I agree. President Obama is the right man for the job and has clearly earned our votes.

Mr. Romney is awfully similar to the Bush administration. Here are a few examples that follow the Bush formula:
- Proposing $5 trillion in tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy (2001/2003 Bush tax cuts are still huge drivers of our current deficit)
- Proposing $2 trillion in new military spending (this excludes the cost of the war and security); the U.S. is already responsible for about half of the world's military spending.
- 17 out of 24 of Romney's foreign policy advisers worked for the Bush admin. (YES, the same people that misled us into the Iraq War)

Mr. Romney is proposing $7 trillion in new spending without showing us how he will pay for it. This is $7 trillion in new spending on top of our existing debt and deficit. We can't afford it. It is so frustrating seeing people buy into his funky math. I understand some people might be frustrated with the current climate, but things are a hell of a lot better than they were four years ago, and still getting better. People say they want something different and then they point at the guy who is literally trying to implement the same policies that brought us to the brink of collapse. It's frustrating! President Obama is still the right man for the job and deserves another four years.

I also agree, Obama is the best choice here. Look at everything he DID do the past 4 years... yes we still have problems, but nobody can undo what was done previously to him becoming president in just 4 years.. It is going to take years to fix what was broken 4 years ago. I feel he truly cares for our country and is working very hard to make things better. Please give him a chance!

mary gerczyk

You say look all that Obama has done.....but you did not put any examples. I agree he has done a lot. He has created several jobs on his personal house hold staff (the largest in history), he has made the economy worse, he has developed more programs to provide public assistance to people too lazy to work, the list goes on and on.....

He did win, and our nation HAS been made much safer. Yes, we have a great deal to do, but with he at the helm, look at how far we've come. I was scared to death of a violent, 3rd-world nation. (All my stocks, like many peoples', are up).

Remember British Petroleum? The Gulf of Mexico? First up, he made BP set up $200 MILLION for U.S. recovery, later adding mandates of coastal repair, & the ads to "come back" they sponsor for affected areas, and more. A+++++ !!

Romney gave past experience as an example of what he can do to help our country. He balanced the budget for the state of Massachusetts, while in office. Obama's past experience with finances, speaks for itself.

If Obama wins there will be a LOT more "have-nots" than "haves" because he is looking to take us down to the lowest common denominator and turn most of us into socialist "worker bees". That is why 60% of middle wage jobs lost have turned into 60% of all new jobs being LOW WAGE JOBS. Thanks Obama...

Michael, Gov. Romney does not need this job! He is a very compassionate man as shown by how he has led his life. He has not given 1% to charity like the Obamas, he gives 14%. Obama wants to redistribute other peoples' hard earned wealth.
Obama had a wonderful opportunity in his first two years with a full Democrat congress to really help the struggling American people; he did not! He made many promises; he failed to keep them.
1 in 6 Americans live in poverty,

50% of kids in largest cities don't graduate
$
5.5 Trillion in new debt in 4 years
 (We cannot sustain this)
23 Million people struggling without jobs 
under Obama
93% of people who have lost jobs are women
If Obamacare is so wonderful, why have there been 1200 waivers mostly to unions?

Cost of food out of sight; some items have doubled or the weight is less/boxes smaller
Americans need better than what Barack Obama has done. He had two full years of a Democrat congress and could've passed anything, anything that would have helped and he did not. He failed!!!! Worse; he lied!!!!
Now we have found that he was aware of the Benghazi attack on our Consulate due to a 'live feed from our drones' and emails and he did nothing but go to bed and go campaigning after our Ambassador and 3 other brave Americans were slaughtered. Unforgivable!!!! A disgrace. Romney is our only hope if you want your kids, grandkids to get a better education and if you truly want jobs and jobs with better pay.

Chris Strosser: Where did you get all that phony-baloney information. 17 out of 24 of Romney's foreign policy advisers worked for the Bush admin. (YES, the same people that misled us into the Iraq War) WHAT!!!!! to all of it. Go to www.mittromney,com for the real scoop. Another site is www.bigvoicesmedia.com to see a virtual presidential debate, in their own voices, about what each candidate believes. It will open your eyes.

Obama is going down faster than a White House intern in President Clinton's administration. I have to question the sanity of anyone who is voting for Obama, who is not on some type of entitlement program and enjoying one of his "Obama Phones" or a nice fat welfare check with a side of food stamps.

Four more years of Obama? Oh sure, because the last four years have been so great for our country...

So Dinah I suppose you are part of the 53% that never needed nor will ever need any help- Good for you

I too agree with Dinah ... I think the middle class will get burned with 4 more years of this guy. But if it does happen, we'll get through it, we have in the past and we will in the future. And yes Durch ... I guess I'm part of that 53%, I have never taken a dime even though I could have ... hmmm .... looking back maybe I should have ... jk

Bulletin: Student loans get paid or the IRS confiscates tax refunds, and wages can be attached. In fact, if a student gets married and files joint return and income is from spouse IRS will still confiscate 50% of refund because joint return declares income as 50/50. Free cell phones are subsidized by the industry and are needed because poor people no longer have access to a telephone booth on the corner. Poor people cannot be cut off from affordable communication. Once upon a time there were pay phones everywhere, they served poor people, 'not no more' my dear. People do not work for many reasons, what free medical care do you think they get other than in the ER which is not comprehensive care, just patch and send. By the way, the middle class is paying for the tax cuts for the top 5%. The Census reports on the decline of the median income for the last decade, but the top 5% had a huge gain. I rather support poor people than rich people.

So, Jamie, you never took a dime from anyone? Not even your family? You paid your own way through college, bought your first car completely on your own, moved out on your own at 18, and never let your parents or other family help you in anyway? If so, you should be very proud of yourself bc that is rare. And you should realize that doing that completely on your own is very hard and most people can't do that without some help from family. And, those that are not fortunate enough to have a family that can help them, need help from someone. Not a hand out but a hand up! Nobody wants to be on govt assistance!

KD,

What planet do you live on....there are more people that scam the system to get the most government handouts that they can. There are people collecting on more then one program and there are women that keep having kids to collect more from government programs. Taking out loans is still doing in on your own and not public assistance.

Susan Gibson,

Your comment on free cell phones being necessary because there are no pay phones.....any cell phone can be used to dial 911 without a plan. Free phones and plans that include minutes, texting and data plans is not basic service it is a luxury.

Are you kidding? Having help from your family has nothing to do with the government. Guess what... this libertarian needed a little help getting out of the womb! But he didn't get it from the government! The government thinks its job is to tell us that it needs us for everything, and then make us dependent on it so that the prophecy becomes true.

The free cell phone program goes back to the thirties.The student loans are crippling people in their sixties,and every civilized nation on earth has medical coverage for its citizens.I used to say every civilized nation but us,but the way our leaders have handed us over to corporate interest I on longer count us among those countries.We've become a banana republic with nukes.

Hahahah George K - cell phone program "goes back to the 30's" ???? Um.. cell phones did not even exist until the late 80s. The "phone program" that may have existed back then was for a wired basic phone - not the cell phones of today with unlimited texting and media etc for people who did not earn these phones. I would be fine if they provided a free wired basic phone in homes and apartments of destitute people - that would be WAY cheaper than these over the top cell phones people are getting for free - paid by the hard working tax payers - some of the 53% who don't expect government to give them free stuff!

Dinah, It is Mitt Romney who is concerned about the middle class and the poor as he should be, but he wants to do it, by working with Congress and not without Congress as Pres. Obama has done. Yes, we watch C-span when Congress is in session and have first hand knowledge of when Obama said to John McCain, "I won!" and I won't work with you basically. There are some people who truly need help and Romney will be looking out for them in a smarter way than Obama. Obama changed Clinton's successful way of dealing with welfare recipients. Now, states have the right to enact the fact that instead of actually looking for a job, you can go to the library, help a friend, get a massage and about 6 other silly items to qualify for welfare. Yes, it is true! Obama is just buying votes. He has not passed a budget in 3 years and when he did present a budget, no one voted on it....not even the Democrats. Now, in the last two weeks of the campaign, he has a 4-year plan. Don't let him fool you again. Mitt Romney is the man to get us out of this horrible shape we are in.

And what business did he create that produced a product or a service? He was a speculator that loaded up floundering business with debt to make them look good and then sell them off, strapping the new owner with a pig with lipstick on it.

Nice try, S ... Actually Romney's success at Bain Capital funded pension plans, college funds and charities that invested there. Bain CREATED more jobs than anything President Obama did in four years.

43 months of 8%+ unemployment under Obama

As we saw tonight running a government and being a representative of our country to the global community is much more involved than “JUST” running the type of business where only the bottom line is the main concern. In addition, I agree with the poster that just commented that Romney was not a true business man but rather part of a group that did many hostile company and corporate takeovers where the American workers, … you know….the ones who actually did the labor and management , were taken over by a raiding company. These workers then became simply Romnian pawns to be bought and sold so that the investment/hedge type business could realize maximum profit. Sadly many of these jobs were shipped overseas. IMO If Romney wins it will be a travesty where the robber/barons have once again effectively deceived America.

Mr. Romney was a private equity CEO, not a businessman that provided a product or service. Romney did not create jobs, but gutted American companies and often moved our jobs overseas. It's the same formula that led to the Sensata travesty.

@Mike Shortall - That's odd. My father's company was bought by Bain Capital. Three years before he retired, Bain sold it. A year after he retired at age 62, the company was moved to China, losing jobs here in the states. My father's healthcare pension was discontinued. My parents then had the burden of paying for health insurance until both reached the age of 65 - very contrary to what you have claimed and what you believe.

To Chris S,
Mr. Obama tried to be a private equity President, and is not a businessman that provided a product or service. Obama did not create jobs, but gutted American tax receipts. It's a formula that led to the Solyndra travesty.

Dinah, yes! @ S #1. Bain Capital is a firm that invests in companies which may or may not "make it". The investments are by private citizens, so investments are not made lightly, and include companies at all levels of maturity: start-up, expansion, struggling due to a variety of reasons, etc. Some companies that were started/saved through venture capitalists at Bain include: AMC Entertainment, Aspen Education Group, Brookstone, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Clear Channel Communications, Domino's Pizza, DoubleClick, Dunkin' Donuts, D&M Holdings, Guitar Center, Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), Sealy, The Sports Authority, Staples, Toys "R" Us, Warner Music Group and The Weather Channel.
#2. You said, "...My father's company was bought by Bain Capital..." What company was that? Please supply this information so we can research and evaluate your claim. Anyone can tell stories. This account is akin to that of Joe Soptic, made by an organization that supports President Obama. Joe's claim was debunked by CNN.

S-

What was the name of the company that Bain purchased and then moved to China - where your father worked?

Dear S ... If Bain sold the company FOUR YEARS before the jobs were moved to China, how exactly does it become Mitt Romney's doing?!?

