Shared publicly  - 
Tell the world you’ve had enough of the Obama economy. Donate $12 to receive a “It's Still About the Economy” bumper sticker and show your support
Dave Hansen's profile photoD. M. Barnes's profile photoEl Papi's profile photoAlexander Johnson's profile photo
I've never recieved my first bumperstick for free!!!!! Looks like your a liar on tv and on the net... what kind of show are you running here buddy???
let's put mitt in a small dog carrier on my truck roof and drive from santa cruz to san diego. - let's include his disgusting wife in there, too. let's see how much THEY like it - poor seamus !! dog lovers should not vote for this disgusting asshole. come on, people !!!
he's only askin 5.00 - that's quite a margin Mitt. Shipping getting expensive for that 1.00 sticker?
Boy, Linda, tell us how much you really hate him! Maybe you would like Hitler, he loved dogs.
hitler/romney whats the difference...
so if Romney and Hitler were running for president you would have a hard time choosing?
I would not vote... just like im not voting this year... we have obama(secret liar) and romneystien (public liar) the election is rigged
Why not write in your vote?
By not voting is a vote for BO. I would vote for anyone but BO
sorry mike i am arguing on another post I did answer I would not vote like im not voting this year.. I occupy instead of voting... I speak my mind instead of going with the flow....
If I vote anyone it will be Bradley Manning
Actually not voting is kinda a vote
in a way it is, but I will not be forced into voting if I dont agree with any of them... Wait till mayday imma burn my ss card in the streets.
Write in your candidate, join a third party, form your own party, but vote.

And why burn you ss card?
I love this Mitt quote. I'm afraid most people won't get the historic reference. But it's classic. Barack Obama is a very smart man, but his economic plan doesn't work. Good luck, Mitt!
political statement kinda like burning draft card but mine for me is symbolicly breaking my ties from our corrupted system
Ok...I.guess I see that....although I think it would be more effective to work from within for change.
I've had enough of the Obama economy.
+Ryan Mar I can't get enough of the Obama Economy. I hate working and "being productive". Life is about having fun, not getting hassled by the man. I afraid if Obama doesn't get re-elected, I'm not gonna get that free health insurance and I might even have to get a job. You sound like a 1%-er
12 for a bumper sticker? Not everyone is rich like you.
Just on a lark I checked out Obama 2012. While they also sell stickers, they are much ea in groups of 25.
Are you serious. This is one of the worst ideas ever for any american to go for. The money would not go back to support the economy. The only thing it will support is this selfish campaign. It seems to me that all you ever focus on is how Obama is doing wrong but you never say how what you are doing will benefit the american people as a whole and I don't just mean the republicans.
Poor +John Doe . guess he has been hanging out in all the wrong places. Romney sent me TWO (2) FREE postage, no donation. FREE. There are plenty of political stickers on the web if you just look for them. Correction: haven't seen any Occupy stickers FREE yet! :-/
I more worried what Obama really has planned for America that the economic issue. It is clear to me Obama want to destroy America. He does like the Constitution, he can't handle the idea of a supreme court, and he has said he will continue even without congresses support. Obama want to be a King, not a president.
+John Doe Do what you wish with your SS card, John. But keep $48.00 handy for each new one you order to keep your fire burning. It could get very expensive!
Thomas, yes, I agree with you, but Obama has done it to an extreme. We need the balance restored.
+Thomas Terence Reagan handed some power back to the people. The number of lines of regulations published in the Federal Register went down under Reagan.
i never understood this whole "obama wants to destroy america" or "obama is a tyrant." no one ever explains how this would BENEFIT him? i mean if this all were true, this is the worst planned coup d'etat the world has ever seen. i mean elections? really? you want to be king and you haven't even taken over the military yet?

thats sad man.
+Janra Roberts I think perhaps +Mike Kennedy more specifically means is that Obama seems to want to destroy the things +Mike Kennedy sees as characterizing America. His specifics are true: Obama doesn't like it when the constitution gets in the way of what he wants to do - not a political party thing, Nixon didn't like that either - and Obama really pushes the limits on the power of the executive branch, even more than Bush did.

