Obama says Romney hasn't 'gotten around a lot'

Obama was elected to fix what he inherited not to make it worse. That was his job, he has failed and failed miserably

The only truthful thing in that entire statement is "Obama was elected." From their on, pure shite.

I paid my own way. I never took a dime from the government and never will. Thanks though.

Does that mean I can have your social security? Since, you know, you will never take govt. assistance. Me, I'm not proud. I'll take money from a fool every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Are you obligated to pay your neighbor's bills?

O.K.! There we have it. Mr. Personal Responsibility!

Hell no, you're not going to pay his neighbors bills, nor will he go on Medicare or Medicaid. You'll pay your own way right up until death, right? No one has any responsibility to take care of you in your old age but yourself.

Noted.

ROFL! Seren, that will never happen, I would rather eat a bowl of razors with milk than to become a Democrat.

bass

I reckon you'll be a Democrat by mid-November!

Herve:

OldHawk, the collectivists here (Newspeak for Marxists) will have none of the truth.

And yet, they can't counter it with anything other than their thinly-veiled hate. Time and again, there are no substantive counter-arguments to my posts. They can vote "bad", but they can't answer the truth. Good thing I don't take them seriously.

OldHawk,

Hey, at least you accept that Romney has no plan to cut spending, unlike the other die-hard poster that cut and ran from the question.

OldHawk, the collectivists here(Newspeak for Marxists) will have none of the truth. As noted, Romney's release of tax documents has done little to quell the droning accusations of unfairness.

Yet Obama has yet to release his records from Stanford, wonder why not? Does he have something to hide other than low grades?

addendum to my post earlier: Japan has a great example of a private mail service that charges the exact same prices as (or less than) the goverment service: Yamato. You can send a letter up to A4 size for the same 80 yen that the regular post office will only send a small envelope for, and you can send a 2-cm thick A4 envelope for 160 yen, which is cheaper than the post office. This is a private company that doesn't use people's tax money to operate.

LOL...Wrong again Bob! JP Post, although "technically" a private holdings company, is still vastly if not entirely owned by the Japanese government. As a matter of fact, a bill that required the J-Gov to sell off all of its ownership by no later 2017 was recently shot down in the Japanese congress, and therefore the J-Gov has no hard limits or requirements on when and how much of its ownership it needs to sell, therefore JP Post can stay a public entity indefinitely under the current law. So although technically a private company, its still either mostly entirely public owned.

Why is it like this? Well, for those who live in Japan, you know that the Japanese postal service is much more than just an entity to carry your mail from point A point B. Unlike the USPS (which is just a postal courier) JP Post is also a bank and insurance company which are HUGE cash cows for JP Post and funds most of its operations. Should JP Post become completely privatized as proposed by the Koizumi administration, they would be required to break up into 3 or 4 separate companies. JP Bank, post office and insurance would not longer be a single entity, hence a lot of the funding that keeps the postal system alive will go away. There is concern that the postal service as a dedicated courier service would not be able to survive on its own without significant hikes in its prices. Plus in Japan, the postal services is getting too much competition from email, and a lot of people have closed their banking accounts with JP post to go with commercial banks in fear that the postal banking service will be privatized, so there is a question of whether or not the banking part would survive either.

Not quite the successful private courier system that you make it out to be....

Madverts:

Maybe he has to be elected before he can elaborate?

Please point to when Obama laid out specifics of his plans before being elected. He was so vague that a popular 'shopped photo during the time was his "CHANGE" poster with the words at the bottom reading "WE REFUSE TO DEFINE". Even when he was a senator, he hid his agenda by voting "present" most of the time. Then he got into office and passed legislation nobody had read, including himself.

So y'all here in the JT echo chamber can bleat the DNC talking points of "Romney not releasing details prior to election day" all you want, as it just exposes your blatant double standards. Keeping such details under wraps during the campaign is the normal practice. I realize it's all y'all have left now that Romney has released his tax records and shown that he's genuinely more charitable than any collectivist Leftist could ever pretend to be. But eventually this tactic will also fade into the irrelevant obscurity it deserves, and y'all will run out of distractions from Obama's failed foreign policies (Arab Spring) and economics (printing money, just for one).

"politically important Hispanics"

As opposed to politically important blacks, Asians or whites?

I figured that question would go unanswered.

Maybe he has to be elected before he can elaborate?

sailwind: Only if the spending cuts are addressed first and put in to place and actually doing cutting. There has never been real spending cuts enacted under both parties (even under Reagan). It has always been lip service, saying they will cut spending but they never do. The equation has two sides and right now its the spending that has to be addressed not the tax side of the equation. Deal with the problem that we have and that is entirely on the spending side.

Fair enough. And what is the plan for reducing the spending?

"Unbelievable, Romney is nothing more than a recycled Bush."

You're free to your thoughts of course.

As I've already stated, Romney doesn't have any concrete policy per se that we can properly discuss because he's a cardboard cut-out candidate, but I note you have avoided the one platform he does actually have - of tax cuts - at every turn. Why does that refusal to submit to arithmetic not surprise me?

I've watched the party faithful on JT one by one put your pegs on your noses and get behind Romney and bang the party drum as your preferred candidates were knocked out of the primaries, and frankly I would feel for you if I didn't find such denial quite frankly dangerous. Republicans with any sense wrote this election off years ago to concentrate on 2016, hence the guy on the ticket trailing the "worst president in history".

Great, so Obama owns the all the problems and the root causes of the evils and facts about the deficits are now to be excluded from the debate because they don't look good for Republican candidate Romney. Can you even hear yourself?

You've convinced me Madverts.

I should have been posting my thoughts as:

Unbelievable, Romney is nothing more than a recycled Bush.

tax cut policies....

"It also does no good to keep prattling along on how we got here. WE ARE HERE "

Great, so Obama owns the all the problems and the root causes of the evils and facts about the deficits are now to be excluded from the debate because they don't look good for Republican candidate Romney. Can you even hear yourself?

'The spending is out of control, the debt burden is killing any chance for future prosperity for our children and their children and you wish to discuss Bush and Clinton. Obama's policies are at issue now not theirs.'

Well it certainly isn't Romney's policy at issue is it Sailwind?

Some forty days from the election yet nobody knows for sure what he stands for, other than more deficient arithmetic from failed tax cute policies of the Republicans that you choose to ignore.

Superlib,

Just about everything I've read said it will take a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. Are you on board with that?

Only if the spending cuts are addressed first and put in to place and actually doing cutting. There has never been real spending cuts enacted under both parties (even under Reagan). It has always been lip service, saying they will cut spending but they never do. The equation has two sides and right now its the spending that has to be addressed not the tax side of the equation. Deal with the problem that we have and that is entirely on the spending side.

Once the cuts are in place, really in place then the tax side can be addressed.

sailwind: The spending is out of control, the debt burden is killing any chance for future prosperity for our children and their children

Everyone agrees that the debt has to be cut. We are on the same page about that. The question is how it will be done. Just about everything I've read said it will take a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. Are you on board with that?

I've no problem facing up the the shared reality of the debt, but you act like this is something new and recent, somehow owned by the Obama administration.

It is owned by the Obama administration. It was handed to him from the previous Administration and he promised he'd would deal with it. He promised:

Obama at a press conference where he says, "Today I am pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office."

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/may/17/crossroads-gps/crossroads-gps-ad-says-obama-failed-keep-pledge-ha/

FAIL.

It also does no good to keep prattling along on how we got here. WE ARE HERE and we need to deal with it or the country is going to be in far worse shape then it is now. The spending is out of control, the debt burden is killing any chance for future prosperity for our children and their children and you wish to discuss Bush and Clinton. Obama's policies are at issue now not theirs.

sailwind: My theory is that the race is as close as it is between the two is because deep down many Americans are wrestling with the fact that voting against him this time even though they voted for him the first time will somehow feel we have retreated backwards again instead of forward on race relations

I'm just really surprised to hear this argument. It came out of left field. We have the economy hitting us over the head every day and you are saying the election is coming down to people being too afraid to vote against a black President? I can see the how the argument can exist, but with the country teetering on the edge and most people realizing this, I can't imagine something like race guilt is keeping Obama ahead in the polls.

Putting all of the debates aside and focusing on the notion of compromise, would you be willing to enter into a situation where compromise is on the table if it allows the US to raise the debt ceiling, with each side giving up something in order to make the deal work?

It was an editorial in Newsweek that presented the idea that 47% of the population of the US are consumers of redistributed money while 53% are paying taxes. Romney has picked up on that. Then there was the article yesterday in the Rochester D&C that, while the median income in NY has decreased taxes have increased. And the government wonders why people aren't buying more stuff and stimulating the economy. So, when it comes to "getting around" I look at Romney as somebody who fixed the Salt Lake Olympics, who has done community service through his church, who has run a successful business. Those who don't like capitalism will disrespect that but I think those types don't understand how people earn a living - or are envious of the people who have done better.