I'm not sure why we're still dancing around the 'Romney has been involved with Chinese outsourcing' issue - he gave a pretty detailed explanation of one of his efforts to do so during the '47%' video.

Morgan -

1) is the purpose of business to survive, compete, turn an expected return-on-investment to equity owners at risk? Or is it to create jobs for people?

2) if you were US President, would you pay a corporation here taxpayer dollars to enable it to serve its owners while keeping your jobs here?

3) if you were US President and you fined a corporation here for outsourcing jobs to foreign countries, and that company was then forced to close up shop due to uncompetitive union labor rates, would you consider that a win?

4) are you a Bain shareholder voting for CEO to decide how the business you partially own is conducted, or are you an American voting for President?

1) Why does it have to only have one purpose? Can it not be to survive, compete, and create jobs? Have you heard of the 'triple bottom line'?

2)It would depend on the specific situation, but I'm not opposed to considering it.

3) Nobody wins when people lose jobs, whether it's because they went overseas or because the company closed. Union labor rates are uncompetitive because of outsourcing - if you pay American workers a reasonable living wage they will have the money to pay the price for goods made in America. It's circular. I would propose heavy tariffs on goods made overseas at wages far below domestic rates and in conditions we have found unacceptable since the Industrial Revolution. This would offset the undercutting of American workers and encourage domestic manufacturing and foster trade with countries that follow similar practices in regards to worker's rights and environmental safety.

4)I'm not sure what you're getting at - I don't care about Bain Capital at all. I was only pointing out that Romney has clearly been involved in outsourcing, which seemed to still be in question. I don't specifically care about their female employee's wages, either - you're the one who keeps bringing it up as though it were relevant.

Obama won this debate. God help us if Romney wins the presidency. what happens when his economic policies fail?...... not much difference to the already afluent...but total disaster for the rest of us.
And if his foriegn policy ....policies fail!.....God Help The World

Geez, Darrald, you almost make it sound like we had a successful presidency that last four years. 8%+ unemployment for 43 straight months, national debt increased from $10 trillion to $16 trillion ..

How exactly is that defined as a "successful economic policy"????

What debate were you watching? All I saw was Romney agreeing with the president and even complimenting him on foreign policy decisions. Romney's position has clearly changed since the Republican primary debates which I also watched.

So true! Obama won if you count being rude, loud and interruptive. Romney is for "ALL" people not "JUST" middle class. He is very intelligent and will get this economy going again. People are just afraid if he gets in they may have to get a job and work. Oh well, join the rest of us!

Getting rid of Obamacare will add $109 billion to the deficit. It will also remove healthcare benefits from millions of people, including children, people with preexisting conditions, and post-college aged children who have been able to remain on their parent's plan until they have coverage of their own. If you are indeed middle class, you may want to carefully study Romney's 5 point plan, which just about every economist (and the US Tax Bureau) has determined is impossible to enact without increasing taxes on the middle class.

What's Obama's plan? Another $787 billion dollar stimulus? Another $1.2 billion to green companies (with 900 million lost to bankruptcy)?

Federal taxes or State taxes? Fact: President Obama cut taxes.

You think wrong, how can anyone in there right mind believe Obama is a winner his last four years are the biggest failure since Jimmy Carter. Personally I saved for my retirement and will not be affected even if Odumbo is reelected but all you freebie gatherers pay attention to Greece and Spain to see what happenes when the money runs out and the printing press is broken.

Yeak ok Chris Matthews lol

Please ... The President came off looking far more like the guy who's behind in this election. Once again, The President was petulant and juvenile with some of his baiting. Romney never took the bait and came off looking much more presidential than The President!

A slam dunk, eh? Too many folks out there have been drinking from the same bottle and enjoying those tingles going up their legs!

I agree Al,
In response to Mike, Look mike we got into this economic sespool one shovel at a time..it stands to reason we're going to get out the same way at little at a time.
The numbers may not have been great but it's not going to happen in leaps and bounds.

Obama was sarcastic and arrogant, just like he always is.

Yeah... that juvenile "we don't need horses or bayonets anymore" comment really won it for Obama. Too bad this wasn't a 5th grade classroom debate. When your Naval commanders say they need 313 ships and you say, "nuh uh! You already have a bunch of carriers! With planes!", that shows utter disrespect for their experience.

Amen that. It's the same song McCain and Bush sang....simplistic us/them thinking. And what about the EU financial crisis? Nothing - too busy harping on the Middle East.

what accomplishments there are none. I was struck by how many times he elaborated on what he PLANS to do. Really? shouldn't you be pointing out what you have DONE?

Yes, I'm glad Obama kept it on topic by telling his Navy commanders that they didn't need any ships because they can just launch planes from the carriers.

I agree that Obama won the debate - just like you would expect from a sitting president in a debate on foreign policy. It really doesn't matter much at this point. The momentum is with Romney at this point and there is not much anyone on the left can do about it. When Pennsylvania is "in-play" for a republican president, something in the polling data that suggest Obama has a chance is really messed up.

What was the name of the company that Bain purchased that you mentioned earlier?

Thank you for some sanity.

Check out Gary Johnson of the Libertarian ticket, Lower Mac Resident. He's the only candidate talking about balancing the budget.

www.garyjohnson2012.com

If America wants to return to being the economic powerhouse and a beacon of freedom in the World then it must elect Gary Johnson over both of these so called leaders. Our current two party system is owned by lobbyist and the few uber-rich that control it. Wake up voters, time is now…when you go in the booth, and you want real freedoms and liberty again…vote with your mind and not your party line…Vote Gary Johnson 2012 POTUS.

The budget will have to be balanced over the next 5-10 years. If we do it too fast, we will throw ourselves into a second recession, or even a depression. Keep in mind that it took a decade to get us into this situation. It won't be fixed in one term.

I do have a question though. Assuming you support Mitt Romney, how can you support a candidate who is proposing $5 trillion in unfunded tax cuts, and $2 trillion in additional, unfunded military spending? The $2 trillion doesn't include security and war costs either. How can anyone say that Mitt Romney understands the budget when there is a plethora of evidence showing that the math doesn't add up? Keep in mind that this is all on top of existing spending. $7 trillion in additional spending before we ever get to the debt and deficit we have now. It's fiscal insanity.

What presidential material are you talking about?

Chris above - Wake up. We don't have 5-10 years to balance the budget. While I typed this sentence, our dollars are worth less.

People who support Mitt Romney can't even say what Mitt "might" do. He's been on every side of every issue.

Before the 2008 election, I read a lot on the internet to gain an understanding as to what was happening in the economy. One of the best articles I read was from a group of economic professors who not only explained how the economy has gotten to where is was, but offered advice on how to fix it. They had been studing the Great Depression, and asked their students if and what the Federal Government could have done to prevent it. The answer was the government needed to financially support the banks that were failing as well as the large businesses. They also needed to use federal funds to help create jobs. They said that they hoped that either McCain or Obama, whoever was elected needed to follow this advice for the best outcome. And even if they did follow that advice, the unemployment would hover around 10% for approximately 5 years with all effects of the recession ending in 8 years. If they didn't follow the advice , they said another Great Depression was inevitable. After Mr. Obama's election, I watched closely to see what path he would take, and sure enough he followed the same advice I had read. It has been 4 years, but no Great Depression. That is hardly "failed experiments". And a reminder to all who vote, this financial crisis would never of happened if the Republicans had not overturned the Glass-Steagall Act from the 1930's, which was put in place to make sure another Great Depression would never happen again. Mr. Obama has my vote.

Maybe you should have read some history instead of listening to unknown talking heads, because you would know that what "they" recommended HAPPENED during the Great Depression. The 1932 Glass_Steagall act (different from the Banking act in 1933) allowed the Fed to lend to member banks against any collateral, and any 4th grader knows (or should) that the New Deal had the CCC paying people to dig holes, then fill them in. That worked well... it only took 12 years and Adolf Hitler raping Europe to get the USA out of the Depression.

Of course, an utter lack of foreign policy experience, only two years of experience in the Senate, and two years in the Illinois Senate were quite enough to put Obama in, right? And the death of our diplomat and staff in Libya was a sure win.

The only true experience BHO has is in front of the teleprompter.

You can keep saying it is about the "rich" but that doesn't make it true. Most people I know who are republican make between 60-80k a year. You are entitled to your opinion about the positions that each candidate takes, however, please understand that Democrats are as much for their rich contributors as anyone. Every Democrat in office knows that if they can just keep the weak minded muttering...Repubs are for the rich blindly, that MOST democrats will simply believe it blindly. Both sides need big time contributors. The union is democrat. Guess what? Every union person I know makes more than your average office worker. Just because someone sits behind a desk does not mean they make more $. Wake up. Repubs are NOT 250K or more people. THey are people who understand what works and what DOES NOT work for future. Democrats are NOT worried about the future economically. They think that if they just tax us more they will have more to spend. Repubs say, let the people spend their $ and lets cut out the spending fat.

Take it easy on the periods; we're still in a weak economy here. You might have to make them last through another four years of Obamanomics.

Sadly lots of comments on this page make it clear that our area is going to vote against its own interests. The majority of families in this area are not part of the 1 or 2%. Unions continue to be blamed for errors that occurred eons ago. There was no middle class before Labor Unions. Thank you Mother Jones for protecting and organizing miners. I saved for 28 years and GOP policies train-wrecked my savings. We were bleeding 750,000 jobs a year during the GOP administration. It takes a long time to get out of a hole this deep. 2 wars on a credit card. The belief that we must police the world. It's frightening.

I agree Romney knows his stuff and will have turn around what Obama has done to this country the last 4 years. Hope it is now!

The only "stuff" that Romney appears to know is constant pandering to whichever group he is addressing. The man made billions taking over companies, saddling them with massive debt, firing people, and outsourcing jobs to China.

Obama raised billions for his campaign by subsidizing failed green companies, saddling the American taxpayers with massive debt, destroying jobs in the oil and financial industries, and sending "stimulus" money overseas.

What does religion have to do with Politics? It is what they can do for our Nation and what can be done to bring peace to this country that needs lots of healing. It doesn't matter if you are a Baptist, Morman, Muslim, Jew, or any other religion one might be as long as one heart is for the people in the best possible way of managing this Country. As the past four years it has been ill managed and no matter which president is ellected, no one will like who ever is in office. From the Bushes, to the Reagen, to Obama, to Ford, Nixon, Kennedy, their beliefs in how the country is run, people will find faults in what one does. The President is in the House but who runs that house, the congress does.

Bill, I understand your position. But sadly a vote for an independent is only going to help Obama. I am all for your independence on this, however, you must consider what is WORSE. Many people are simply the religion of their parents. I do not know what each of them really believes in their heart...but look at their stance on life. Obama thinks that murdering the unborn is perfectly fine, Romney is pro-life. Mormons are at least moral and most do not even drink coffee because caffeine is considered a drug. Please consider, what each party believes. I really feel that every vote matters in this election because there are SO many who want to keep getting their welfare checks in the big cities especially. Welfare should be for those who are truly disabled or for 6 months minimum. Many are cheating the system and working under the table while collecting or simply milking it while others are truly in need of help..