There are plenty of people who don't care about the constitution, so for them, Obama isn't "destroying America". So yes, perhaps +Mike Kennedy's point could be worded more clearly.
+Janra Roberts Without using the "tyrant" and "destroy" words, many refer to that as changing America into something the majority isn't in favor of and trying to make America like some foreign nation that we aren't. Americans want the administration to honor our constitution. America was founded on those principals.
Warren, thank you for your clarification. Obama wants to take America in a direction away from what the Constitution and the founders wanted.
i think he can point us in the right direction,
i think someone like him should be trying to get Americans to start manufacturing things again for one thing. Getting us out of this class warfare mode would also help.
+Everett Wheeler - Bell Signing a repeal of Obamacare would help, by removing a big cost of employing people in the U.S. Broadening the tax base and lowering rates would help, by reducing marginal tax rates and thus increasing the incentive to be productive. Cutting expenditures would help, by allowing more of the monetary stimulus that has happened to flow to the productive private economy rather than to unproductive government functions.

The president may not be able to fix things on his own, but he can at least get the government out of the way.
Class warfare isn't the result of Presidential policy, it's the result of years and years of economic disparities. What things are his policies going to get us to start manufacturing? And what underpaid labor force is he going to tap into to manufacture these things cheaply?
+Warren Dew Healthcare reform is a way to prevent the more than 50% of bankruptcies that are caused by medical expenses each year. Additionally, what are we going to be doing with the growing number of uninsured elders? That's going to cost a fortune. Additionally, the veiled arguments for tax breaks for the rich is getting superficial, especially when we aren't having a conversation about greater access to education for ALL demographics, especially when we want to encourage more people to be PRODUCTIVE. I'm not for most of the lame posturing and platitudes of most politicians, but I am for any candidate than give some tough answers to these tough concerns.
+Everett Wheeler - Bell When you go bankrupt, you get to keep your house, your car, and your retirement account. I don't see it as a big problem when it affects only a fraction of a percent of the population each year. The only ones who are losing a lot of money from medical bankruptcies are those who are rich enough to have bought health insurance and elected to take their chances without it.

Nearly all seniors are covered by medicare or medicaid. "Uninsured seniors" is a nonproblem in the U.S., especially compared to the much larger percentage that will be left uninsured by Obamacare.

And how do you see limiting the size of mortgage interest deductions as a tax break for "the rich"?
+Thomas Terence No one here seems to be buying Romney on rhetoric. We're supporting him based on his well thought out positions and his strong record in the private and public sectors, neither of which Obama has.
Warren, the laws for bankruptcy have changed a lot lately. I don't think you would get to keep your house now.
+Thomas Terence A "record" consists of what one has done. Romney's record consists primarily of his success in business at Bain Capital and his successfully managing a problematic fiscal situation as governor of Massachusetts.

Positions are not a "record"; however, if you actuall read Romney's positions in detail, you'll find that the difference between five years ago and now are just differences in what aspects of his positions he emphasizes to different audiences. The full positions themselves stay consistent, for those who bother to find them and read them.

Souter was nominated specifically because he had no record after the Bork debacle. George W. Bush seems to me to have acted consistently with his own record and positions, allowing for the fact that he had no record or significant positions about having to deal with 3000 people killed by Al Qaeda.
+Mike Kennedy My sources on bankruptcy were from early 2011. If the bankruptcy laws have changed since then in a problematic way, that's an argument for changing the bankruptcy laws back, not an argument for making unrelated changes to health care laws.
I wish Mighty Mitt would get on here and defend his opinions against the people he is trying to persuade to vote for him. Google, Twitter, FBook are all fine and dandy ways to spout off at the mouth political hot talking points. But actually participating in the banter would be a good way to seem like a real human being. If you have time to post, you have time to read and respond to at least 10 or so of these comments. If your not posting this crap and Mr. Ricky Bob Bob is the one managing your Social Media posts you are a fool to think its doing any good when it comes to actually getting more votes. People who like you cheer, people who hate you hate you. Get on here and defend your ideas and you may actually get the attention of some people who you need, not those you already have.