So, is the US tax structure broken? Yep, loopholes everywhere that should be closed. Has Obama made one step to doing this? No. Has Obama gone after the bankers who helped percipitate the present economic problem? No. Has Obama closed Gitmo? No. Has Obama delivered on the economy? No. Does Obamacare stop the crazy price increases for health care or drugs? No. Obamacare simply takes more money from the people who pay taxes and gives it to the people who don't pay taxes. Now people will become even more dependent on the government.

Maybe Romney hasn't gotten around much, but Obama had the opportunity and muffed it. Why give him another four years to do nothing with?

Herve Nmn L'EisaSep. 21, 2012 - 03:42PM JST

GW, different strains of the same pandemic virus. Do your own homework.

HERVE, YOU ARE CUTE WHEN YOU ARE GONE MAD.

Madverts on fire! I wish I had your energy. Keep it up!

"We're living in this borrowed fantasy world, where the government keeps on borrowing money."

I've no problem facing up the the shared reality of the debt, but you act like this is something new and recent, somehow owned by the Obama administration. Republicans were warned in 2002 that you didn't have the kind of cash for the follies you were embarking upon. And even if I share your Bush Blinkers for a moment and ignore the trillions smoked in the middle east under Bush and pretend I didn't vote for him too, the national debt has been spiralling out of control for the past thirty odd years before Bush.

You seem to want to take it seriously since the proverbial hit the fan - shortly before Obama came to power - and claim anything before that are my hang-ups? Ok....

Former President Clinton, I know the left's favourite son, said it best at the DNC: "Don't you ever forget, when you hear them talking about this, that Republican economic policies quadrupled the national debt in the 12 years before I took office and doubled the debt in the eight years after I left, because it defied arithmetic."

I'm glad however that you personally are privy to Romney's policies Sailwind, because nobody else in the world has anything of substance to date from his campaign. You must share this secret knowledge of candidate Romney's policy, along with Ryan's secret tax-loophole policies (if you know them too) with American voters on the board, as I don't really count.

Let me say that what we do know on what has been said, is that Romney's proposed repeat of Bush's tax cuts will once again defy arithmetic - going far deeper than the Bush era. Somehow they would have a price tag of exactly "zero dollars" according to Romney, when even the Bush regime expected a 1.3 TRILLION price tag over nine years when they submitted their own cuts to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation......

If you're worried about printing dollars, work that one out for me. Hell, you're just starting to pay for Bush's cuts now......

Sailwind - amen brother. Even the headline to this one is rather amusing. Obama's experience included the insular world of Harvard, being a lawyer and then a 'community organizer'/career politician. Yeah, he knows all about the real world. Give me a break.

And perhaps if he would have not 'gotten around' so much during his presidency, not literally campaigned and vacationed through the whole thing, he could have done something to actually help rather than further damage the economy and our foreign policy.

@Herve

That's a totally inappropriate question, and none of anyone's business.

Don't know why I answered that question, felt like Mitt for a moment. This has been a long day for me, WOW!

Madverts,

Romney is in no way shape or form going to pursue anything like Bush's or Obama's economic policies. Bringing Bush up is in my opinion just saying "squirrel".

Romney gets it. On that secret video tape the part the Media doesn't use or cover he talks about it very bluntly when he answers a question from a member of the audience regarding the debt.

Yeah, it's interesting…the former head of Goldman Sachs, John Whitehead, was also the former head of the New York Federal Reserve. And I met with him, and he said as soon as the Fed stops buying all the debt that we're issuing—which they've been doing, the Fed's buying like three-quarters of the debt that America issues. He said, once that's over, he said we're going to have a failed Treasury auction, interest rates are going to have to go up. We're living in this borrowed fantasy world, where the government keeps on borrowing money. You know, we borrow this extra trillion a year, we wonder who's loaning us the trillion? The Chinese aren't loaning us anymore. The Russians aren't loaning it to us anymore. So who's giving us the trillion? And the answer is we're just making it up. The Federal Reserve is just taking it and saying, "Here, we're giving it.' It's just made up money, and this does not augur well for our economic future.

You know, some of these things are complex enough it's not easy for people to understand, but your point of saying, bankruptcy usually concentrates the mind. Yeah, George.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/full-transcript-mitt-romney-secret-video

"I could care less about your hang-ups with Bush."

Oh, well if that's the best response you have for me then I understand.

Madverts,

I could care less about your hang-ups with Bush. Obama was elected to fix what he inherited not to make it worse. That was his job, he has failed and failed miserably. Romney will not be tasked with fixing Bush's economic inheritance but Obama's if elected. And the sooner we get away from Obamanomics, which is the government goes into debt by spending money it doesn’t have to create jobs that don’t exist which generate wealth that never was that can then be taxed to create more debt the better.

Sailwind,

The mere fact that you suggested the US "deserved" to default on her debt for the sole reason Americans had elected a president you personally didn't want highlights indelibly Superlib's interpretation of the modern Republican party amounting to "my way or suicide"......

.....well, either that or you fail to understand the gravity had America defaulted on her debt on nothing more of a whim from an insane opposition, simply "because they could".

Honestly, you can't sit here with me and a straight face and complain about misuse of the company credit card after shouting down the opposition and cheering on Bush all those years, through the voodoo economics of trickle down tax (that never happened, oh and that Romney is apparently proposing to repeat) that actually trickled down to no one, the heady era of "deficits don't matter" (remember that?) or even the trillions upon trillions of borrowed cash Bush squandered on unhinged and idealogical wars in ungrateful lands where many American boys lost their lives.....

We've known each other a long time you know - and I persevere, frankly, because I know deep down you're a thinker and I refuse to write you off the way I do some of the right-wing trolls that grace us with their presence. Fact is, and as others have already said before me, Barrack Obama is more than likely to take this election - in spite of the challenges facing America -in spite of the high unemployment - and in spite of the borderline criminal, partisan obstruction he's had to deal with. That alone, for me anyway, would be enough to stand back and have a good look at things differently.

Though Obama's economic policy alone is reason for his impeachment, his record on human rights and assassination are grounds for being prosecuted as a war criminal.

Read what Glen Greenwald(my favorite liberal) has to say on that matter: http://www.salon.com/2012/05/30/how_extremism_is_normalized/?mobile.html

@Mirai, addendum to my post earlier: Japan has a great example of a private mail service that charges the exact same prices as (or less than) the goverment service: Yamato. You can send a letter up to A4 size for the same 80 yen that the regular post office will only send a small envelope for, and you can send a 2-cm thick A4 envelope for 160 yen, which is cheaper than the post office. This is a private company that doesn't use people's tax money to operate.

"do you pay taxes to the US?"

That's a totally inappropriate question, and none of anyone's business.

Have you ever wondered how a letter can travel from California to New York and only cost $0.45?? Do you honestly believe it actually costs that little? Of course not. It's all possible because of redistribution of income.

Mirai, the low price of mailing a letter is due more to economies of scale than redistribution of income. Your letter with its 45c stamp goes into a big sack full of thousands of similar letters, and all the ones going to a given ZIP code get sent together.

If there's something unfair here, it's that you pay the same price no matter how far, domestically, the letter goes. The "redistribution", such as it is, comes from people who pay 45c to send a letter across town who subsidize people who pay the same amount to send a letter from Florida to Alaska. It has nothing to do with richer people subsidizing poor people.

Very well and bravely said, Sailwind. The current political environment is very charged, but the policies of the current administration would not be tolerated or cheered with a candidate of full Caucasian ancestry. Hard truth.

Romney's a plastic Ken doll with no heart. I voted for Obama.

If you have a better theory as to why Romney is trailing a President with 8% unemployment, I'll be more than happy to read it.

Superlib,

My apologies for the late response to your post. This will take a bit of finesse as may answer may easily be misconstrued or twisted by many, as it will touch upon a sensitive subject that has been used polarize, stifle, shame or silence any meaningful real discussion, but out of respect for your posts all these years an honest response is earned and required.

My opinion why Romney is still trailing depending on who's polls believe is because the vast majority of Americans were able to realize something they never would have expected in their lifetimes just a few short years ago. Obama's election was historic and it made almost all Americans proud myself included though I did not vote for him out of pure policy and approach differences as to government and my fiscal conservative principles.

With Obama's election, America had finally cashed that check that Martin Luther King's speech in 1961 had so beautifully stated and referred to, and I quote:

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we've come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.

America had elected her first Black President and the check was finally cashed. It is very hard for many American's to not give up on President Obama no matter how inept or bad he has handled his Presidency. This unfortunately is partly because of America's complicated history with race and if one is honest, Obama's election does have a factor of redemption for an historical past that wasn't exactly America's shining moment in living up her promises to all her citizens.

I believe if this was not a factor and if Obama was of pure European ancestry that with his policies and performance Romney would in fact be way ahead at this point. My theory is that the race is as close as it is between the two is because deep down many Americans are wrestling with the fact that voting against him this time even though they voted for him the first time will somehow feel we have retreated backwards again instead of forward on race relations, and no one I know of good conscience and faith no matter what politics one may have wants ever to see America go in that direction again.

They wish his policies would have been successful and he would have been successful but he has not and its not an easy choice to now vote against him as it has the feeling of somehow putting oneself back into a time when America still wasn't ready to accept a Black President.