Obama is a Muslim??? Bill, you've got to stop listening to Faux News, Limbaugh, Hannity and the rest of the goofballs. We see him going to Christian churches on a regular basis. He drinks alcohol in public. Ever see him face Mecca and pray - even once a day - not to mention five times per day? Ever see Michelle or their daughters with a headscarf?

Bill, this is just plain silly. The president is certainly not a Muslim and what difference does it make if the governor is a Mormon? They are both good men with opposing visions for the country. Religion does not enter into the debate for most thinking people.

Obama's not a Muslim. He's a member of a Black Liberation Theology church that's firmly based on an interpretation of Christianity twisted by hate and greed.

I wish PA allowed independants to vote in the primaries. I wish we had multiple parties. I wish we were tolerant enough to have a Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist president. Shame on us for our attitude of superiority.

That sober comment really made me laugh. You go girl.

Ad hominem attacks don't make you smart, or correct.

Yes, cockroaches have a brain.

go to google and they are signing people for fact check alerts

Obama was right on point with regard to Detroit. I would also suggest people "look it up."

What debate did you watch?????

Forgive me, but when in speaking of Romney you say "He wouldnt have let thousands of christians be slaughtered .I remember Obama ignoring pleas from the young Iranian protestors on their phones then government cutting their internet.He could let that happen to us if re-elected." i find it absurd on its face.

Just how would Romney have stopped the slaughter you speak of? Go to war? Drop bombs? Threaten them? Prayer? What could he do to stop it short of an attack on Iran?

You are living in fantasy land if you think Romney has magical powers. Stopping reality requires realistic action. stopping violence usually takes violence. As a old wartime Marine I wish those who never served would wake up to understand what that means for our warriors.

Al - what debate did you watch?

Richard - the whole point of the "apology" criticism. Other countries are watching carefully, and feel emboldened to do things they might not otherwise do.

The US Army, and Marines, along with the UK forces all issue the M9 bayonet to this day - and Jason Dunham was awarded the Medal of Honor as a result of using his in combat in Iraq. Maybe Obama should get his facts straight before making snide comments that have no place in a Presidential debate.

Abraham, the calvary still uses horses, although not to the extent they were used in the past, they are still alive and well in the military. Likewise there are still bayonets on weapons.....enough said.

Right! Obama sounded like a dufus making this argument !

Matthew Mull:
President Obama didn't say we don't use bayonets. He said we use "fewer" bayonets, which is true.

I'd say that this is a tell. When Romney supporters start fact checking the historical trends for bayonet usage, it's clear their guy lost.

djbemom:
"the calvary still uses horses, although not to the extent they were used in the past"
Obama said we use "fewer horses." He didn't say we don't use horses. You are making Obama's point.

Bayonets are still standerd issue. maybe Obama needs to catch up to present times. What Obama probally meant to say was that his worthless economic policies had shut down the bayonet factory and thats why there are less bayonets. Just kidding!

Every Marine will tell you........We still use bayonets ! So much for how in touch the president is with our military. Do you know how much
Obama's refusal to call the ordeal in Texas a terrorist attack is costing the soldiers and their families that were killed or maimed? Is he afraid to hurt the feelings of his Muslim brothers? It's rediculous! And now,we have this mess in Libya where he and his administration are trying to do a cover up. So much for the transparency Obama promised. It's obvious that we need someone new to get this country back on track morally as well as financially. Our family is going with the Romney/Ryan ticket.

That horses and bayonets comment was so clearly expressing obamas lack of ability to speak directly to an issue, while using an ability that sounds funny, yet isn't accurate to the topic, and then his followers walk away with the inaccurately applied analogy and somehow believe that something of deep thought and victory has occured ....... The bayonets comment expressed a deep misunderstanding and disregard of our navy's needs

The President's point is that we have superior technology that has allowed our Navy to improve the tools and weapons it uses. He didn't say we don't use horses and bayonets; he said we use FEWER. Ask a few Navy men and women. The technology being used by today's armed forces is unbelievable.

Yes, a juvenile insult to both Romney and the Navy. A true win.

If you think that kind of behavior is what we need in a president, please stay home.

With all of Obama's vast military experience, he is the Commander if Chief, I am surprised that he forgot that bayonets are still used.

1.a step forward would be strenghtening our economy making us stronger in leadership
2.at the time of christian killings in Egypt which Obama hardly acknowledge we were more concerned about a college student having govt pay for her contraception.
3.the revolt in Iran was a perfect opportunity to help those people to overthrow the govt somehow obama failed to intervene.
I am too old 68

Mike, if your guy had delivered lines like "the 80s are calling..." you would have been all over it. Romney looked wishy washy and frustrated.

And to answer your question, I am better off than four years ago when we were losing 300 to 700 thousand jobs a month, the stock market was in free fall and we were mired in two unpaid for wars. Do we still have a long ways to go? Yes. But we are much better off than in October 2008 or even January 2009.

And let's set the record straight, of the 6 trillion in additional debt under Obama, 1.8 of it is from Fiscal Year 2009. FY 2009 was Bush's budget for the year 10/1/2008 through 9/30/2009. Obama had nothing to do with that deficit. The bigger issue is the FY 2009 budget set a precedent for budgets moving forward.

No president should get the blame or credit for the fiscal results of his/her first year in office.

But Mitt didn't deliver those lines because he didn't need to. And fine, I'll concede the debt point. The President only increased the debt from $11.8 trillion to $16 trillion.

Geez, I feel better already ...

Yes Romney looked and sounded more presidential. Obama looked and sounded like a desperate underdog constently going off topic to attack Romney. The polls are showing that the closer we get to election day the more Americans realize they deserve better and need to control their own destiny.

And what would you have done in a FY 2010 budget to reduce the deficit by a trillion or so given the mess that was created by the policies (Bush, Cheney and the neo-cons) Romney wants to go back to? I remember several months of 600K and 700K job loses, the Dow at 6,000, a financial sector meltdown and a housing market in the toilet. Despite what those on the right want you to believe, you can't compare the financial mess of late 2007 through mid-2009 to anything but the Great Depression.

The problem is, it's 2012 and we're still in The Great Depression!

I am so tired of this "great depression" reference. Anyone who thinks we got here in one administration with policies created by one party is living in Never Never Land. This should not be a debate of how we got here but of a vision for how to get out. Anyone who sits down and pays their bills and keeps their families safe and secure knows their paychecks are stretched more today than they were 2, 3, 4 or 5 years ago. We also know that we cannot spend more than we take in for an extended period of time without being in real long term trouble. The president's vision is to keep borrowing and printing to fund government programs....whether you think they are good programs or not is immaterial. The governor's vision is we reform our tax code by lowering the tax rate and closing loopholes, reform regulations that have a strangle hold on businesses doing business in our country and create an atmosphere where businesses feel it is profitable to bring jobs back to this country, spend capital building worksites and hiring more people. If more people are employed in full time, well paid jobs there will be more tax revenue coming in. If more people are fully employed there will be fewer needing government programs saving tax dollars going to those programs now. It is a clear choice. I want financial independence and real prosperity for my children and grandchildren. I do not think they can have that without full employment and crushing tax burdens and debt.

Thanks Mike. Well said.

@djbemom - a vision for how to get out? We now have with Mr. Romney even more torture tactics for interrogations, and both Obama and Romney approve of drone strikes that kill innocent civilians, military commissions, the NDAA 2012 indefinite detention of American citizens w/o charges or trials, assassinations of American citizens w/o charge or trial by Presidential executive order, and the anti-civil liberties Patriot Act all approved by both Obama and Romney. Frankly, why would anyone be cheering for this anti-American slashing of civil liberties? Becoming more barbarian is not something most Americans would condone. Humanity should be seeking something better of itself. Gary Johnson of the Libertarian ticket has a financial plan for America, will restore civil liberties, and bring the world some much-needed peace to our violent-driven world. It is more than enough time on our planet for sanity to be reigning.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/us/politics/election-will-decide-future-of-interrogation-methods-for-terrorism-suspects.html?_r=0

Former wildly successful Gov of New Mexico, Gary Johnson, will be debating the very articulate and thoughtful Dr. Jill Stein (Green party) in the final Presidential debate scheduled for Tues. evening, Oct. 30th at 9:00 Eastern time. Tune in Tuesday night next week in to hear what you are missing - a different vision on how to get out of the mess we're in.

http://freeandequal.org/?v=1

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com

Amend,

You said it all! I agree.

I disagree. Do you really think anyone is going to remember who played by the rules at the debates? The President went off the foreign policy rails himself, several times.

And of course Romney's better off than he was four years ago. He KNOWS what he's doing when it comes to the Economy. That's why we NEED him!

Amend,

Obama is much better off financially than he was 4 years ago. His family has spent more tax dollars on personal staff, friends and family vacations. Remember the Obama wealth increase came directly from the tax burden put on the working people not the people that receive the Obama handouts.

You are correct that Romney, like most multi-millionaires, is better off today than he was four years ago. However, it's not because of anything Romney did. It was the improving economy under the Obama administration that did it.

Romney had a valid point about the size of the Navy, especially if The President's "big pivot" away from Israel and towards the Pacific is going to work.

And - as a Navy employee - I can tell you all those nifty, sleek ships The President "is building" - like the Littoral Combat Ship - were in development as early as 2003, long before he became President.

My son is in the Navy working on helicopters. He will be the first to tell you the technology they are working with is old. His XBox and smartphone have more up to date electronics in them than the helicopters he works on. It takes years, if not decades to get the expenditures approved, the bids to go out for production, for the ships, airplanes, helicopters, tanks, etc to be built and get the personnel trained to get them up and running. By the time there is something new and different. So...the horse and bayonet response was snappy and a great sound byte but our military is using the modern day equivalent of the horse and bayonet anyway.

Richard Weisgrau,

Now you are giving Obama credit for the progress in ship technology. That technology is developed by private business not Obama..... If you look back in history there has been new technology developed under every president...

Obama takes credit for ship technology developed under W just like he takes credit for oil drilling on permits approved by the W administration.

And he gets the blame for an economy in peril as a result of Bush/Cheney actions and policies. That's the way this politics thing works.

Yeah right, like Obama designed them. They were all approved and funded long before he took office.

David
It looks like we saw the same debate.

Funny ... I thought The President looked like the guy who needed a big victory tonight. He didn't get it either, judging by Romney's calm demeanor and refusal to be baited.

Romney looked like the Presidential Candidate tonight!

If angry, demeaning, untruthful and evasive are presidential qualities, I'll agree with David, Dear Leader won on those points.