on second thought please don't take my advise because it would be terrible if you actually won.
+Dave Hansen At least most of the comments on Romney's posts are in intelligible English. Compare that to the typical comments on Obama's posts - on his most recent post, the first three were "I like turtles.", "1", and "沙发".
Obviously you have the wrong Obama and he's not just Obama he's the presdient of the United States thank you very much remember that +Warren Dew because he'll be that for 4 more years.
It's kinda funny that he's asking people to donate for a sticker about the economy. This ultra rich guy. It's just kinda ironic.
+Thomas Terence Indeed, Obama has nearly four years of track record to be evaluated, in which he made the economy worse and prevented a recovery, while continuing to interfere with civil liberties. Reason enough to vote him out even without Romney's strong track record in Massachusetts and in the private sector.
the economy is better now than it was when he took office
+Warren Dew In 2008 we were headed down, way down. It was a mathematical certainty thanks to Bush. Obama has done everything in his power to repair the damage as fast as possible. 4 years later we are facing a stable & growing economy. Meanwhile Europe is experiencing double dip recession (guided by policies similar to Republican Party) and China's growth is beginning to decline as well. Sure it could be better, nobody is perfect. BUT if we had let the free market go its course like Europe did without Government interjection we wouldnt be talking about a slow growing recovery but a continually declining economy.
The government is at fault for causing the decline, it is also up to them to fix their mistakes. Mitt will not fix anything, he will let Capitalism run its course which means the rich people get to buy the rules they want to make more money. He will not provide sound, solid, proactive government policies designed for the people.
Read between the lines, Mitt is not campaigning on the idea of a current bad economy but a current slow recovery. We are recovering thanks to Obama, vote for the man who will finish his work, get the job done, and get America back on track.

Mitt will only screw it up, he is in way over his head. Sure he can flip bushiness to turn a profit (regardless of the outcome of his work he still gets paid, not how the real world works) but to run a World Economy while at the same time protecting us from Al Qaeda, repairing our nations disintegrating infrastructure meanwhile restructuring our failing health care, social security, medicare & medicaid systems all while being bamboozled by his lobbing corporate buddies... We will be doomed.

Obama, yes he makes mistakes and poor decisions, usually due to his ability to be bipartisan, which is a sign of a good leader. But in all he is not going to run us back down the rabbit hole Bushy Bush Bush sent us down.
+Dave Hansen To the contrary, employment is lower now than when Obama took office.

+Thomas Terence The election is about the presidency, so the relevant discussion is about how presidents affect the economy. Other people also affect the economy, but we aren't voting for them in November, so they are largely irrelevant to the presidential election.
+Warren Dew

okay employment is a net negative....but that does not mean the economy is worse now than it was then. Obama was elected right when the roller coaster started heading down hill. He could not stop what was going to happen his first days in office. Jobs are currently being added, GDP has been + almost every quarter except the first few after Obama took office. GDP is a much better indicator of the economic recovery than just looking at a presidents net job growth during a specified 4 year term without accounting for any other factors.

Its a great right wing talking point to bash Obama. After all, it makes a great sound bite for Republicans. NO NET JOBS ADDED WHAT A BASTARD! I applaud your ability to do math but your inability to critically understand numbers and the meaning behind them saddens me.

If the collapse happened a year earlier, those lost jobs would be on Bush's shoulders not Obama. Its simply a matter of timing when you look at NET job creation. Your facts are just numbers, not indicators of what is actually going on.

You must have graduated from Limbaugh school of retarded.

Look at it like this: Instead of jobs we will use $

I make a $100 investment as a CEO..My investment fails and I bet again. now I'm -$100 However right after my second bet I get fired and you are now the CEO. You work tirelessly for four years to get us back in the + but you only manage to get the company back to -$10. So yes your hard work still results in a NET LOSS, but that NET LOSS is still a positive based on the fact you have generated $90 in the right direction and you would be pissed off if people said you were doing a shit job fixing my mistakes because it wasn't fixed fast enough simply because we are still negative. You would tell the board that it will only be a mater of time before we are NET POSITIVE. It just takes time.