With respect Superlib.

Sailwind

Poor Mitt - whiplash seems to be getting to him. He's now the ADD candidate; he can't seem to focus on any one thing, instead grabbing at the newest shiny, shiny tossed up by the media. Obama's 14-year old clip about redistribution is up-the-middle mainstream when read in context and will not last the weekend. Mitt's new toy is Obama's claim of frustration that outside pressure - pressure from the people - is required for change in Washington. Mitt demurs: he'd do it on his own! This is also unlikely to last the weekend.

Thus are wasted by that hapless campaign another trio of dwindling days. One wonders what we'll see next week: Mitt claiming that he can, on his own, cure cancer? His list of unsupported (and unsupportable) claims has grown comically long. Perhaps he need concentrate on a cure for ADD, if that is not an oxymoron.

Mitt is a tempest in a teacup, as are the conservative "arguments" posted above. The majority of Americans do not buy into them - for good reason - and simply reiterating them more vociferously will not change opinions. The irony that Mitt called Obama's supporters "more European than American" - perhaps he'd better find a more suitable country.

Mirai, I realize with your limited comprehension and seemingly low IQ, rational facts would be hard for you to follow. Poor dear. While it's true that medical knowledge and technology in the 19th century(that's the 1800's) was primitive in comparison to today's medical advancements as evidenced by high infant mortality, shorter life expectancy, diseases, and starvation in the mini-ice age were indeed higher than today, none if those points are even remotely relevant in the economic/taxation discussion. As for your assertion regarding crime, police corruption, and homelessness are concerned, this is based on what empirical data? Regarding poverty, during which decades are you referring? During the War between the Union and Confederacy and the so-called Reconstruction, poverty was the result of Federal Government making war impoverishing both North and South, but the South especially. Your argument (was there even one?) is based on New Deal fabrications? Really??

Most people don't realize what a privileged life Obama had. The story is so different from reality. But it's working.

I pay taxes, yes. I do in the states and in Japan.

@Mirai

Wrong again... you went private school then? You've never used a public toilet, or asked for help from the >police? You've never driven on a street or flushed a toilet? You've never sent a letter through the postal system >or been to a park.

You are really over-extending yourself now, huh? Just a tad.

If you said to any of these, then you have taken a dime from the government. As a matter of fact you have >taken many dimes.

Not that many. I believe in Hard work and not being lazy, that's why I got money.

If you said no, then you are a complete liar, because we all have. Unless you're like 1 day old, then its >inconceivable that you've never used a government provided service.

Yeah and so, I understand your point in a nutshell, but as far as going to private school and working HARD for a living, I never believed in taking any money from the government and I am not talking about the little trivial things you were talking about, I meant on a massive scale. Everything I own was from hard work, because I had a father who kicked me in the *** even though we had money, I never got a dime from him and I worked and I did whatever to make money, I was never too proud what kind of job it was, but some of my liberal relatives told me to get some bogus government job and I flatly refused. I don't want any part of the governments help, nothing wrong with it, but for me, that is something I would never strive for. So NO, I didn't take anything from the government!

@bass4funk

do you pay taxes to the US?

@Mirai

Ayayay! Just because you didn't hear it, doesn't mean it was never mentioned. He's mentioned it several times >now. He mentioned it at the DNC and he mentioned it just the other night on Letterman. He also mentions it >over and over again in his campaign speeches. As Obama said to Mittens: "you don't get around much"

No, sir, he didn't. He never mentioned anything about the affordable healthcare act, about EXACTLY how he plans to tackle the rising debt, pay for Obamacare...oh, my mistake, it was a minuscule of a speech. Maybe I blinked, because I missed it. I get around, I used to work for the media, I am very well aware.

Under Bush, 3.5 million jobs were lost. So if you want blame someone for job losses, you can blame Bush!

Because of Obama's failures and proven track record that he is the worst President for the private sector, but for the moochers, he's a Christmas blessing. But I know, it's in Y'alls blood to deny and deny again and again.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/madeleine-albright-campaigns-for-obama-were-going-to-blame-bush-forever/article/2505479

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/president-obama-and-the-bush-blame-game/2011/08/30/gIQA4n94pJ_blog.html

And the beat goes on....and the beat goes ooooon....and the beat goes ooooon...

Did your liberal math and the numbers don't add up, even Obama cannot claim success as you might think. Once again, but I know how you feel, I used to have to take Caster Oil when I was a kid, hated it, but couldn't admit to my mom that the stuff was God awful, but I had to man up and take the darn stuff. Food for thought.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/09/private-sector-job-growth-under-obama-what-are-the-facts.php

Get the facts right, buddy.

@herve

You're statements are so incoherent, I have a hard time understanding you, but I'll try.

First of all, during this golden time when there was so tax or social security, there was massive poverty, sickness, and disease. The homeless senior citizen population was overwhelming, infant deaths were at an all time high, and life expectancy was like age 45. Crime was high, because the police were corrupt, and only the super wealthy were getting educated.

I don't where you live but every society needs redistribution to exist. 0 taxes is impossible unless you live in a very rural area with a very small population. In a country of over 300 million people, 0 is not only impossible it's very irresponsible

SuprLib, that's what Liberty is all about, and how/why the Founding Fathers fought against the oppression of the British. In fact, under the Articles of Confederation(remember those?) there was liberty in a much greater sense than today. The biggest fear in the days of the Constitutional debates was that it would devolve into a tyranny, which as it turns out was a rational fear as Lincoln proved to be what even liberals term "the benevolent dictator ".

The herd of unicorns, friend, are in your camp.

Restore the Constitutional Republic, that's the patriotic duty.

Madverts,

I'm quite glad you brought it up as I have watched your own slide to political extremism unfold over the last few years. Last year you called for the US to default on its' debt joining the madness from the newly empowered GOP and it's one and only policy of obstructionism being devoid of any ideas of creativity of their now

I'll refresh your memory about my slide to "extremism"......Your referring to a comment I made regarding raising the debt ceiling so the Government can keep borrowing more and more then it takes in.

From sailwindJul. 29, 2011 - 08:34PM JST

Did it occur to anyone that the U.S actually deserves to default and have her credit rating downgraded? Our spending is out of control and there is no fiscal sanity anywhere evident in Washington. Until we learn to live with in our means we do not deserve to be able to borrow as we please or be considered a good credit risk. We have not earned our good credit rating since Obama became President and until we change course and get our spending under control and grow our economy through the hard work of the private sector to put people back to work should we bitch that our country defaulted and was downgraded as a not so good credit risk.

http://www.japantoday.com/category/world/view/house-republicans-delay-vote-on-debt-limit-spending-cuts

I will also point out a story that really didn't make the rounds in the Media or on J.T from just 6 days ago.

September 14, 2012 5:09 PM

Ratings firm downgrades U.S. credit

Credit rating agency Egan-Jones is downgrading its rating on U.S. debt to AA- from AA, citing Federal Reserve plans to try to stimulate the economy.

The firm said the Fed's plans to buy mortgage bonds will likely hurt the economy more than help it. Egan-Jones said the plan will reduce the value of the dollar and raise the price of oil and other commodities, hurting businesses and consumers.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57513390/ratings-firm-downgrades-u.s-credit/

Should've stopped the madness as I pointed out then instead of going further and further down the debt tank and keep killing the worlds economy with every borrowed dollar.

Mirai, " First of all (and sorry to answer a question with a question but...) Do you think its fair for a person who's making $50k a year be taxed 25% of his income, when a person making $20M year is taxed less than 15%. At the very least, shouldn't both people be taxed at the same rate? Would you agree with me on that point?"

Yes, at 0 %, which it was for most of US history and during which time government was largely chained down appropriately to the chagrin of Hamiltonians. The other herring promoted is the fallacy of the "fair share". That's the brainwashing.

sailwind: It has been a constant theme that you both refer to all the time that the Republican party has been hijacked by the extremists in the party. This does not square with the facts. As leader of the Democratic party and its policies the American people held a referendum on Obama and his party in the November 2010 mid-terms. Democrats at the National Level, State Level and Local level were given their walking papers in droves across the entire country. The Democratic party got "shellacked" as President Obama stated.

I'm not sure why you are using election results in Congress from years ago as evidence of how people feel about Obama when he is currently in an election and winning. Seems to me that would be a more credible referendum. And right now he is winning. I said before that Republicans will have some victories in Congress. They have the cable shock jocks, AM radio, and the "tell me I'm always right" section of the media who make group efforts to elect help target and elect certain Republicans when they can. The Democrats do not have that. Republicans will be able to assemble enough voters in certain parts of the country but over time their victories will be fewer. And as a rule of thumb, Americans like one party controlling the White House and another having more power in Congress. But that won't last forever when people come around to the fact that their platform is "my way or suicide."

The Republicans that were elected were not put into office to compromise with Obama.

And that's the problem. Many Republicans today are guided by ideology, and that's dangerous. You simply cannot have a government function if people are not able to compromise, and you are telling me that the elected people have a goal of not compromising. Reasonable politicians can find a way to get things done for the good of the entire country, even with those who disagree with them. The ideological Republicans are more apt to put a gun into the mouths of Americans and threaten to pull the trigger if they don't get what they want. Like with the debt ceiling.