To Gil, what you said.

Romney did exactly what he had to do to maintain his momentum. Look relaxed and in control, avoid the baiting, and not make any serious mistakes. Foreign policy is always a disadvantage for any challenger who never served as Secretary of State.

Romney looked relaxed? I've never seen someone blink more than he did tonight. He was a nervous wreck. He kept going back to the same points and lines from his stump speech repeatedly. Romney got his rear end kicked. Go read the CBS instant poll (and compare the results to the same poll from the first two debates).

Yeah .. out of ALL 521 undecideds CBS asked!

Yes, CBS, the great arbiter of unbiased news coverage...who along with MSNBC and ABC (and many others) do not choose to report facts when they are inconvenient to their agendas. I worked for CBS (and ABC) when there were real journalists who made decisions about news coverage. That era is long gone.

Amen and Amen to Gil Zimmerman's reply......now that is a true fact that no one needs a "Fact Check " on!

Mike, the point is to look at the same poll from the first two debates and compare the results. A sample size of 521 provides an accurate results within a reasonable margin of error. Same poll results, same techniques, same sampling:
Debate 1 - Romney 46, Obama 22, Tie 32
Debate 2 - Obama 37, Romney 30, Tie 33
Debate 3 - Obama 53, Romney 34, Tie 24

Amend,

It is NOT that Romney did well under the Obama administration it is he did well inspite of the Obama adminstration. It shows that his economic knowledge even works when there is a moron in office.

In four more years under the entitlement mentality of the Obama administration, the growth of public sector state and federal employment will grow to a point where the USA will rival France, Spain, Greece, and other failing socialist states with a near majority of employable people working for government. It doesn't work, never has, and never will. Look around, cities are going bankrupt because of entitlement burdens. There is no way to spend our way out of a mess. Unfortunately, a lot of Obama votes have been bought by promises of free 'stuff', all paid for by folks who work for a living. It's out of balance and cannot be made right by politically focused stimulus waste.

The difference is you and your 58 friends will be voting only once while a whole lot of Acorn-inspired democrats in Chicago and in other locations around the county will be voting often..and then there are those thousands of dead folks in North Carolina who voted last time...guess who they voted for...any bets? (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/09/18/3522507/nc-elections-board-reviewing-names.html)

I voted for Obama in 2008, and will be voting for him again in November. President Obama accomplished a lot of the goals he set out to accomplish, and has earned our votes.

Chris Strosser,

You said Obama accompished a lot of his goals...were they to bring the econom down, to spend more tax dollars on white house staff and family vacations, was it to create more entitlement programs and handouts? If so then agree that he accomplished a lot.......

Obama definitely accomplished his goal of making energy prices skyrocket.

Is this some sort of conservative internet 'grassroots' propaganda plan to make it sound like you've switched sides this year by mentioning it in every comment? It's been a common theme here on the Patch, yet hardly reflected in the polling data, particularly in PA.

With the real unemployment numbers trending well over double digits, with the deficit projected to grow another 5-trillion under Obama's 'four more years', it is ludicrous to believe that we can borrow and spend our way out of any financial crisis. As for Obamacare, most Americans, like Congress, do not yet have a clue what the downside ramifications of Obamacare will be. We only have to listen to the failed intellectual leadership of the Democratic party, in their own words, when they said, "We have to pass this bill so we will know what's in it." What it will not do is balance the budget, reduce the deficit or enhance personal freedoms once engendered and enjoyed under the Constitution.

Geez Ted kennedys health care plan should have been calling for help when he left that poor girl to die in the channel on chappaquiddick island. And Clinton wow, only the second president since Andrew johnson to be impeached by the house of representatives on two charges one of perjury one of obstruction of justice.

Hate to tell you....Obama is not Bill Cinton and Mitt Romney is not George Bush. Obama has had his four years and has failed miserably. It is time that we let a man who knows how to get this economy rolling a chance. We can't keep spending and borrowing...we may all have to tighten the belt, but saving this country for our children and grandchildren is well worth it!

W inheirited a weak dot-bomb economy from Clinton. What's your point?

Obama has been in the center all along. Some would even claim he's slightly right of center. It's the goal posts that moved. The Republicans elected to Congress in 2010 moved to the very far right.

Also, I believe Bill Clinton will play a role in President Obama's second term.

There's no love lost between Bill Clinton and Obama. Clinton is only doing what he believes will benefit him or Hillary the most in the long run. They may be chums on the platform but behind the scenes, the unscripted Clinton has proven himself no true follower of Obama's cult-like personality.

The military has never determined foreign policy. We have a tradition of electing civilian leaders as commander-in-chief for a good reason.

Those civilian leaders usually make there decisions based on information and recommendations from military leaders

Gee....I wonder who made the deficit so high!

? Really Linda? The Deomcrats are all about raising the deficit. That is what they do. They tax ans spend. This is not an opinion, it is a fact. The repubs are for cutting taxes and cutting the fat out of spending. You can certainly be democrat..but I would pick a different reason, because you sound like you have repub values if you are concerned about the deficit. Forget about the personalities. Democrats keep saying that the Repubs are against the rich, over and over....yet they are the ones who want to tax YOU more. Seriously, if you talk to immigrants from a dictatorship like Cuba, they are overwhelmingly Repub...do you know why? Because they recognize that the Democrats want to run economics just like the dictatorship that they came from. Socialism does NOT work. We are in a very scary place. Please reconsider your vote. Please if you are concerned for the deficit.

Well, we agree that the deficit is too high. Under whose administration? Oh I forgot...it's all George Bush's fault. From behind the scenes, he's still calling the shots and forcing the government to invest in companies like Solyndra and the dozens of other failed stimulus programs as handouts to Obama donors (read political handouts and paybacks for bundlers). Bad George! We have to re-elect Dear Leader so he will have four years to do just what he wants to do, no longer doing the bidding of George Bush!

Linda Smith,

I agree with you that the deficit is too high and the economy is too volunerable......to allow Obama to do any further damage. We need to stop the bleeding now.......vote ROMNEY

What a load of pompous baloney.

What a convoluted statement. The president is our commander and chief who gets daily military briefings, and you think he is misinformed. Just where do you suggest he gets his misinformation? Sir you are just babbling.

Ignorance is not understanding a simile. Obama was not making reference to the Navy actually using horses & bayonets. Obama was saying that complaining about the Navy having fewer ships in our Navy is like complaining that we have fewer horses & bayonets being used. While they may STILL be in use by our various armed forces, horses have been replaced by Humvees and bayonets have been replaced by more modern weapons, even at close range. The point being that fewer doesn't mean WEAKER. One nuclear missile is worth BILLIONS of arrows. The quality in this case is much more important than the quantity. That was Obama's point. Failure to see that is merely the result of people on the other side of the aisle suffering from a severe case of sour grape.

Well said, Marc.

Charles
I read your post twice, and I can't make heads or tails out of it. What was your point?????

Charles
I also served in the Navy in the 60s and actually on an aircraft carrier and you are right to say they steam in battle groups. However to deploy battle groups in this century is a high cost and a high risk. In the 60's we didn't face long range missile strikes that could take out an aircraft carrier in a heartbeat along with 6,000 soles and an unimaginable amount of technology and armament. Not to mention our carriers that are nuclear. I am sure the Pentagon would prefer not to have more of these ships then we presently need. They are sitting ducks!.

Amend, you are the ignorant one. The point Romney made was that the navy commanders requested 300+ and were DENIED that number! That is the number they said was needed at minimum! They got less. As always...the point is missed or conveniently ignored. The best was when the military came out to correct their commander and chief and remind him that the bayonettes are still in use. What a f*****g idiot Obama is. Such an arrogant jackass.

Amend, you are the ignorant one. The point Romney made was that the navy commanders requested 300+ and were DENIED that number! That is the number they said was needed at minimum! They got less. As always...the point is missed or conveniently ignored. The best was when the military came out to correct their commander and chief and remind him that the bayonettes are still in use. What a f*****g idiot Obama is. Such an arrogant jackass.

The actual Navy budget request that factors in Gates' spending reduction, but hardly below 'minimum':
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/02/navy-dn-2012-budget-request-021411/

Amend, Romney did explain specifics during the debate with specific math. Close tax deductions for the wealthy. One figure, $25K per tax filer per year, and people can choose: college ed, mortgage interest, etc. Also reducing the marginal tax rate from the current 35% (2nd highest in the world, only to Japan, a Socialist country) to 25% (vs Obama raising to 40% + 3% Obamacare surtax) to stimulate job growth. This has worked EVERY TIME in the past. It creates jobs, increases take-home pay, and there's something else it increases... let's see if I can recall... oh yeah, TAX REVENUE. Millions of new jobs generating Billions in new taxes.
The superwealthy (perhaps you are one of those evil bastards we should all resent and envy?) making many millions, will now only get to write off $25K, same as the thousandaires. Romney’s historically proven reduction of the marginal tax rate does quickly stimulate the creation of millions of new jobs and increasing the tax base.

Discouraging small biz owners and entrepreneurs on their way up to wealthy is also discouraging them from taking risks, expanding and creating new jobs. Me, if I were one of those on-my-way-up guys getting socked with 43% taxes - screw expanding and hiring. Democrats cannot redistribute. It simply does not work, never has, never will. Look at Spain, Greece, communist countries. Fail. In America, land of the free? EPIC FAIL.

Oh, I can Melanie.... that's why we don't have a Miss White America Pageant or a White History Month, or even a NAAWP....

Melanie
Get used to it, because President Obama can't be beat. Especially by the flip flop man. LOL

...and don't worry Melanie, Romney will be our new president, you'll see.

The mere fact that you STILL believe Barack Obama used to be named Barry Soetoro tells me all I need to know about you.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/studentid.asp

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/occidental.asp

His name has always been Barack Obama. The fact that you continue to state otherwise is a level of ignorance that should have died out when people learned that the world was no longer flat and that the sun didn't revolve around the Earth.

Do you really think VOO DOO economics will work this time???? LOL

@Amend, thank you sooo much for again illustrating my point!

Romney has all the solutions to fix our economy, but he has no details, and wants us to just trust him. I am not that gullible.

Attention Everyone on this Post: Amend is a closet Obama Kool Aid drinker who masquarades as an open minded rational person. "willing to see where we've gotten under his leadership"? are you freaking kidding me? I'll tell you where we have been..6 trillion in debt under his illustrious leadership and a complete fool who bows to every foreign leader he meets. Amend loves Obama because he wants all the government hand outs he can get his hands on to pay off his college loans while his wife works to plan for their retirement. Give me a break!

Funny....

Great points Robert but you are making the mistake of using logic and bringing FACTS to the discussion. Most tea baggers and right wingers don't understand these concepts.

Yeah and the reality is Obama is going to win on November 6th. What will you do then? Will you finally respect the office of the President and urge your leadership to work together with Democrats to solve our problems or will you continue to root against America looking towards 2016?