DO NOT vote based on numbers carefully selected that would, in this mock situation, make you look bad. Vote on the facts behind the numbers, the trends, the future, where we are going.

You were doing a good job recovering that $100 I lost. But now a bunch of uninformed idiots voted you out and now Mitt Romney is CEO. He doesn't understand or agree with anything you did so the likelihood he will improve on your work is unlikely. Your work is now wasted simply because people thought it could be better? If only people had the patience to trust you, the Company was being driven in the right direction, just apparently not fast enough for us gotta have it now Americans fast food home delivery next day delivery, instant online streaming American society.

Instead we are in the garage with the hood up. wheels off, changing the oil, trying to figure out a new way to sole a problem that was already being solved.
+Dave Hansen Not only is "employment a net negative" as you say for Obama, but real per capita GDP, once you adjust for inflation and population increase, is also lower now than it was in 2008. It's curently at 2005 levels, well below the 2007 peak, and growing very slowly.

You can look up the numbers here:
adjusted or not, we are NOT at 2005 levels
+Dave Hansen +Warren Dew He's pointing out GDP per capita - the math can show that economic growth has not kept pace in "per person" terms. The U.S. Department of Labor's statistics on employment - the civilian population/employment ratio - are shown, here ( ). The image is linked from Greg Mankiw's blog, who will be chair of the Harvard Economics Department as of July 1st, and has been teaching there (and writing textbooks) for some years (since 1985, it would seem). Mr. Mankiw advises Mitt Romney (but the statistics are all from the Department of Labor, so if you have a problem with bias, they're the ones to bring it up with; Mankiw is just making that data helpful).
Need more money! No!!! You know who I think who should be president, Bloomberg.
Only because more wealth is concentrated at the top. More people with a good amount of money is always greater than fewer people with lots of money. That is why the GDP P-capita is still down.

This concentration is not the result of Obama. He would take more from the wealthy if anyone on the right would get with the picture and actually work with the man. Instead his republican enemies act like he is about to turn America into a dictatorship. Still he improves the economy; meanwhile, I guess we will just wait for the public sector to release the record amounts of cash they have stored away. That's like asking Mitt Romney to pucker up and let some cash out of his pockets. But running for president isn't worth risking your own money because you care about your car elevator more than the country that gave you the opportunity to build it in the first place.

Send Me 12 Romney Bucks!!!!
Please pay for me to make myself 
To the contrary, +Dave Hansen, Obama's tax plan would ensure that Buffett's billions could avoid taxation forever. It's not the millionaires that are the issue, it's the billionaires - and Obama is in their pocket.
I don't like buffet rule and unlimited charitable donations....

Obama isn't perfect but I don't think Romney would be better when it comes to in the pockets of the wealthy. 
Doesn't matter if he is or isn't +Aaron Holt. His heart is connected to helping his friends first. The wealthy. 
Possibly. On the other hand, it may be more difficult for billionaires like Buffett to fool Romney, as he is more likely to be wise to their tax tricks.
Buffet rule will never pass as is and Obama knows it. Obama supports it to make Liberals happy and so they don't start saying he hasn't tried or isn't for the middle class. It's just fake bills to waste time and jerk around voters. It's modern day bull shit politics 
Romney won't be fooled about taxes. He is brilliant when it comes to stuff like that. I just don't want corporate scum, who has worked to doctor the tax system in their favor, running our country.
El Papi
As a resident of MA during the Romney years I can say that I'm glad is not my governor anymore, and I wouldn't like him to be president. Thank you governor for making my higher education more expensive while you were here.
Does the money go TO the economy? I'd pay for that but not to an election campaign. I'd vote for canceling campaigning. Send one flyer with each candidates platform for change to every household. Hell! Hand them out on street corners. The waste of the electoral system disgusts me. 
That would be my daughter's lunch money - sorry Mitt, no can do.
El Papi
About regulation to protect us from the BANKSTERS like JP Morgan. MItt what is your plan or are you gonna sing that old tired son " LOW TAXES and FREE MARKET." FREE MARKET isn't free when we have to bail them out!!!!!
Add a comment...