If you have a better theory as to why the Republicans where swept back into power in Congress in just two short years after the unpopular Bush years, I'll be more than happy to read it.

If you have a better theory as to why Romney is trailing a President with 8% unemployment, I'll be more than happy to read it. Republican leaders have now reached the point where they are talking about the dangers of people like the Tea Party. When your own party is trying to get you to take it down a notch, you might want to listen. They have no desire to put the party in that position but even they can see how it's creating problems that might sink the nation.

I LOVE JT! Factual and entertaining at the same time. (I totally mean this) One thing though, some posters fight like my ex, bringing up crap that took place years and years ago! Get over it!

@Alphaape

Where to start...where to start...

Why should someone who had to work to get ahead all of a sudden have to give up part of what they have made to make it "fair" for someone else?

First of all (and sorry to answer a question with a question but...) Do you think its fair for a person who's making $50k a year be taxed 25% of his income, when a person making $20M year is taxed less than 15%. At the very least, shouldn't both people be taxed at the same rate? Would you agree with me on that point?

As it stands now, the wealthy spend a lot of money on tax lawyers to scrutinize the tax laws so that the can get away with paying as little as possible. Romney is one of these people. Some are so good at this, that they pay no taxes or actually get a tax refund. Is this fair???

Secondly, no one is saying that the rich should give hand outs to the poor. What we're saying is that there should be government programs setup so that everyone gets a chance to succeed, whether it'd be through education grants or low interest loans for those who worked very hard through school to get good grades. Also, unemployment happens. In an ideal society, everyone should be able to go out and get a job with no issues. But we don't live in that kind of society, especially now. People still need food, housing, clothing, etc...the basics so they don't wind up homeless and on the streets. These programs are designed to help these people get assistance until they can get a job. I don't see ANYTHING wrong with that. Yes, sure there a people who try to take advantage of these programs, but Clinton/Obama has made it difficult for that to happen. Many people who have been on these programs, have gone on to succeed and become prominent figures in society. George Romney (Mitt's father), the Castro brothers, and Scott Walker just to name a few. None of these people are asking the government to feed them for life. They're asking for help until they are able to manage themselves, and possible go on to do bigger and greater things.

In order for these programs to succeed, they need money. And you cannot expect these programs to work strictly off of taxes from the middle class like they have been. EVERYBODY has to pitch in their fair share and that's all that Obama is saying.

Those things that you describe are the functions of the government. That is what we pay taxes for.

And that is the very definition of redistribution of income. We pay for things that are provided later to us. Have you ever wondered how a letter can travel from California to New York and only cost $0.45?? Do you honestly believe it actually costs that little? Of course not. It's all possible because of redistribution of income. If you sent that same letter the same distance using UPS or FedEx (both privatized mail couriers) it would run you anywhere from $20 to $50 or more. But all of this works only if we all chip in. If everyone got tax breaks, none of it will work.

Another example is public school systems. Did your parents get a bill every month from your school to pay for you education and books during elementary, middle, and high school? Probably not right? (unless you went to private school). That's because it was all paid for by other people in your community. Taxes (redistribution of income) made that possible. Does that make you a free loading bum? No. Its just taking advantage of what you are entitled to.

When you say the US should go to redistribution, let's take a look at history and Stalin and the USSR.

The US is nowhere near a complete socialist or communist state as was in the USSR. The soviet citizens were not allowed to any possession of land, homes, or businesses. They were all government property. You would work your tail off and get a small salary to get incidentals; everything else was provided by the government. The last time I was in the States, I didn't see any bread lines. You guys are so brainwashed by the likes of people like Glenn Beck and other Fox News pundits, that you actually believe we are heading into a completely socialist state which is INSANE! If you REALLY want to know what a communist country is REALLY like, go to China. I've been there and its not even close to what the US is. As a matter of fact they are striving to be more like us in many ways because they KNOW our systems works better.

Bottom line: No, I repeat NO country can EVER function well in a completely socialist or completely capitalist economy. Its impossible China, N. Korea and the USSR are just example of how communism failed. Likewise, if we went to a completely capitalist economy, we would fail. There would be mass corruption, money hoarding, monopolization of industries. The US never has been and never should be a 100% capitalist economy. You have to strike a balance between the two so that there is very little or no poverty, we receive all of the essential services for free or for a low cost, and where we can make money where in areas where many can be made without corruption. Most importantly, we should be pulling in human resources from all over the world and educating them so we can have the next Steve Jobs, Mark Zukerbergs, or Barack Obama's in our society.

Romney Regime / Obama Regime, all the same!

Herve Nmn L'Eisa: Mad, yes! But some people mistakenly understand anarchy to mean mayhem, which it isn't.

You have no plan. You can talk about the evils of taxation until you are blue in the face, but unless you present a credible and workable alternative, you are just herding unicorns.

Alpha, I hear you. I read that article, too. Notice no one has tried to dismantle the inconvenient facts to which you referred.

If you have a better theory as to why the Republicans where swept back into power in Congress in just two short years after the unpopular Bush years, I'll be more than happy to read it.

Sailwind, the fringe republicans realized they had a black President. That explains over half of the 2010 elections. The tax issue is a hoax as no one from the republican party prevented bush from bankrupting the fed budget after Clinton let it is surplus with some projections at the time saying that the US debt would be wiped out entirely in a decade if Clintons policies were held in place. They were not obviously. And if elected the republicans will do the same thing but applying corporate welfare again and reducing revenue, taxes on the rich, to historic lows.

Regarding the phony economics from the familiar sources, of course new alias, it would not pass a 6th grade home economics test.

"It has been a constant theme that you both refer to all the time that the Republican party has been hijacked by the extremists in the party."

It is more like everyone else on the planet bar the radicals on the right wing that have noted this shift to radicalism that began at the turn of the century. Just note the recent comments from Australia that couldn't be closer to the truth. I'm quite glad you brought it up as I have watched your own slide to political extremism unfold over the last few years. Last year you called for the US to default on its' debt joining the madness from the newly empowered GOP and it's one and only policy of obstructionism being devoid of any ideas of creativity of their own.

"If you have a better theory as to why the Republicans where swept back into power in Congress in just two short years after the unpopular Bush years"

I already have and did for you at the time. Voters were impatient that Obama failed to fix thirty odd years of problems in 18 months, failing clearly to realize the predicament that was by and large created by Republicans and their chronicled failure with arithmetic.

" It was Obama who did not learn from the Mid-Term elections and did not pivot toward to middle. Not the other way around."

I disagree - it is the other way around. Obama wasted his time trying to reach across the aisles to selfish Republicans determined on obstructionism before the mid-terms.

The mid-terms are gone and forgotten Sailwind, the Republicans have given nothing positive since that victory other than making America more bitter and divided. Romney is set to lose this election, probably very badly - perhaps you should return back to us in the middle and analyse how this can be with all your perceived failures and short-comings from President Obama?

Superlib, Madverts,

It has been a constant theme that you both refer to all the time that the Republican party has been hijacked by the extremists in the party. This does not square with the facts. As leader of the Democratic party and its policies the American people held a referendum on Obama and his party in the November 2010 mid-terms. Democrats at the National Level, State Level and Local level were given their walking papers in droves across the entire country. The Democratic party got "shellacked" as President Obama stated.

The Republicans that were elected were not put into office to compromise with Obama. They were elected to stop Obama and his policies just as Scott Brown, a Republican took over Ted Kennedy's seat in the deep, deep blue state of Massachusetts was elected to try and stop Obama-care from being passed. They are doing what their constituents want and expect them to do which is put a stop to Obama and his overall policies and direction he is taking the country. It was Obama who did not learn from the Mid-Term elections and did not pivot toward to middle. Not the other way around.

If you have a better theory as to why the Republicans where swept back into power in Congress in just two short years after the unpopular Bush years, I'll be more than happy to read it.

Quoted from Thomas DiLorenzo,

" Calhoun further warned that the power to tax will inevitably be used "for the purpose of aggrandizing and building up one portion of the community at the expense of another," which will "give rise to . . . violent conflicts and struggles between the two competing parties." Stay tuned, Americans, and pay attention to what has happened in places like Greece.

Calhoun also understood that the totalitarian-minded enemies of a free society (i.e., most politicians of all parties) would say and do anything to destroy all roadblocks to their totalitarian dreams. Thus, "it is a great mistake," Calhoun wrote, to suppose that a written Constitution would be sufficient to protect individual liberty because the party in power "will always have no need of [constitutional] restrictions." As Andrew Napolitano pointed out in his book, The Constitution in Exile, the U.S. Supreme Court failed to strike down a single piece of federal legislation as unconstitutional from 1937 to 1995, and precious little since then. The government’s "Supreme Court" long ago became what Alexander Hamilton wanted it to become: a rubber stamp operation for anything and everything the state ever wants to do.