Well said...

The Clinton administration had a chance to get Bin Laden after the bombing of the World Trade Center. Why didn't they?

Mary, I have a feeling many other women agree with your assessment, even right leaning ones.

I don't agree. How will women lose? I think that Mitt Romney will strengthen the economy, and create an atmosphere that will encourage capitalism. Obama continually talks about employers denying contraceptives to employees. I don't understand. Can't you buy contraceptives at the drugstore? Roe vs. Wade was decided by the Supreme Court. I don't think that will ever be overturned. As far as equal pay for equal work, aren't there federal and state laws that require employers to compensate employees in a fair manner?

Mary191: Then you haven't seen this: http://swampland.time.com/2011/09/21/the-white-house-boys-club-president-obama-has-a-woman-problem/

It's one thing to say you'll push women's issues like fair opportunity and pay. It's quite another to play lip service to women!

Mary191: Here's more info on what women who KNOW Mitt Romney think of him:

http://www.blogher.com/what-women-should-know-about-our-old-boss-mitt-romney

You mean the Montgomery County that just elected TWO Democratic Commissioners for the frist time in nearly 100 years? Sorry buddy, but I think that ship has sailed.

As for Israel the average person has NO interest in sending American kids to die fighting a war for them. If the don't want to follow our lead, let Israel fight their own battles....

Don't be a fool. President Obama like every other United States President stands with Israel. Maybe you should do a wider search instead of one based on your personal prejudices. I'll help you out ... There are more countries world wide that prefer President Obama over Mitt Romney.

I hate to further burst your bubble, but PA is not really considered in play any more.

What debate did you watch?????

Al, I think many of these people didn't even watch the debate, instead depending on Fox News and Rsuh Limbaugh to give them a summary. It's a classic example of "Who are you going to believe? Me or your lieing eyes?". These guys are living in a fantasy world.

Thank you Richard H.
In order to conclude that Romney won you had to be tuned into FOX noise, because all the reputable news outlets saw it differently.

Yeah, the consensus was that President Obama won. CNN put Obama up +8, a swing state poll put him up +11, and CBS' poll of undecided voters had Obama up +30. Mitt Romney was noticeably absent, and chose to agree with President Obama on almost every major point, a clear departure from what Romney has said during the course of his campaign.

Mitt was like that character on SNL that use to say "I meant to say that." Mitt contradicted his stand on so many things it was ridiculous. He is a man that only cares about one thing and it has absolutely nothing to do with the United States of America or the American people. It's all about having a title it's just one more thing that he wishes to possess.

Romney can't provide any information, refuses to answer the American voters questions, and his so called economic plan is one that continually is bashed by everyone that has seriously looked at it, because it won't work and he knows it. What is he hiding? The real cuts that will be extremely destructive to the middle class and those who are living below the middle class.

Christina -

1. Passed Health Care Reform: After five presidents over a century failed to create universal health insurance, signed the Affordable Care Act (2010). It will cover 32 million uninsured Americans beginning in 2014 and mandates a suite of experimental measures to cut health care cost growth, the number one cause of America’s long-term fiscal problems.

2. Passed the Stimulus: Signed $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009 to spur economic growth amid greatest recession since the Great Depression. Weeks after stimulus went into effect, unemployment claims began to subside. Twelve months later, the private sector began producing more jobs than it was losing, and it has continued to do so for twenty-three straight months, creating a total of nearly 3.7 million new private-sector jobs.

3. Passed Wall Street Reform: Signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (2010) to re-regulate the financial sector after its practices caused the Great Recession. The new law tightens capital requirements on large banks and other financial institutions, requires derivatives to be sold on clearinghouses and exchanges, mandates that large banks provide “living wills” to avoid chaotic bankruptcies, limits their ability to trade with customers’ money for their own profit, and creates the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (now headed by Richard Cordray) to crack down on abusive lending products and companies.

GM is alive and Osama is dead.

Maybe you should do your own homework. That's the only way you really learn anything or did you depend on everyone else to give you the answers when you were a student. The list of President Obama's accomplishments is extremely long.

That being said I am glad to help you out with a few things. First of all the reason there are more people on welfare and food stamps is because of the economic disaster that handed to us all for the most part by republican policies over many years that was bumped up to warp speed with the deregulation and George W. Bush burning up a credit card. He hid his bankrupting our country by not putting two wars on the books so we could see what he was up to. Remember his advise... "Everyone needs to go shopping!" Further, the State Governors requested that the rules be loosened so they could provide more people with welfare and food stamps.

Health care plan??? There is no such thing... The Affordable Health Care Act enables more American's access to insurance, which in the long term will drive costs that we have to pay down. For instance our family has everyone on one insurance plan where we would have to purchase several separate plans. And for those of us who have always purchased insurance, we will no longer have to pay for the medical care of those who refuse to purchase insurance.

Yawn....no point arguing with you fools any more. You can't be reasoned with. I'll be back on November 7th to laugh at you.

Until then, have a nice life.

These are all just Obama supporters talking points. All of the bailouts were done with taxpayer money. Where do your facts come from; the George Soros playbook. The stimulus did not create jobs. It contained too much pork to stimulate anything. How will the Healthcare act be funded. Isn't it true that the $709 billion dollars will be taken from Medicare to fund "Obamacare"? Obama likes us to believe that he eliminated Osama Bin Laden. He gave the go ahead, as any president (except perhaps Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter) would have. Didn't he actually increase the number of troops in Afghanistan? Wasn't the surge in Iraq (that started prior to his term) successful, and help lead to a more stable environment which ultimately allowed troop withdrawal? Why wasn't anything done about Fannie Mae? Weren't many of the sub-prime mortgages which caused the recession generated by Fannie Mae? Whatever happened to Franklin Raines?

Christina Mastromatto, you asked for examples and I provided FACTS! You on the other hand replied with talking points. George Soros? Really?

Trying to debate you delusional brainwashed dim wits is a waste of time. See you on November 7th!

@Christina Mastromatto:

I guess those supporting Romney view our president's accomplishments as talking points. These are things that have helped America stay out of depression, improved our standing in the world, and have put us back on the road to recovery. President Obama has done a lot of good in his four years, and with four more years, we'll continue to heal. We simply can't afford to go back to Bush-style economic and foreign policy. Remember what that was like? Surely you do.

As far as Obamacare, it actually reduces the deficit. If you take a look at the various CBO studies out there, you'll find that repealing the law increases our deficit. As far as Medicare, Obama didn't take money out of Medicare, he simply put measures in place to control provider costs. The benefits provided by our Medicare laws are EXACTLY the same.

Richard H.
You seem to be a very level headed fellow. How about lunch some day???
Call me at 610-287-8365

I see all these so called facts in Yahoo answers. I wondered where you found the concise answers. But don't forget that Obama has had a Republican congress for the last two years. This is why he hasn't been able to inflict more damage on the country. I don't see cap and trade mentioned, or the failure of Solyndra and numerous other companies that were funded by the stimulus. Where are all those shovel ready jobs? Why weren't Dodd and Frank prosecuted for their roles in the sub-prime/Fanny Mae debacle that ultimately led to the collapse of the economy? What about the man who was in charge of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines? George Bush initiated the bailout, and the surge in Iraq was begun during his term. I think he was terrible as a president, but I think he had respect for our Country. In my opinion Mitt Romney wins on that point, and has won each debate.

@Christina Mastromatto:

You see all these facts in Yahoo Answers? You'll also find many of them in the Congressional Record, and soon enough, the history books. It's very strange to respond to a person in that way.

Regarding the Republican Congress, have you checked their approval rating lately? Their approval hit historic lows under John Boehner's leadership. Why? Republicans were more focused on trying to outlaw abortion and repeal Obamacare than creating jobs and stimulating the economy. Did Republicans really think that President Obama and the Democrat-controlled Senate would repeal his signature healthcare bill? It was an utter waste of time.

Republican obstructionism in Congress hurt our economy and we have proof. When our credit was downgraded, the agency didn't cite President Obama as the cause, they didn't cite Democrats in Congress, but rather the political gridlock that was created when Republicans in Congress held up the debt ceiling deal. Republicans also prevented President Obama's jobs bill from going through despite the fact that many of these Republicans AGREED with the ideas it put forward. According to economists, it would have created millions of jobs.

Republicans said, and still say, "compromise is a bad word." Well, American governance REQUIRES compromise. That's how it works. Look back in history. Look at the Bush years. You'll find that there are always Democrats, incl. President Obama, willing to work with Republicans.

Point 1. Obamacare, just a massive tax and more forced government control over peoples lives. 2. just unconstitutional spending of tax payer money and adding to deficit. 3. was needed good work Obama. 4. Iraq war ended because it was over would have happend no matter who was president.5. same as above.6. Again same as above bin laden was being hunted since 2001 and was going to be hunted the same no matter who was president. It would have happend with or without Obama but congratulations to Obama for it happening under his watch.7. Unconstitutional spending of taxpayer money government should not be in the automobile business of course they gained market share give any business 62 billion of other peoples money they better increase market share. To be sustainable they must do it on there own. Basically all Obama really does is keep adding to the deficit and spend other peoples money.

I guess it all comes down to the fundamental princible of whether you you want yourself and people to run there own lives and businesses or do you want government to do it for you. Right now we are on a path that leads more people to be dependent on government control. I believe we should be making incentives for people to have pride and dignity and be self sufficient and responsible. We should always care for the weakest and most vunerable but we should inspire people to do so it should not be the major role of government. Remember a democrat John kennedy said " ask not what your country can do for you ask what you can do for your country. I wish no ill will to those whom disagree with me and i believe we all want whats best for our country and i believe no matter who wins the election we will still be the greatest nation on earth.

Chris, you just slammed John Boehner and the Republican Representatives in Congress for obstructionism. Precisely what have they obstructed, do you even know, or do you need to quickly Google it? Let me help you out.

http://www.speaker.gov/general/what-do-dems-have-against-balanced-budget-amendment

Congressional Democrats fight to obstruct a balanced budget. Canada passed a balanced budget amendment, why can't we?

Democrats. Tax-spend tax spend.

Sir, you've no clue.

Richard, I voted for Obama, but we need a new direction. You're kidding yourself to think that we have improved America's image abroad, or that more jobs aren't leaving than staying. The whole notion of government bailing out businesses is ludicrous. Why in the world should taxpayers bail out failing business - it's just another incentive for wastefully keeping, condoning, and encouraging failed and/or corrupt business practices. And, just the thought of government interfering in my or anyone's healthcare should be enough to frighten every person and every single doctor. Governmental bureaucrats do not have the expertise to educate; educators do. Ditto for medical doctors. Keep government in it's rightful role - to defend the safety of citizens. Defense being the operative word. That's it. Let business take care of business; educators take care of education; medical doctors take care of medicine. Vote Libertarian.

www.garyjohnson2012.com

Dude, take off your tin foil hat already....let me guess, you are one of these "the UN is trying to take over America" nuts huh? Good luck with that....

