at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington, D.C., when the business federation held its annual Labor Day briefing on the state of the economy, obstacles to job creation and the burden of regulations on the labor market.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/11/federal-regulations-increased-7-4-during-obama-term/

Are you really basing your argument on the NUMBER OF PAGES involved? Are you serious? You can't possibly derive meaningful data that way - especially since several tables of figures, which previously had been in other documents, were consolidated into the regulation document itself last year.

No, I'm talking about pieces of legislation - not "pages." Jeez...

Let's try what really counts, CY: dollars. in 2011 the Obama administration issued $231.4 billion in regulatory burdens from proposed or final rules. Consider the number of government employees it must take to enforce 82,000 pages of new regulations. It is staggering to think that Washington has expanded into such a massive, bureaucratic mess.

But those are just the new regulations. The Small Business Administration estimates that total regulatory costs on businesses amount to $1.75 trillion annually. That's enough money for businesses to provide 35 million private sector jobs with an average salary of $50,000. When you consider these figures, it becomes clear that any job gains we have seen in recent months are in spite of this administration's policies, not because of them. And that sentiment is starting to hit close to home.

Jeez.

You can Google no evidence to refute the real numbers so you denigrate the SBA, it's members, and the messenger?

Earnest, the Small Business Administration is not a partisan group, or didn't you know that. SBA estimates total regulatory costs on businesses total $1.75 trillion annually. You just quoted a hot air site, and that is precisely the measure of real facts that you and CY contributed to this discussion in defense of your candidate's failed fiscal policies and record, not to be disputed.

Wouldn't it be refreshing for an Obama blogger to actually summarize real, vetted facts to support their candidate's record of success - and from real non-partisan sources and not bogus poli-fact sites! Otherwise it really does just come across as: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGn1Ap14Nd8

Good dialogue, but have any of us considered this: Is Paul Ryan qualified to be Vice President, or God forbid President? Take a look at these articles from the lips of Mitt Romney himself...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/13/paul-ryan-qualifications-mitt-romney_n_1773303.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/13/1119707/-Mitt-Romney-said-Paul-Ryan-isn-t-qualified-to-be-president

I recall when a freshman Illinois state senator with zero business experience, and no one at Columbia University (not students not professors) who had all of his transcripts and original Hawaii long-form birth certificate sealed - all of which remain sealed to this day - with no foreign policy experience apart from perhaps Kenya where some alleged he was born - got elected to the highest office of our country.

Romney's record in both business and government leadership is a matter of the public record, not sealed and not to be disputed. How then can you argue that he has no foreign policy experience as though that matters?

http://archive.sba.gov/advo/research/rs371tot.pdf

The Small Business Administration (non-partisan government agency) estimates that total regulatory costs on businesses amount to $1.75 trillion annually. Team Obama continues to increase those regulations and costs. Lift your facts from there, CY.

The Obama-Biden tax plan calls for a hike in the small business tax rate from 35 percent today to over 40 percent next year. Obama argues “only” 3% of small business owners will be affected by his tax rate hike. Tt masks the fact that this is a tax increase on one million successful small businesses (i.e. 3% of the 30 million small business tax returns filed annually).

The Obama-Biden plan will raise taxes on a majority of small business profits and hit those companies which employ the majority of Americans who work for small businesses. Here’s how:

Unlike corporations, business profits flow through to owners. The owner pays taxes on her small business by adding profits to her income tax form. Therefore, personal income taxes are the same thing as small business taxes.

The Obama-Biden plan to raise the top two marginal income tax rates (from 33 and 35 percent today to 36 and 39.6 percent, respectively) is a hike in America’s small business tax rate. This does not include Obamacare’s 3.8 percent small business surtax.

Per the IRS, most small business profits face taxation in households making more than $200,000 per year. The IRS keeps track of two types of small business income: sole proprietors, and “pass-through” entities like partnerships and S-corps. There are 30 million tax returns reporting small business income. Owners report business profits of $590 billion. $477 billion faced taxation in households making more than $200,000 a year. Reality check.

Correct - Obama had no foreign policy experience. That is selected Biden as a running mate.

Your SBA report is based entirely on data that predates the Obama administration. You'd have known this if you'd opened the document before citing it.

Every voter needs to read this excellent article... Very well worth your time...

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/11/01/benghazi-obamas-core-deceit/

Romney already lost. Anyone who thinks otherwise, Wanna bet some money on it?

http://news.yahoo.com/nate-silver-joe-scarborough-wanna-bet-113615600.html

Right leaning Gallup Poll states the majority of Americans expect an Obama victory:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/10/31/gallup_poll_most_americans_expect_an_obama_victory.html

Hello Dick .....Head on out the door?? Naw ,, you dont work ,, your a freeLoader on then there stamps, that Obamam gives yall . Just atleast try to become part of the real world DICK