Such men as Hamilton and his political descendants would use "cunning, falsehood, deception, slander, fraud, and gross appeals to the appetites of the lowest and most worthless portions of the community," Calhoun predicted, until "the restrictions [of the Constitution] would be ultimately annulled, and the government be converted into one of unlimited powers." Calhoun wrote this in 1850; the succeeding 162 years proved him to be prescient."

John C Calhoun, from his magisterial 1850 Disquisition on Government :

"When once formed," Calhoun wrote, a political community "will be divided into two great parties – a major and minor – between which there will be incessant struggles on the one side to retain, and on the other to obtain the majority . . . . " Consequently, "some portion of the community must pay in taxes more than it receives back in disbursements; while another receives in disbursements more than it pays in taxes."

The community is thus divided into "two great classes – one consisting of those who . . . pay the taxes . . . and the other, of those who are the recipients of their proceeds." This will in turn lead to "one class or portion of the community [being] elevated to wealth and power, and the other depressed to abject poverty and dependence, simply by the fiscal action of the government."

@ Mirai:

When you say the US should go to redistribution, let's take a look at history and Stalin and the USSR. Stalin confiscated the wealth of successful farmers, which led to food being scarce and millions died of starvation in the USSR in the 1930's. This happened because you can only redistribute wealth that exists in a given moment, and not from future earnings. Future wealth is less likely to be produced if the people who are working to make it are going to get large amounts of it taken away by the government. The farmers in the old USSR simply cut back on production, and took younger livestock and consumed it when it normally would have been brought to market to supply the populace. So I guess in your view, in order to prevent this you plan on the government to get there first and make sure goods are redistributed first. Look at Cuba, Castro's policies drove the successful Cubans to leave with them taking some of their wealth and leaving the majority of it in Cuba. What did this result in? Still nore poor people in Cuba, and those who did flee to America and start over and some did build wealth again and they are better off than the still poor in Cuba.

That was surmized from an article that was linked in an earlier post, but what you need to take away is that when people are faced with the prospect of having their wealth (I'm not talking about corporate jets but the fruits of their labors) unfairly taken away and given to others who did not work for it, they will tend to say why bother I may as well just coast like the rest, and you get an overall decline in human capital.

I would say this, the next person that is some political elite that talks about redistributing wealth, I would like for them to start off by them giving up some of their own, such as special privileges for getting into elite schools and other things that many liberals seem to think is unfair. Let them give first.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

Is this what you like, mirai, SS, et al.?

" I have a bad feeling that they will have an easier time pushing the button and blowing us all up if the US doesn't conform to what they want it to be."

That perfectly sums up the my way or the highway brinkmanship that passes for policy from today's radicals in the GOP. They'd rather sink everyone to get their own way.

Personally I think it's a pretty good case for trying such individuals for treason, putting their own partisan interests before the good of the country. It certainly also illustrates the dangers of a two-party system.

In about 45 days the Republicans are going to wake up and realize that they just lost to a President who is sitting on an 8+ percent unemployment rate. And it's going to hit them hard.

They will have 2 options at that point. They can realize that they have radicalized a certain percentage of the population who will always support them, and they can play obstructionist and hold on to the little piece of America that they have carved out for themselves and drag the entire country down with them while they continue to battle for Congress. Or they can realize that pandering to radicals is over, that they do not have a large enough voting block to ever get the White House again, and if they ever want to win the Big Seat they'll have to move more towards the center to capture moderates.

At this point they should realize that their nomination process is flawed beyond repair. They cannot continue to try to "out conservative" the other Republicans and then present that man for all of American to vote on. That man can't win a national election. Just imagine if the unemployment rate were 5%. Obama would be leading by 20+ points. Even under a nightmare scenario for the Democrats, Obama is still beating Romney handily. If that doesn't tell you your party is a sinking ship, I don't know what will.

The "take everyone down" bomb that the Republicans can still play will be the debt ceiling. That will be the real test for them. If they allow it to pass, then they've taken the first step in realizing that they need to change something if they hope to be President again. Or they can take the entire country hostage and demand that their conditions be met or else they'll sink the entire ship. Maybe they can't be President, but maybe they can get their way if they put a gun to all of our heads. The smart ones will see the demographics on the wall and will force change in the party. I just hope there are enough smart ones left. I have a bad feeling that they will have an easier time pushing the button and blowing us all up if the US doesn't conform to what they want it to be.

The Fallacy of Redistribution

http://lewrockwell.com/sowell/sowell113.html

Read it.

Wrong again... you went private school then? You've never used a public toilet, or asked for help from the police? You've never driven on a street or flushed a toilet? You've never sent a letter through the postal system or been to a park.

@ Mirai Hayashi: Those things that you describe are the functions of the government. That is what we pay taxes for. Everyone has those services, and as I pointed out, that is what gives people the "equal opportunity" to succeed. Funny thing though, recently for some of these services you pointed out, in addition to paying for them in taxes, many local governments now assess you "fees" (code word: traxes) to use them. If you call 911 in LA and an ambulance comes out, you the victim have to pay. Garbage service used to be free (as part of your local city tax), now they charge you in some cities for doing the job that they have taxed you for.

You are getting confused on what the role of government should be and where it ends. Using your logic, then people who get sewage and other services from the government, then have an obligation to join the military by a draft, since after all they have been able to succeed with the government help, and if the government has a need for more in the military, then they have to join in order to be "equal" in your view.

If Obama's economy were even mildly successful, this incumbent president would be a shoe-in for another 4 years.

But that is not the case, and Obama is on the defensive.

"We've gone through a challenging time. People want a hand up, not a handout," Obama said.

You have not "gone through" anything, Mr. President. Your policies have not affected your employment status, these past 4 years-

But that is about to change.

Mad, yes! But some people mistakenly understand anarchy to mean mayhem, which it isn't.

He does not promote socialism; all he is saying is that he believes that there should be some degree of redistribution to give a everyone a fair shake and the opportunity to succeed. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT?

@ Mirai Hayashi: Why should someone who had to work to get ahead all of a sudden have to give up part of what they have made to make it "fair" for someone else? When you pay taxes, you are contributing. Going after someone for more will not make things fair or even. We do have a system for everyone in America to have the opportunity to succeed, it's called a free public education system. It is full of problems, I am well aware of, so if you think that the government will be able to just magically come up with a formula to redistribute what others have made to those who didn't, when they can't even get our school systems working to ensure that everyone has an "equal opportunity" to succeed.

I would suggest you read a series of articles that have come out on the Washingto Examiner website, that is a 12 part article on the actual background on Obama. Stuff about him and his past that was simply ignored when he was a candidate in 2008, and if it were known, Hillary would be in office now.

As far as redistribution goes, take a look at the area that Obama did represent when he was a state senator now. That part of Chicago has one of the highest murder rates for Blacks, and unemployment rate for Blacks is almost twice the national level, and that redistribution he was talking about for example in housing, Obama was behind programs that led to many poor Black families being evicted from their homes so that others could make profits on building new homes and other real estate deals.

So much for "redistribution" for giving everyone a "fair share." Read the 12 part articles, and find out for yourself.

When the US economy implodes, whether the EU precedes it or not, it'll be far worse than the 1930's depression. Be prepared.

"Taxes : Theft of personal property under threat of violence at gunpoint."

What's the other option, anarchy?

GW, different strains of the same pandemic virus. Do your own homework.

Taxes : Theft of personal property under threat of violence at gunpoint.

While libtard posters have been here regurgitating the usual nonsense, I was out working, creating wealth, and no you can't have any of mine. You do know what work is, right?

Herve, so? You are not saying anything here. What did you make you call Mirai and SS nonsense? Go to the point and let me hear.

have the Greeks defaulted so many times?

US and Greece have different problems. Please explain how the 11T debt has been created? US has neverr defaulted in the past and never will. You are now bringing up Argentina, that's also have different reason. Please reserch each economy first and post your comment, Herve. Thanks.

Mirai, you haven't addressed the morality of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

GW, a question for you: explain the depression of 1920-1921. How did government intervention speed the recovery, and why did it take 18 years to recover from the next?

Mirai and SS, each and every one of your pro-tax/"free" service arguments fall flat.

Tell me how...entertain me!

Mirai and SS, each and every one of your pro-tax/"free" service arguments fall flat.

While libtard posters have been here regurgitating the usual nonsense, I was out working, creating wealth, and no you can't have any of mine. You do know what work is, right?

Why have the Greeks defaulted so many times? Taxation and redistribution. How about Argentina? More of the same but a different flavor. The present developed countries are all currently circling the drain for the very same reasons. Quoting all the figures and statistics created by your betters obfuscates the plain truth.

Doesn't going to polo tournaments to watch his million dollar horses count as getting out?

The Mitstake just leaves himself wide open for criticism.

@Bass

I paid my own way. I never took a dime from the government and never will. Thanks though.

Wrong again... you went private school then? You've never used a public toilet, or asked for help from the police? You've never driven on a street or flushed a toilet? You've never sent a letter through the postal system or been to a park.

If you said to any of these, then you have taken a dime from the government. As a matter of fact you have taken many dimes.