51%??? Really? Even the right wing think tank the Heritage Foundation says it's only about 20%. And a majority of that number goes to Medicare and Social Security recipients. Just like the 49% of people who "pay no federal income tax" - Medicare and Social Security.

Wrong Richard, Jack is charming and entertaining. He said romney will fix it for you, so stay home election day, the majority has your back.

But what caused the economy to collapse in the first place?

Christina
Check the record the economy failed because of the two wars, and a giant tax cut for the wealthy instituted by George W Bush. My you have a short memory.

Amend,

Your right it wasn't the free market that saved GM it was the tax payers that did. It was our tax dollars that were put at risk, that funded that as well as the other bailouts. When the economy gets tough more people go on government assistance, but we have more poeple that are making it the life. They should have to perform a public service to receive those funds. If people are truely collecting because they don't have a job then they can do community service to get their assistance. There shoudl be random drug testing and anyone testing positive should forfit those funds. Helping people is one thing but having people making it their career is another.

The tax cut you refer to was not just for the wealthy. I wish Obama would stop using the word wealthy altogether. He is wealthy. Will he increase taxes on himself? The two wars were not what created the economic collapse.

Christina, I wouldn't put all my eggs into Jack Minster's basket that's for sure. Oy vey. His blinders are in place and there is nothing to do but slide past. Nothing new from him at all. That's too bad.

I have read and heard a lot of what Jack mentions. It is not reported on the local or world news. I think we should all get a copy of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for "Radicals." and read it to see what Obama has in store if he is re-elected.

To Christina's point, although liberals slam it, a non-partisan scientific study conducted by the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University http://www.cmpa.com/

proves Fox as the most fair and balanced of them all, presenting all sides of a story. And, they bust the political fact check sites. (I can hear the libs' stomach's churning - but hey, science not opinion). Al Jazeera and the BBC are both bad, but not as bad as US Media in slant, bias, spin, presenting only one side, the liberal side.

Is it then any wonder why many Americans don't know what the heck is really going on, don't know whom to trust? I have a beef with liars, I don't care if they are Republican or Democrat, but the media? I shake the dust from my sandals in their direction and condemn them, bind them to their sins in this world and the next. Not that they'll ever ask my forgiveness.

There are other avenues to the truth. Go to your Congress Members' websites, look at the actual legislation they sponsor and co-sponsor. Go on youtube, watch the liars in action, their own words convicting them. There is a wide chasm between fact and opinion. On these blogs I see a lot of one, precious little of the other.

Jack, the study by CMPA you refer to was limited to comparative coverage of the Republican primary race. Here's the press release -http://www.cmpa.com/media_room_press_1_18_12.html
It was not a study of overall broadcast practices of the networks.

Anyone with half a brain who watches Fox or MSNBC for 90 seconds realizes that both have extreme slants. In my opinion Fox is far more slanted - it's basically a Republican propaganda machine.

Don't presume to know me jack - you don't know. Jack.

It is an anomaly that a backward person like yourself can have his, or her finger on the pulse of what is really happening.
Congratulations my primitive friend

Oh, but they will, Jack. They will. Ho ho ho. Just 'nother lil joke. Peace.

The 'whole truth' approach involves incorporating the data that doesn't fit into the narrative you are arguing, too - the most consistent trait of your comments on here is that you rely on carefully selected aspects of the story, ignoring the non-sensationalist or non-supporting aspects of it.

Your whole approach to 'added regulations' relies on page count, ignoring who those regulations actually apply to, and ignoring that it adds pages to the count to remove prior regulations - it's a partisan half-truth to rail against that and not consider it holistically. The same for condemning 'loans to people with undocumented ability to pay back the loans' but then complaining about added regulations that include applying those same standards to businesses. Or taking one kind of employment figures to criticize the pay of women at the White House (which do include upper level positions), and a totally different kind of employment figures to justify Bain's hiring practices (which don't include upper level positions).

You don't seem completely insane, like some of the commenters here, so if you really think you are taking a 'whole truth' approach to this, may I suggest taking a moment to consider what that actually means, because your lines of reasoning strike me as decidedly half-truths, to an almost archetypical level.

Morgan, your deceptive practices work this way: I present a number, say, $1.7 Trillion dollars, is what over-regulation is taking from small businesses. You subvert that statement by redirecting it to yet another fact I presented, which was the proper explanation of assignment of blame for the economic recession. Then you tie them together. Clever, but disingenuous and in no way refuting the facts.

http://archive.sba.gov/advo/research/rs371tot.pdf SBA, a non-partisan government agency Obama added 82,000 pages of regulation. Did you read all 82,000 pages? Then perhaps you should read this nice 77 page summary.

And, perhaps you should click the youtube links regarding Barney Franks and Congressional Dems coming unhinged and in so doing, destroying the world economy.

You don't seem insane either. Just deceptive, and offering no actual substance. Just wordplay.

Well, I certainly have no intention of deceiving anybody, if you're reading it that way, perhaps I haven't been clear enough. That said, I have a hard time believing you aren't being intentionally misleading by couching your statements in words like 'over-regulation,' implying that we've somehow factually crossed the invisible threshold of an amount of appropriate regulation, or the sheer hubris of claiming the 'proper explanation of assignment of blame for the economic recession' which is blatantly a long-term and systemic issue without a single catalyst.

I compared those statements of yours because it's disingenuous to ignore elements that don't suit your argument - you can't rail against the number of new regulations in the abstract and then argue for the principles of some of those specific regulations to be enforced. Just because you weren't correlating them doesn't mean they aren't correlated.

I've read many reports on the business regulations enacted under Obama's administration - you'll forgive me if I'm not going to take the word of a document that specifically does 'not necessarily reflect the views' of the SBA and 'does not consider the benefits of federal regulations' as the definitive document on this issue - the raw costs are only one aspect of the discussion, and one that nobody is disputing.

Black Panthers should have been whipped! You sound like you had no other way BUT the military.I do hope you stay in Canada fool.

Jack, If the other party is our saviour, why then did Mr Bush, with his control, not balance the budget. You are being duped. There is absolutly no intention, by the "one party" to ever relinquish control of the money. It is the cornerstone of their platform, and you, along with your "majority", have handed it over without a fight or a drop of blood. When the pres needs a war or a bailout, he calls ben and turns on the press. Would you pay a war tax on your 2012 return of between 5-20K to pay for the terrorism and empire building of the feds? I hope not. But you will allow your grandchildren to pay it. Five billion a day, every day.

In order to prevent excessive inquiries by neighbors and others and for convinence, BHO went by the name "Barry Soetoro". when his mother was married to her second husband, Lolo Soetore, and lived in Indonesia, The president has a half-sister named "Maya Soetoro" by his mother and this man. This is a matter of record, and has nothing to do with the birther controversy, and is covered in just about any mainstream biography about the president, including the excellent book by CLinton and Clemente biographer David Maraniss.

Man, I just said like 10 posts up that you weren't insane - ugh:

http://www.thefogbow.com/special-reports/people-remember-president-obama/friends-2/

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_obamaessay.html

http://www.college.columbia.edu/cct/jan_feb09/alumni_corner

Good enough? What a totally useless, baseless line of character defamation and national distraction. I understand people not agreeing with his policies, but this nonsense is a shameful approach by anyone hoping to retain credulity.

Well said, Morgan.

President Obama wants to keep the current tax rates for every American making less than $250K, and allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for those above that level. That's hardly a radical approach. In fact, if you look at history, you will find that our greatest economic growth happened when tax rates were extremely high (even as high as 77-91 percent). Even Ben Stein, a Fox News regular, has admitted that there is no clear connection between tax rates and the level of economic activity.

Regarding Obamacare, it reduces the deficit and puts in measures to reduce healthcare costs. By insuring all Americans, we give Americans the ability to switch jobs and start their own businesses, which helps make our economy more flexible, and encourages innovation.

We have no business in Iran. Look up new energy. It's been there for almost 100 years. We're living in a dark age. Our foreign policy should be focused on what's right here under our very noses. Answers aren't in Iran. Answers are right here.

Yea, Jack, we're lookin' around alright. Better come up for some air yourself. The truth is huffin and puffin and blowin' the door down, like today.

That poll has long been an outlier, and is commissioned by the Republican State Committee:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/oct-18-obama-gains-in-forecast-on-resiliency-in-swing-state-polls/

Let's keep it real. The poll you cite is a statistical outlier. Pennsylvania will likely go to President Obama by around five points.

Gee, With all those mormons I wonder why Dr Paul did so well in Nevada. I've heard he is charming. The problem is he is not a member of the majority, they are always right you know. Perhaps a land line phone poll was used?

Also on cable TV on the C-Span channel...

And - Term Limits -- icing on the cake!

Fact - the Forward slogan came from Communist/Socialist origins and that is no mistake. The "hope and change" is more like "destroy and remake" and I'm pretty sure a lot of people now realize that and won't make the same mistake that they made in 2008. We've already seen how socialist/communist societies FAIL and why people are always trying to ESCAPE from those countries and that is why the US has been the number one destination for immigrants.

It's also why Obama opened his campaign in Osawatomie, Kansas which also happens to be the name of a socialist Weather Underground publication - interesting no? Go ahead - google Osawatomie

From http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/12/07/president_obama_s_osawatomie_speech_was_a_marxist_attack_on_america

"Look, let me just give you a sample summary of Obama's speech yesterday. The president of the United States, not Fidel Castro, not Kim Jong-il, not Mao Tse-tung, not Lenin, not Stalin, not Gorbachev, not Saddam Hussein, not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, not Hugo Chavez, but the president of the United States said that while a limited government that preserves free markets speaks to our rugged individualism as Americans, such a system doesn't work and has never worked. The president of the United States said that the United States of America, as founded, "has never worked." Stop and think of that. Ponder that for a moment. The president. Not the head of the SEIU. Not the chairman of some congressional committee. Not a Democrat presidential hopeful. The elected president of the United States said in Osawatomie, Kansas, trying to be Teddy Roosevelt, that the United States of America has never worked. That is a quote, "has never worked."

Compare what he said in Osawatomie, Kansas as he opened his 2012 campaign, to the lies he told in the debates - how he if for self-reliance and how he wants to do "nation building" in the US... ROFL what a joke!

Maybe you should actually read the speech instead of parroting a partisan entertainer's intentionally deceitful interpretation of it. Obama was talking about trickle-down economics, not the concept of free markets:

"the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history. It's led to a prosperity and a standard of living unmatched by the rest of the world." (page 2)

"...there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let's respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes - especially for the wealthy - our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn't trickle down, well, that's the price of liberty. Now, it's a simple theory. And we have to admit, it's one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That's in America's DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. But here's the problem: It doesn't work. It has never worked." (page 3)

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/06/news/la-pn-text-obama-speech-kansas-20111206/2

Bell might want to recheck about Desert Storm being the second longest war in US history. It is one of the shortest; 8/1990 - 2/1991. Thank you for staying in Canada with their socialized healthcare and not spending our money using your VA Benefits if in fact you actually served. Why aren't you here in your own country and doing something to sooth your "...heavy heart.."?