If you said no, then you are a complete liar, because we all have. Unless you're like 1 day old, then its inconceivable that you've never used a government provided service.

"The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract."

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

You look at things from a liberal economical income redistribution view and fine, I respect that, but I don't follow that ideology at all and I don't share Obama's Socialist revisionist ideas of an America. Obama had his chance and he blew it. If you have better things to do, maybe you should look into how Obama's failed economical policies are destroying America from the bottom up on every level, surely you have time for looking into that.

bass, here we go again. Your ideology is not solid at all.

I have a question for you.

1)What is a study of Economics?

2)Please name a country that is purely Capitalistic?

3) If you oppose the income distribution, what is an alternative economic model?

4)Where did Obama economic policies failed while he had saved this country from going to the Depression in 2008? What else could he have done better? Remember this is a global economy unlike 1930.

4) Why did Bush left his office with 11T billion in debt and hand it over to Obama? Remember, when Bush took office, we did not have any debt. Whose fault is that?

That means it's time to raise taxes.

Did that, didn't work, in fact it was quite the opposite, as you can see in Europe and America.

Sure it is, kept us safe, I was fine, people were fine. I don't particularly care about appeasement of our enemies. I leave that up to the Liberals. As we saw in Libya and the ME, OBama gets a straight F=for flunked and failure! As I said, I want a strong defense!

Remind us again who gave enough of a damn to keep hounding OBL when your boy bush gave up?

They all helped, Clinton and Bush and Obama, but I give MORE cred to the SEALS, CIA, FBI and other intelligence agencies. They get the big high fives, they are the people that CAUGHT OBL, remember that. Again, nice try. ;-)

And then go to the middle. ... And perhaps win.

Hey, it worked for McCain. ;)

@Sushi

As I said, no need for that, human error.

And are you aware that the redistributed taxes you loathe helped pay for your education that has - apparently >- failed you? :-)

I paid my own way. I never took a dime from the government and never will. Thanks though.

Wrong again BOB!!! Unemployment is down. Down from 8.3 from last month and down from10.3 from 2009. Admittedly slow, but could be worse....we could be losing jobs (like we did under Bush -nearly 800,000 jobs /month under Bush) Which would you choose? Losing 800,000 jobs/mo or gaining 100,000 job / mo...no brainer there right?

First of all, who is Bob? I think you are confusing me with someone else. 8.3 to 8.1% ...so we have 32 million Americans still unemployed, welfare, unemployment benefits on the rise. I see, soooo Blacks and Latinos doing better under Obama? NOPE! Blacks 14.4%, Hispanics 11%, Whites 7.3% Or did you forget about them, Oh, I am sorry, implying that would be racist. So, NO, not a cigar, not good.

We've gained 4.5M private sector jobs, so your statement that its "NOT happening" is wrong. This naturally >translates to welfare going down. More jobs=less people on welfare.

http://times247.com/articles/is-obama-starting-a-u-s-welfare-state http://politicalnews.me/?id=15641&keys=WELFARE-TANF-WORK-BEDREST

On the so called Obama job creation in the private sector

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/09/private-sector-job-growth-under-obama-what-are-the-facts.php

True...but corporations are very FAR from being overtaxed. Their tax rate has been the lowest in DECADES. >And if and when they are raised, it will be far from crippling. Most likely, they will be much lower that they >were under Clinton.

Flat out lie.

Wrong again BOB...boy , you're on a roll today. There were more people under welfare under Bush than Obama.

Again, who is this Bob? Wow, you really like that kool aid that Daily Kos and TP is giving you, sadly you are totally wrong on that, but hey, Daily Kos thinks times are good, we are doing fine. Even in my home state of CA, many people think, life is good, but the state is bankrupt. Liberals, ROFL...gotta love them.

@Bass

By the way, your president never, ever mentioned anything about the $16T debt...$6T lol and counting, the Affordable Health Care Act and the 8.1% unemployment, the National Debt, NO mention of it. Not a word about increasing jobs in the Private sector, just Government, government, abortion, abortion and immigration and immigration.

Ayayay! Just because you didn't hear it, doesn't mean it was never mentioned. He's mentioned it several times now. He mentioned it at the DNC and he mentioned it just the other night on Letterman. He also mentions it over and over again in his campaign speeches. As Obama said to Mittens: "you don't get around much"

So under Obama we have lost more jobs since the great depression.

Geez...what a stupid over the top lie this is. We've lost about 550,000 jobs under Obama. 12 million jobs were lost in the great depression. 550,000 versus 12million....arithmetic....LEARN IT. Under Bush, 3.5 million jobs were lost. So if you want blame someone for job losses, you can blame Bush!

Quote of the Day:

Republican candidates for Congress are now trying to detach themselves from Romney. One said: "I just don't think that any of our members are tied to Romney at all." But this is just opportunism. When the top of the ticket is polling well, congressional candidates tell the voters they are needed in Congress to help carry out the President's program. There is none of that among Republicans this year.

http://electoral-vote.com/

Bass - " that means we are spending more then we are taking in,"

That means it's time to raise taxes.

Bass - "And let's not even start on his foreign policies."

Yes, let's not. It would humiliate Republixans yet again. Foreign policy isn't really the GOP's strong point this cycle is it now?

Remind us again who gave enough of a damn to keep hounding OBL when your boy bush gave up?

@Bass

To a point yes, but also you need to increase growth in the private sector which is NOT happening in order to generate taxes and revenue, but again that is NOT happening, welfare is up, unemployment is up. Over taxing is NEVER, EVER the answer, creating jobs is, but since Obama is doing well for the last 43 months of over 8%...

Wrong again BOB!!! Unemployment is down. Down from 8.3 from last month and down from10.3 from 2009. Admittedly slow, but could be worse....we could be losing jobs (like we did under Bush -nearly 800,000 jobs /month under Bush) Which would you choose? Losing 800,000 jobs/mo or gaining 100,000 job / mo...no brainer there right?

We've gained 4.5M private sector jobs, so your statement that its "NOT happening" is wrong. This naturally translates to welfare going down. More jobs=less people on welfare.

Over taxing is NEVER, EVER the answer, creating jobs is,

True...but corporations are very FAR from being overtaxed. Their tax rate has been the lowest in DECADES. And if and when they are raised, it will be far from crippling. Most likely, they will be much lower that they were under Clinton.

Yep, that is why Obama wins hands down as the Welfare President, King of taxes. ;-)

Wrong again BOB...boy , you're on a roll today. There were more people under welfare under Bush than Obama.

Source: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/01/newts-faulty-food-stamp-claim/

@Sushi

You are the road scholar, you did see the bass clef, I hope. Little Resemblance to a Snapper. ;-)

21 straight months of job creation not good enough for you? :-)

What about the other 32 million that are unemployed?

@Mirai

Chill, bro. Don't get mad because what you see is fact and on ink, signed, sealed and delivered. Let us take your argument for sake of.....argument. Even if that analogy were true. $6T Obama racked up and another Trillion he is racking up yearly, so he still comes ahead of outspending Bush 5 to 1. Stop trolling ThinkProgress, it's not good for you. By the way, your president never, ever mentioned anything about the $16T debt...$6T lol and counting, the Affordable Health Care Act and the 8.1% unemployment, the National Debt, NO mention of it. Not a word about increasing jobs in the Private sector, just Government, government, abortion, abortion and immigration and immigration. Obama cannot take credit for anything on the economy, he brought the the unemployment down from 10.3% to 8.1% and.... 43 months, unemployment benefits are through the roof, welfare is up, that means we are spending more then we are taking in, so it equals to: failure. And let's not even start on his foreign policies. So under Obama we have lost more jobs since the great depression.

Heh, if I was Mitt Robme and knew what I knew now back in May, I would have advised myself to quit while the going was good and head back to the country club with Ann, her horses and all my Mercs.

I could even go and join all my money that's luxuriating overseas in the sunny offshore tax havens!

JTDanMan at Sep. 21, 2012 - 11:15AM JST

Excellent post.

Bass - "Over taxing is NEVER, EVER the answer, creating jobs is, but since Obama is doing well for the last 43 months of over 8%..."

21 straight months of job creation not good enough for you? :-)

@Bass

Sorry, guys! Hasn't worked so far, if so, we wouldn't have a $16T debt and a 8.1% unemployment rate.

You keep bringing up this dittohead argument which isn't wise because its weak and inaccurate. Bush created a $10T deficit by starting 2 senseless wars and giving stupid tax cuts to the rich. The deficit increased another $6T under Obama but this is mostly due to the American Reinvestment and Recovery act (or the stimulus package) which is helping to create new jobs and has created new jobs for 30 consecutive months. Unfortunately he could have avoided it skyrocketing to $6T had he discontinued the Bush tax cuts instead of extending it, but he didn't...big mistake. Hopefully he throws it out next term.

As for the 8.1% unemployment rate....well needless to say, it didn't get this high because of Obama...Obama actually brought it down from 10.3% (brought on again by Bush)

True. But, really, it is the ONLY thing he can run on.

If I had been a Romney advisor back in May, when he secured the nomination, I would have told him this:

Sir, the only way you can beat Obama is to convince Americans he is to blame for the economy and offer yourself as the better choice. To do this, you must do two things:

Hit Obama on the economy, always on the economy and only the economy. Do not try to outflank him on foreign policy (OBL is DEAD). Do not try to be a better speaker ( You aren't). Do not try to make people like you more than him ( You are a good enough guy). People still blame Bush for our problems. Your task is to get them to blame Obama.

Forget about the Pandering to the Right. They don't like you and they never will. Tell the mega doners and the punditry and them point blank and behind closed doors

"I won the nomination. Its between me and Obama. Follow me, and we will win. Attack me, and we loose. I'm your guy. So follow my marching orders. And here is what I'm gonna do. I'm not going go to the right and lose like McCain. I'm going to the center."

And then go to the middle. Make it all about jobs and the economy.

And perhaps win.

@Sushi

Oh, the shameless conservative brainwashing.....!

Really, so why are the American people still hurting? Oh, sorry, didn't steal enough money?

As Mirai stated, it's taxes that fund virtually everything a society needs to function.

To a point yes, but also you need to increase growth in the private sector which is NOT happening in order to generate taxes and revenue, but again that is NOT happening, welfare is up, unemployment is up. Over taxing is NEVER, EVER the answer, creating jobs is, but since Obama is doing well for the last 43 months of over 8%...

And who collects and distributes taxes and organizes critical functions in societies? That's right - the BIG >GOVERNMENT you despise.

Yep, that is why Obama wins hands down as the Welfare President, King of taxes. ;-)

Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

For the last 4 years, that hand got gnawed off!

Thomas Sowell has - once again - explained it brilliantly: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/redistribution_reality_KJcNgJ0M2qltS6FIoZ8jwI#.UFvF2XFO_tY.facebook

Bass - "but unlike liberals I am human"

ROFL! Coffee spray all over my commie socialist income redistribution books. :-)

@JTDanMan

In the end, another day that goes by with people not talking about the economy

Although the economy is a hot topic for Obama, its also a hot topic for Romney too, because he has no solution. He said he'll create 12 million jobs but never explained how. He hasn't explained how cutting taxes for the rich will help the rest of the country. Obama already cut taxes and it didn't work....time to go the other direction.

So to answer your comment, Romney won't talk economy (which is suppose to be his strong point) because in reality its his weakest point and everyone is starting to see that.

"That tax money (as I explained above) is used to pay for various public services used by everyone. This is one >form of redistribution of income."

conservatives are only for "redistribution" when they aren't getting any.

Stunning hypocrisy comes as naturally as breathing to the Right.

Sorry, guys! Hasn't worked so far, if so, we wouldn't have a $16T debt and a 8.1% unemployment rate.

Romney's probably too busy working to play as much golf as Obama or party with Jay-Z and Beyonce.

“We’ve gone through a challenging time. People want a hand up, not a handout,” Obama said.

Coming from the president whose administration has overseen the largest growth in the SNAP program (food stamps) in history, and whose administration is actively advertising the SNAP program in both English and Spanish in order to increase the number of recipients yet more. "Foods stamps will help you lose weight." Hahaha, they haven't been getting around to my local store then. 300lb.+ with six kids by four different men, buying $250+ in groceries and still have $1400+ left over on the EBT card. I see such people every time I go into my store, no exaggeration. Anybody Obama supporters/Romney attackers really think that's good for America?

In the end, another day that goes by with people not talking about the economy, the better for Team Obama.

Well, this patriot is happy to say:

The Mitt has hit the fan!

@global

Going back to ideology issue, this guy has no spine in his body. Check his voting records that wll convince >you. Speaking about ideology, from what I have done in the past in my career, I would like to believe I have a >solid ideology derived from economics and law. My view and Obama's view are very similar. It took over 40 >years of readings and academic resarches. I can tell you about Romney's ideology that is NADA. I can talk >about issues involving a Wealth of Nation to the Liberty. But it is very difficult to talk about it to someone who >has no exposures academically and intellectually. I have better things to do. I have done my share while you >have not. Good luck, bass.

I already provided a link and stats as to what Romney's ideology is, pure and simple and to the facts, if that is not enough for you (and I don't know why, it's clearly stated) Yes, I know Romney is a flip flopper and so is Obama, please don't make me give a huuuuge list of Obama flips and flops it's what politicians do, both sides! You have worked in economics and me in the media, fine. Americans don't need 40 years to see that we are worse off then every since the great depression. You look at things from a liberal economical income redistribution view and fine, I respect that, but I don't follow that ideology at all and I don't share Obama's Socialist revisionist ideas of an America. Obama had his chance and he blew it. If you have better things to do, maybe you should look into how Obama's failed economical policies are destroying America from the bottom up on every level, surely you have time for looking into that.

Mirai - "That tax money (as I explained above) is used to pay for various public services used by everyone. This is one form of redistribution of income."

Bass, conservatives are only for "redistribution" when they aren't getting any.

Stunning hypocrisy comes as naturally as breathing to the Right.

Bass - "Yes, I want a society where people work........ and leaves the government out of our lives as much as possible."

Oh, the shameless conservative brainwashing.....!

As Mirai stated, it's taxes that fund virtually everything a society needs to function.

And who collects and distributes taxes and organizes critical functions in societies? That's right - the BIG GOVERNMENT you despise.

Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

We rank 35th in education world wide, thanks to mostly liberal teachers that want 75k and giant pensions like in Chicago, the post office is almost extinct, some fire fighters want to charge people for coming out on calls. Roads and bridges and our infrastructure is almost vaporized and non-exsistent, the Repubs didn't do anything and neither did Obama even when the Dems controlled all 3 branches.I would rather pay and get the service that I want and deserve!

Thanks for proving my point...that is why we need to raise taxes so we can hire people fix these problems.

"Redistribution/spreading the wealth a little" and "47% do not pay fed. tax" are not what the framers have in mind, thus nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Government needs revenue and 47% not contribute to fed. tax, isn't it the case of oxymoron? America needs jobs and a lot of jobs, not more deficit. Healthy society would include responsible citizens, for everyone makes contribution to the wealth being of society without wasting. or abusing the system.Good government would find the way to help people out of welfare state for betterment of the whole, even encourage honest earning, rewarding hard working, promote invention and strengthen morality for the nation. Instead, we are experiencing the 4D's: debt ($16 trillion deficit in climbing), division, declining , and dis-informing (e.g. the attack on 9/11 in Libya now being called act of terrorism after days of "spontaneous protest "). The next president must correct all these.

Bass on taxes - "And what good did that do? We rank 35th in education world wide, thanks to mostly liberal teachers that want 75k and giant pensions like in Chicago, the post office is almost extinct, some fire fighters want to charge people for coming out on calls. Roads and bridges and our infrastructure is almost vaporized and non-exsistent."

LOL! You still don't get it.

Taxes - including yours - have funded all the things Mirai listed.

And you asked what good did it do?

Read Mirai's list again.

I hope hope you'll get it this time and not embarrass yourself a second time.

(clue: roads.)

@Sushi

However, if I want to know the first thing about American politics, a US conservative will be the last person I'll >ask.

Now I understand why you are lost in the mountains

Us Global Liberals are far better educated on the economy than those folks.

So then why is Europe coming apart at the seems? Why is Europe is Broke? Those are really smart people.

@Bass

By the way, Germany and Switzerland don't do income redistribution.

Sigh...Haven't you learned that you cannot BS me. Both Germany and Switzerland do have income redistribution. It's called TAXES!!!!!!!! Both countries have income tax and charge anywhere from 14%-40% depending on your income level and dependencies and other factors. That tax money (as I explained above) is used to pay for various public services used by everyone. This is one form of redistribution of income.

Another form of income redistribution is both countries have a pension system, and offer assistance to unemployed people. Hmm...kind of sounds like redistribution to me.

Both countries have a very successful welfare program. As a matter of fact, prior to installing their welfare programs, the poverty level for Germany was at 15.2% Switzerland: 12.5%...after welfare: Germany was at 4.3% Switzerland: 3.8%.

All of these programs are designed to help people take care of themselves so we don't have people sleeping in the streets and dying from diseases. They are a necessity for ALL modern societies. This "fend for yourself attitude" never works. Even in primitive cultures, people take care of other people. Humans are social beings and can only survive by being social. As soon as we throw that concept out and adopt Romney's "I got mine, so F U" attitude, we will cease to exist as a functioning society.

@Mirai

Without taxes, there is no free education, no free postal system, no free fire protection, no free police protection, roads and bridges near your home and business will need to be serviced by private companies that can charge you anything they want, transportation will be expensive, etc... Everything will be for profit...is that REALLY the kind of society you want to live in? I don't.