LL - I appreciate your view and I can certainly understand how you have arrived at your conclusion given the web citation you have offered. I will spare you why I think Obama is a better choice, because I believe it would be lost on you - that is not an insult either. But when there are only, unfortunately, two choices - therein lies the problems. Also, we need to level the playing field in elections, we need "fix" Citizens United, we need transparency and to rid our legistations of convolution where the paid "insiders" direct lawmaking with so much buried into "BILLS," we find out after the fact and often years down the road. Our government is corrupt Liberty Lover, and the only time those pulling the strings "care" about you or I, is now.

co2... you're explainations would be lost on anybody with a functioning brain.

You must have grown up in a very abusive and hate filled home.

Tell us all about the great experience Obama had. Community Organizer? Lawyer for radicals? College Prof? Senator who voted "Absent" more than any senator in history?

That clueless jerk Obama has PROVEN he does not have a clue how to be a president. Can't even speak without a tele-prompter.

He's a president just made for the angry, jealous uninformed like you. You're his base, along with all the bums who take from the government.

You are beyond clueless. Obama has HURT THE MIDDLE CLASS MORE THAN ANY PRESIDENT IN HISTORY. And right now, with his deficits and QE III (I'm sure you don't know what that is), he is making sure he destroys our childrens future as well.

CO2 is a great name..... you're just a bunch of gas.

c02

WOW you are a wealth of knowledge..."I believe", "I believe", "I dont believe"...and that is base on fact???? or are you just looking at your crystal balls???? Obama has done more harm to this country, economy and the middle class in the past 4 years than any other president....yet you believe.

This just in.... Amend thinks things are great.

Obama had NOTHING to do with U.S. oil production going up. That is all THANKS to private companies drilling on private land, to make up for all the obstructions Obama placed on domestic drilling on federal lands. Moron.

Also, new home sales up? Oh, and all the latest quarterly U.S. Corporations profits and reports DOWN DOWN DOWN, so market is way down. Growth in economy like 1%. Not even enough new jobs being created to give jobs to NEW PEOPLE coming into the employment market. Actual unemployment about 14%. Record number of people in poverty. Record number of people on social security disability (what you do after you give up looking for a job and are no longer counted in unemployment stats), record deficit, record food stamps. AND OBAMA HAS BEEN IN OFFICE FOR FOUR YEARS. YEARS THAT IS. YEARS YEARS YEARS YEARS.

He had not passed a budget for THREE YEARS. HIs last budget got ZERO ZERO ZERO democratic votes. ZERO.

AND WHAT IS OBAMA'S PLAN ?? More STIMULUS SPENDING.

You are SO F'ING CLUELESS, you should stay home election day.

I am amazed at how all the economic indicators are now showing some improvement only weeks away from the election. The unemployment rate is slightly lower, but it will take until AFTER, the election to make any corrections to the figures. How very interesting! The real estate market seems to be moving forward and gas prices for some inexplicable reason are going down. Am I the only one who questions this most unusual change in events when for the last three years we have seen a much different reality? Who said you can't turn the economy around in less then three years? It has happened in less than three months...HMMMMM1

He has my vote.

"Militant claim". Terrorists also took claim for blowing up the space shuttle. We should run to the podium every time they claim something?

You imply that the White House is covering something up? What?

Stick to voter suppression. You are much better at things like that.

This past Friday I heard on the radio that Washington was advised of the attack within an hour and that it wasn't because of some video that nobody cared about.

The entire Obama presidency and his current campaign are based on lies and deceit.

I don't understand why this such a big political issue. It's obviously terrible that people at the embassy were killed, but was there ever any doubt that it was anti-American militants as the cause? Whether it was related to the protest or whether somebody termed it 'terrorism,' has the basic nature of the attack ever actually been in question? I don't get what the 'cover-up' is supposed to be here that's so damning. Nixon was directly involved with the Watergate break-in, an actual crime, Oliver North briefed Reagan and actually arranged the Contra deal, an actual crime, Clinton lied under oath, an actual crime (if pretty trivial, in this case), and Obama... didn't clarify the nature of the attack immediately? Is culpable for an as-yet unnamed diplomat's potential relay of a request for more security?

Even if it was an intentional obfuscation, we have no information about why that would be. Maybe it was to avoid pundits spinning it into a 'weak on terror' narrative during the election season, or maybe it was to discourage attacks on other embassies, such as the one in Tripoli, and trivialize the attacking group's actual impact? It's easy to say they should have had more guards in retrospect, but that's the very nature of terrorism - it is unpredictable. How many other times have embassies requested more security that didn't result in attacks?

You appear to feel strongly about this, so maybe you can clarify why this is such an impeachment-worthy offense.

Morgan, you really should understand this issue. It is of such import with direct bearing on Obama's foreign policy and with so much going on that a 1,500 character limit comment cannot do it justice. Of all the concise summaries I've read, this one is perhaps the shortest read:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/16/behind_the_benghazi_cover-up_115787.html

To me, Obama's job qualifications fall a distant second to his failure to save four American lives.

“What we should not be doing is rejecting claims for calls for more security in our barracks, in our Marine — we need Marines in Benghazi when the commander on the ground says we need more forces for security,” Ryan said. “There were requests for extra security. Those requests were not honored.” Biden has come under fire for saying at Thursday night’s debate, “We weren’t told they wanted more security. We did not know they wanted more security there.”

Lt Colonel Andrew Wood was that commander on the ground. See him on youtube testifying before the House Oversight Committee http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6jeR5UoETA

Need help? Request denied. The entire Federal government (if not the media) is asking the question, Why? Why was it denied?

Aren't you curious, Morgan?

Thanks for the link. Certainly there had been some escalation in violence at both the Benghazi and Tripoli embassies this year, but Lt. Wood's testimony in that video doesn't seem to reflect a particular emergency, nor does Mabrouk's meeting about "the economy and security" in Benghazi. Darrell Issa's report in October lists minor attacks targeting Tripoli and Benghazi embassies, but also features no reasonable indicator of an imminent siege beyond vague threats. I'm pretty sure we need security at all our Middle Eastern positions, and I imagine they all face daily threats of violence, and most have requested more security. The embassy workers and soldiers in Benghazi were clearly aware it was a dangerous position, both obviously and as per Issa's report, and while the deaths in the attack are tragic, we've lost many thousands of Americans in the ongoing battle with militants, many of them in Libya prior to this.

I imagine that the answer to 'Why was it denied?' is something along the lines of 'we have other similarly credible threats elsewhere that require our security resources.' I trust the military chain of command to make the best decisions they can about how to allocate their forces - every untimely death is preventable in retrospect, every threat is more credible once it's occurred. I'm not really seeing how this is particularly different from other attacks as far as culpability goes, except that it can be used for political leverage.

Wood asked State Department for more security in Libya as concerns continued to grow after the State Department removed 34 people from the country over the last six months before the terrorist attack in Benghazi. Lt. Col. Andy West’s requests (much like Amb. Stevens) were ignored or denied.

Speaking to CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, Wood said when he found out that his own 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force were being pulled from Tripoli in August – about a month before the assault in Benghazi – he felt, “like we were being asked to play the piano with two fingers. There was concern amongst the entire embassy staff.”

Morgan you imagine 'we have other similarly credible threats elsewhere that require our security resources.'

Libya? Where one of America's top avowed enemies, Muammar Gaddafi, recently got lethally deposed with Al Qaeda and Islamists rushing in to fill the vacuum, Obama couldn't honor Lt. Col Wood's request for back-up? Leaving our Ambassador wide open? Ambassador Stevens himself was sending multiple requests, more and more urgent requests. And now he's dead.

Sorry man. Unforgivable failure, worse with Obama-Biden claiming "We didn't know they needed additional security." Very wrong. You can try to minimize it but it's out now. Has a life of its own.

I don't really have anything more to add to what I said before - putting Americans in harm's way has been our way of dealing with terrorism throughout this conflict. I thought this was a well-written article about this that I thought did a better job of explaining what I was getting at:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/the-real-libya-story-there-is-no-story/264081/?utm_source=pulsenews

Navy Seal Ty Woods, killed in Benghazi, left a widow and a baby son. Here is where to contribute: http://donate.seal-nswfamilyfoundation.org/events/ty-woods-memorial-fund/e21388

The prior history of the Libyan consulate: two attacks, June and August, blowing a hole in the wall large enough to drive a truck through. June, request to Obama for help. Response: denied. August, request to Obama for help. Response: denied. Obama actually withdraws military personnel protecting the consulate.

There is no reason these men had to die. Other than Obama wanted the world to think that "Bin Laden is dead, GM is alive, and Al Qaeda is on the run." Weeks of lies from the entire Obama team, on talk shows, all over the media, from UN Ambassador Rice, to State Department officials to Obama's Press Secretary. Lies. Must protect the illusion.

This is so bad. Only Fox, ABC and CNN are giving this any coverage. Media protecting the Anointed One, must get him elected at all costs.

Embarrassing and pathetic. Shameful.

I'm myopic..... ahahaha... you see one piece of new, housing starts, and say "evidence the economy is recovering". I post 10 things that are bad about the economy and say it's bad. So I use 10 times the data you do, but I'm myopic. DUH.

We are not welcome to be interfering in the internal affairs of other nations. Violence follows violence esp when you are overstepping your boundaries (that are believe it or not are healthy). America should be 24/7 trying to piece together why it is such a mess at home. It's a big enough mess to be overwhelming. Clean up this mess right here under our very noses. Let the rest of the world live in peace without us. We have enough on our hands right here.

Crestor - "I believe" you do have your skirt in a bunch.

Tell me again what Obama has done to bring tears to my eyes except bring this Country down? What has he "..united us against.." except "...our fear."? Our fear of our Country falling apart if he and his administration come into power again? My eyes are tearing up as I write this just fearing what ill fate our Country is in for with another four years of his crap.

Is this your best and final endorsement of Romney? Why aren't you talking about him? Vote for someone you believe in. Live free.

www.garyjohnson2012.com

@amend - you don't have any idea what you're talking about. You just think you do. There's a difference. All kinds of possibilities exist in life. It's all a choice. Deal with it. We are all choosing the future we want to have, and you can't stop us. Choose a lousy one for yourself. We might pick something better for the rest of us. Deal with it.

Even though you had the nerve to do so with 9/11. Get a new name, Amend. We see through this one.