And what good did that do? We rank 35th in education world wide, thanks to mostly liberal teachers that want 75k and giant pensions like in Chicago, the post office is almost extinct, some fire fighters want to charge people for coming out on calls. Roads and bridges and our infrastructure is almost vaporized and non-exsistent, the Repubs didn't do anything and neither did Obama even when the Dems controlled all 3 branches.I would rather pay and get the service that I want and deserve! Transportation, introduce the keystone pipeline and drill in our own backyard, tap into our natural gas reserve and use coal, we can bring the price down for people and transportation to make it easier on Americans. Yes, I want a society where people work, produces, builds a strong middle class, cut taxes and encourages growth in the private sector, trade goods, is competitive and gives us choices and leaves the government out of our lives as much as possible.

Bass, "Really, you haven't been to America recently"

You're right! I haven't.

However, if I want to know the first thing about American politics, a US conservative will be the last person I'll ask.

Us Global Liberals are far better educated on the economy than those folks.

Um, neither has Mitt.

Oh wait! Mitt has enriched himself and the Chinese and Indian economies if that's what you meaning by 'running a business.'. :-)

I never said that Mitt went to war or was in the military, but you were the one saying that and so what's your point? Really, you haven't been to America recently. But then again, your probably don't do sports, eat donuts or like the Lakers either ;-)

Romney would terrorize the US, how so and in what context are you extrapolating this from? Sometimes you really say some outlandish things. Unglaublich!

bass, I suggest you need to watch the tape like I did.

Going back to ideology issue, this guy has no spine in his body. Check his voting records that wll convince you. Speaking about ideology, from what I have done in the past in my career, I would like to believe I have a solid ideology derived from economics and law. My view and Obama's view are very similar. It took over 40 years of readings and academic resarches. I can tell you about Romney's ideology that is NADA. I can talk about issues involving a Wealth of Nation to the Liberty. But it is very difficult to talk about it to someone who has no exposures academically and intellectually. I have better things to do. I have done my share while you have not. Good luck, bass.

Hello deficit. And they blame Obama.

The GOP have already had 8 years umder bush to bring down America.

They succeeded.

Yuuup, unlike lofty convoluted liberal mindset thinking, the truth is BOTH Bush and Obama, which equals both parties contributed to this mess, but the difference is, Bush is retired, left with 7.9% unemployment and $10T debt and a AAA credit rating and an Annual Budget. Now, Obama has surpassed Bush and EVERY president in US history 8.1% unemployment for 43 months $16T in debt a AA downgraded rating and NO Annual Budget.

Ahem...who IS right now in the WH and bringing down America? Definitely NOT Bush.

Bass - "Obama never served in the military, let alone create, run a business or manage an economy properly."

Um, neither has Mitt.

Oh wait! Mitt has enriched himself and the Chinese and Indian economies if that's what you meaning by 'running a business.'. :-)

It's coerced confiscation of wealth(private property) under threat of violence and imprisonment. That's what's wrong with that. It doesn't matter the recipient of the ill-gotten loot.

So you'd rather have privately ran police and fire departments? You'd rather pay them directly for their services and protection? Great! But if you can't pay? What if they want to charge you some outrages amount of money for fire and police services? What if they won't protect your house because of "per-existing conditions"? What do you then. Don't think it it will happen?

If we don't pay taxes, there will be no publicly run services, because there would be no public money to fund them. Everything would have to be privatized. That means we would be at the mercy of whatever these private services companies want to charge us (much like the health insurance companies prior the Affordable Healthcare act). If you're house is on fire, they could charge you $100,000 to put it out...could you afford that? I sure couldn't. If a burglar came into your home, you'll need to the help of the police to come and protect you. But what if you forgot to pay your police bill....they probably won't come and you are at the mercy of the burglar.

Public services keeps everything that is necessary to healthy society affordable and sometimes free. When its privatized, the private company has an obligation to make a profit so they will charge your for EVERYTHING regardless of whether you can afford it or not.

Without taxes, there is no free education, no free postal system, no free fire protection, no free police protection, roads and bridges near your home and business will need to be serviced by private companies that can charge you anything they want, transportation will be expensive, etc... Everything will be for profit...is that REALLY the kind of society you want to live in? I don't.

Mitt Romney is thick (no offense)

When you understand this, virtually everything coming out of his campaign - the ongoing hailstorm of blunders, misquotes and unforced errors - makes sense.

@Sushi

Obama never served in the military, let alone create, run a business or manage an economy properly.

1998? Mate, that's 14 years agp.

8 years ago bashing Bush or 14 years realizing and bring out what Obama is, NO difference, just both sides telling it like it is.

You must be beyond desperate.

I leave that to Liberals and it seems apparently at first, the Obama Network aka Msnbc on Anderea Mitchell's show, when the tape surfaced she had Chuck Todd on and said, she wasn't going to play it, the next day they did, but we all know where they stand. Alert, alert, alert, send the Gestapo. Unglaublich, enface, unglaublich! lol

@Mirai

This is why it doesn't work.

http://www.businessinsider.com/charts-rise-of-government-dependence-2012-9

http://americanshareholders.org/dan-mitchell-whybr-income-redistribution-bad-a2825

By the way, Germany and Switzerland don't do income redistribution. France, Greece do and look what happened. Sorry, that argument don't fly. No one has a problem paying taxes, but getting raped for it, different story.

@global

Mitt is now playing a "100%Americans" game today. We need to demand his tax returns going back to 10 >years as he requersted the same rule to Ryan. He may be one of these 47% who paid no tax returns. It is very >interesting Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nevada) is demanding it again today.

So now you know Mitt, personally? I'm sure if Obama acts fair, shows his college transcripts and can shut Romney up by example, he just might do the same, but we all know Obama won't do that. ;-) Also don't forget, Reid also has Offshore accounts acting shady and doesn't want to release his tax forms. Hmmmm is it a Mormon thing perhaps that these guys don't want to release their tax records.

I watched a whole you tube today. This guy is dangerous. 1)He suggested how he would terrorize US if he >were a terrorist. Bizaar. 2)He in in fear that US govt would impose 100% tax on the riches. Bizaar again.

Romney would terrorize the US, how so and in what context are you extrapolating this from? Sometimes you really say some outlandish things. Unglaublich!

Herve, Mirai's right. Taxes are critical to the functioning of society.

But republicans have turned 'taxes' into a swear word. I think of taxes as 'income'.

Take them away and what do you get?

Yeah......we need taxes.

The GOP's huge mistake was going to war without raisig them.

Hello deficit. And they blame Obama.

The GOP have already had 8 years umder bush to bring down America.

They succeeded.

Anyone want to see them do it again?

" WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT? ...it's called TAXES!! Taxes are the redistribution of income."

It's coerced confiscation of wealth(private property) under threat of violence and imprisonment. That's what's wrong with that. It doesn't matter the recipient of the ill-gotten loot.

If a person demands your wallet at knife/gunpoint, is there moral obligation to inform the robber of the money in your shoe as well?

Are you obligated to pay your neighbor's bills?

I doubt many of today's conservatives would even vote for Reagan.

Mitt is toast and more people are seeing it.

Will his campaign even last through to election day?

Who knows?

Mitt is his own worst enemy. After running twice for president, it's absolutely amazing to see how many screw-ups he is making.

I lay a lot of the blame at the feet of his campaign manager, Stuart.

He needs to be fired, but that is probably only going to happen when Americans fire Mitt Rmoney this November.

George Romney was on welfare for a year when his family moved from Mexico. So technically Mitt's father would have been part of the 47%....his own father probably wouldn't have voted for him.

47% of Americans as victims

Mitt is now playing a "100%Americans" game today. We need to demand his tax returns going back to 10 years as he requersted the same rule to Ryan. He may be one of these 47% who paid no tax returns. It is very interesting Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nevada) is demanding it again today.

I watched a whole you tube today. This guy is dangerous. 1)He suggested how he would terrorize US if he were a terrorist. Bizaar. 2)He in in fear that US govt would impose 100% tax on the riches. Bizaar again.

I don't think he's anymore worried than Obama in his 1998 comment about being for "income redistribution"

First of all, this video was taken in 1998 (14 years ago) not last May. Obama wasn't even Senator back then. Secondly, there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with his statement. He does not promote socialism; all he is saying is that he believes that there should be some degree of redistribution to give a everyone a fair shake and the opportunity to succeed. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT? Besides, most countries have income distribution in one form or another...it's called TAXES!! Taxes are the redistribution of income. It ensures that we have a fire and police department, our streets stay clean, and our roads are safe.

Redistribution becomes WRONG, when we unfairly tax those who have less to fund people and corporation through tax breaks and gov't subsidies (ie Romney's billionaire buddies and the corporations who he thinks are living beings)

Bass - I don't think he's anymore worried than Obama in his 1998 comment about being for "income redistribution"

1998? Mate, that's 14 years agp.

You must be beyond desperate.

I would be too if I was witnessing the campaign of the best-funded presidential candidate in history implode before my eyes.

Robme hassn't 'gotten around a lot' alright!

He hasn't gotten around to serving in Vietnam, his money hasn't gotten around to residing in the American financial system, and Mitt hasn't gotten around to selling himself to anyone much but those voters who want America to return to the 16th century.

I don't think he's anymore worried than Obama in his 1998 comment about being for "income redistribution"

He's also gotten around releasing his tax returns. Probably worried it would put hin in the "47%".

He's gotten around to the country club.