Amend - psychiatry calls that statement "projection." Because you lack compassion yourself, you project your malice and disdain onto others. It also reveals your complete lack of understanding of the White House events pertaining to Benghazi. Four men died needlessly due the White House, that is fact. Were White House decisions in June and August and September politically motivated? That is opinion. As the facts continue to manifest, the case against Obama grows.

Jack-off, psychiatry calls your statement denial.

What do they do to stop it? OH,they delayed voter ID's in PA until after this election. What is that motto? Vote early and often. Thank you for your support; again and again and again.

WARNING!!! Amend=faux rational thinker...in actuality Obama Kool Aid drinker!

Money can't, and never will be able to, buy you honor. Doesn't matter who has the money, or where it's going. It won't buy you honor.

It's all over MSNBC...

Andy, you can't be serious. At 7AM the so-called offer was featured on CBS along with comments about Trump by various humorists. I can't believe you think that anything Trump says should be taken seriously. Where he not wearing that terrible hair piece, anything he said would be rightfully disregarded. I'd like to see his own grades.

Has anyone noticed how the mainstream media tells the same news on every channel, every newspaper and every talk show?

Yeah, me pointing out that you are a pathetic loser who spends all day and night posting nonsense on the patch is going to make people vote for Romney (ie, your team)....sigh.

I'm guessing you haven't been laid since George H. W. Bush was in office. This will be my last post addressing you as again, I am starting to feel bad. It's like picking on a handi-capped person.

Peace out Jack "off".

You are wasting your time with this guy. I'm begining to think he is mentally ill...most likely still lives with his parents. Don't lower yourself by responding to him. He is basically just a troll looking for attention.

Every word is true? If anybody thinks there are going to be armed domestic drones 'enacting sentencing on the public' ever, much less by the end of Obama's second term, they have become disconnected from reality - that's straight-up paranoid delusion.

We sent 12,000 more soldiers to Libya in January - maybe it wasn't enough, maybe they weren't deployed effectively, but it's pretty disingenuous to frame this as a callous refusal of support from the White House to 'begging' and 'imploring.' Also pretty misleading to argue that the President is directly responsible for specific troop movements and security requests.

This whole 'scandal' was feeling a little forced and baseless to me the other day, but further reading on the people leading this investigation, backing Lt. Wood, and being 'all over television' - Darrell Issa and Robert Bishop, both Tea Party Mormons - makes it seem all the more like petty political leveraging.

Jack-off, Here is your Nazi party in action at the RNC in Florida, just a few short weeks ago. It gave me goosebumps knowing that 50 million was spent on security alone to assure a complete media blackout of different ideas. The precident set here, which obviously you are ok with, sickened many real Americans.
As you and "the majority" lace your jack boots, and goosestep to the polls, remember the whole world is watching.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrYdBL7BFwE&feature=share&list=LPq5yjRsUAl7k

Jack-off, you again miss the big picture. Step out from your cave, into the light.

Too bad the majority of the comments are from one jack off with nothing better to do.

There was a 'zinger'? Trying to repeatedly correlate this with major criminal investigations like Watergate and Iran-Contra is also petty political leveraging, as I'm sure you are aware. Nobody's disagreeing this is a tragic event in a long history of tragic events during the ongoing War on Terror, but what, specifically, is the criminal, impeachable offense you are seeing here - that the White House reported the softest, vaguest version of conflicting reports while they gathered more info? That the chain of command was too slow in responding to intentionally-unfocused incidents as a pattern that, only in retrospect, was indicative of an escalating threat?

The status-quo path is the one Obama has been burdened with for his first term in office, and the one Romney intends to return to: the Reagan-era policies that carried through two Bush Presidencies that led to the incredible devaluation of the American worker, embroiled us in a perpetual Middle Eastern conflict, brought record levels of income disparity, increasingly tied our social policies to archaic religious beliefs, and gave unprecedented levels of power to the wealthiest members of our society.

Reducing the tax burdens of the wealthy has never led to job growth in the modern era - why would any company concerned solely with their bottom line pay 5 times the amount in wages to create jobs the US? The economic problems facing this country stem directly from a lack of corporate regulations, not because of them. You can't solve unemployment without real jobs for the poorly educated and unskilled - manufacturing had long been the resolution to that, but decades of Conservatives bolstering corporate power while weakening unions and exporting labor to maximize profits is at the heart of our employment crisis. So, yes, stimulus spending, federal employment and higher taxes all sound great to me - an economy thrives when currency is maximally circulated, and you'd be hard pressed to find a historical example that doesn't support that.

The base says vote for Gary Johnson. It is the two party system that has to go. Both parties have had more than enough time to address the real problems and issues, and have miserably failed themselves, and the rest of us. It's time for fresh air. This is apparent. Look up toward a new day. And, tell everyone.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com

Camy, looking at the standard lib media polls, discounting outliers, I have to disagree with your blogger.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/2012_electoral_college_scoreboard

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Romney has a healthy lead in the national poll, can afford to lose Pennsylvania, and if he loses Ohio where polls have him and Obama even at the moment, he can win with Nevada and Iowa. Several polls put Romney ahead in PA, thus taking an average, it's definitely not a 92.6% chance Obama has of winning PA. Sorry if that comes as hard news.

Rasmussen, a single largely-Republican-leaning poll, hardly stacks up to Nate Silver's amazing meta-poll model.

Just curious if you know who Nate Silver is? He isn't politically affiliated, he is simply a genius statistician. Of course, all polls are simply that - stats. Even the best polls can just give odds and anything can happen. But you'd he hard pressed to find a more respected statistician than Nate Silver. He doesn't care about politics - he is just a numbers guy - and he is very good. Look up his political prediction track record. It isn't perfect, but there isn't anyone out there that is better.

This is how good Nate Silver is: From Wikipedia
"The accuracy of his November 2008 presidential election predictions—he correctly predicted the winner of 49 of the 50 states—won Silver further attention and commendation. The only state he missed was Indiana, which went for Barack Obama by 1%. He also correctly predicted the winner of all 35 Senate races that year." But maybe the Rassmussen Report knows something Nate Silver doesn't - but I doubt it.

At the end of the 2008 presidential election, there were eight national tracking polls and many other polls conducted on a regular basis. Polling analyst Nate Silver reviewed the tracking polls and said that while none were perfect, and Rasmussen was "frequently reputed to have a Republican lean", the "house effect" in their tracking poll was small and "with its large sample size and high pollster rating [it] would probably be the one I'd want with me on a desert island."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports#Evaluations_of_accuracy_and_performance

Maybe Nate Silver rates Rasmussen the one he'd take with him to a deserted island.

The last time Pennsylvania voted for a Republican President was 1988, for Bush I, 24 years ago. Romney is currently out-polling Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama. Which, not being a statistician, would suggest to me a better than 7.3% chance of winning, wouldn't you?

So you are agreeing with Nate Silver that the Rassmussen has a Republican lean? I am not a statistician either, but I took a few stat and probability classes in college. I respect Nate Silver's great knowledge and talent for what he does, so if he says Obama has a 92.6% chance of winning, I believe him. Why would I second guess a clear non-partisan expert?

Because Camy, Nate's number doesn't match the trend in polls.

Do you mean the right leaning polls? I wouldn't expect the numbers to match. Nate is correct and the other polls are wrong. Oh and Obama is up to a 73% chance of winning now.

Camy, yesterday you wrote "It looks like there is a 92.6% chance that Obama will take PA."

Today you wrote, "Obama is up to a 73% chance of winning now."

Don't you mean according to your Nate Silver, Obama is now DOWN to 73% chance of winning PA?

Not following your messaging here. I see only a Romney upward trend here in the Keystone state (and elsewhere). I haven't see Romney drop. His approval rating with women is now equal with Obama, that's a new stat.

Sorry you couldn't follow things there. Obama has a 73% chance of winning the whole thing, not just PA. However, I need to correct that now too. According to Nate Silver there is a 74.4% chance of Obama winning the election and a 94% chance he will win PA. Nate's methodology takes all national polls into account (including Rassmussen and other right leaning polls). The popular vote is very close. The people are pretty much split 50/50, but the electoral vote is very much in Obama's favor.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

Coal is one more 18th century energy solution. We need new energy.

Pennsylvania has 12 million registered voters, and Republicans have the registration advantage statewide. Also:

* Republicans are leading Democrats by over 19,000 absentee requests.
* Republicans are outperforming our share of voter registration in absentee requests by nearly 12 points.
* Democrats are underperforming their share of 2008 AB/EV votes cast by 4.06 percentage points, while the GOP is over-performing their share by 2.10 points. The result is a net swing of +6.16 percentage points for Republicans.
* Republicans have madenearly 3 million volunteer voter contacts in Pennsylvania since the RNC’s AB/EV turnout program began nationwide.

1) Whatever, man - data isn't a party line:
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/images/top_ten_percent_income_share.jpg
Income disparity skyrocketed under Reagan's policies, and Clinton's as guilty as anyone of perpetuating that. Pretty much all of those other figures have already been been widely debunked - gas prices are about the same as they were in Fall '08, inflation-adjusted, the Medicare cuts are largely included in Obamacare, etc. You already know all that, probably - it's been covered on here plenty.

2) Maybe you should learn Greek, then? What 'cogent story' doesn't involve drastically increasing manufacturing jobs, guaranteeing living wages, and stronger trade regulations, and increasing domestic spending? I've answered your questions on here far beyond the point of reason and you have consistently ignored my counterpoints and my own questions. Here's, presumably, an easy one: how does cutting taxes on businesses lead to more domestic jobs when Chinese labor is still under $2 an hour?

Individual spending is the engine of economic recovery - a populace with decent jobs and money to spend make start-up businesses and entrepreneurial endeavors viable. Obviously, if people don't have money, people can't buy things. It's why dramatic income inequality is such a huge problem for any economy.

If manufacturing is 'crap,' and you want to eliminate dependency on social services, what low-education level jobs do you see that allow people to meaningfully contribute? The few jobs added over the last two decades have been dramatically lower paying than the ones that were lost when - that's right! - manufacturing was moved overseas. 58% of all job growth has been in positions that pay about $10/hr, when 60% of the jobs lost were manufacturing and IT positions that paid closer to $20.

If businesses won't invest in the American people, the American people literally can't invest in businesses. We made it work for a few decades as the cost of goods dropped dramatically thanks to lower manufacturing costs, and stocks soared as companies profited from paying 1/10 of the wages they had been paying, but those short term gains have eaten away the value of domestic labor and consolidated the vast bulk of our money at the top of the economic spectrum, putting income disparity at the highest its ever been - if businesses 'remain on strike' before they pony up the money to pay living wages, then what recourse have we but to force them to reinvest through taxation? I'm not going to take their word for it that if we give them what they want they will make the economy improve - that's a lot of plutocratic nonsense.

The top 5% pay 53% of the taxes in this country, sure, but they also have 69% of the money. Balancing those percentages is how you balance the economy.