Shared publicly  - 
 
Three years after President Obama proudly proclaimed that the economy was his, more than 23 million Americans are still out of work, underemployed, or no longer looking for work and we’ve seen forty straight months of unemployment over 8 percent.  President Obama has had his moment and failed. Now it is our time. +1 if you agree. http://mi.tt/NGl4YY 
213
6
Steve Wilson's profile photoRobert Mosko (Big Daddy)'s profile photoDequentin Potee's profile photoDavis Claypool's profile photo
227 comments
 
Are u for real nobody like u but white people and your cult wives u sound insane Mitt whatever the hell your name am poor and black but I hate u and really I hope America wake up and NO VOTE U IN THE WHITE HOUSE REALLY
 
Your time to do what?
I would love to hear a convincing, lucid, rational plan.
 
U.S should stop war in Afghanistan  reset his policies again war and terror  give employment to people
 
You're a joker,and not even a good one cause I'm not laughing!
 
he is good.... what if economy is bad. i am from India.. but i like his leadership & decisions. :)
 
Ooo! I wanna cult!

But seriously. I really don't think the president has that much control over this whole job thing. I do think that Mitt will slash and burn government employment, which I don't disagree with considering how much waste goes on in there, but I doubt that the 8% will change much in the next 4 year timeframe.

If we restructured the Defense budget, trimmed or perhaps placed more scrutiny on government jobs where people ... basically sit and sleep, and gave a long hard look at highly paid contract jobs that should be handled by our military ... I think we'd save tens if not hundreds of billions.
 
Parmar, love u live in India u know nothing about Mitt okay he wants America to know about his faith and many wives. I was once 2nd wife not everyone is into many wives and Mitt faith watch the HBO show called "BIG LOVE" it was based on Mitt and his family know what your talking about love okay
 
Erik, love this is no laughing matter
 
+Katina Walker You're welcome to your opinions about Mitt and white people and anything else but your statements about Mitt having multiple wives and the HBO show Big Love being based on Mitt and his family is blatantly false.

Let's keep the outright lies out of our political process as much as possible.
 
I'm from Syria want to give advice to live in peace and well-being should be stopped from interfering with your government does not care and ignite wars everywhere in the world
To Zllk should you have to stand against the policy of your government brutality that this policy will not leave you nor loving friend and I, personally, I expect that America will collapse if this policy continues
I'm talking burning because of your government intervention is bad in my country
I love Bashar Alasad
Best Regards
 
Poli = latin for many
Tic = blood sucking insect. 

just remember that when thinking of Politicians. 
 
I'm not a fan of my Romney and his out of touch stance with the middle working class. But he is a far better choice than Mr. Obama. 
 
your right I have a right to my opinion yall always downing my people even though my people actions speak for it self may we for once have something Pres. Obama is greater. I know nothing of their grandfathers having multiple wives 
 
+Katina Walker I'm sorry that you hate Romney based on his race.  I wish that racism was dead and gone.  It's sad to see a racist such as yourself spew forth hate speech and lies like that.  

+Jason Philo Lets keep Romney's "I like to fire people" statement in context, shall we?  He was talking about services and business.  If you don't like the service you get from a business he likes to "fire" them and go somewhere else.  If you found a fly in your hamburger would you keep going to that place or would you "fire" them and go somewhere else?  Anytime you choose not to return to a business because of poor service you are "firing" them.  Context is everything my friend. 
 
Your people? I had no clue you were royalty..... 
 
the presidential choices dont give us much to work with lol, they all suck ass IMO
 
I have this sneaking suspicion that Katina is just being trollish.
 
am no royalty and black people are not king's and queen's and please understand am sorry my words are judgment am sorry to all whom no like my words
 
Yep get ready! Soon we will just be one giant state of Utah.
 
+Katina Walker, so, I'm ex-Mormon. And I was pretty damn religious back in the day. I was on the "inside" for a very long time and ... heh, I can't quite possibly describe how harmless that actual religious aspect of Mormonism is. The social aspect gets you connected to high places and could potentially be nefarious, for sure, but the actual religious practices of Mormons are pretty mundane. (And there was so much potential for a cool sort of mysticism based on Mormonism.)

I, personally, am no longer Christian. So, all y'all Christians are actually a cult to me. It's all about perspective. :) Oh, and Us vs. Them mentality that we are wont to have.
 
am not being trollish please okay I have the right to speak and many again white people do not like my words but yall post and speak but as a black female we have to be qutie no I do not care am say and post what I feel
 
+Katina Walker you are so full of it.  Every word you type is full out lies and typical of a Obama supporter.  
 
Typical Obama supporter.  Can't spell and is full of racist hate.
Nate Cook
+
1
0
1
0
 
+Katina Walker Don't you think it's far past time to let racism go?  I would rather live in a world where we don't say "black people" and "white people".  How about we call each other "people"?  How about we vote based on experience and qualifications rather than race?
 
Ugh... "full of racist hate" and "typical Obama supporter".

I love how we dance like monkeys when the organ grinder starts his tune. Do any of you realize how much you're being manipulated? You know how hard of a time I have saying the Pledge of Allegiance these days? Do you understand that we've been divvied up between powers parties to the point where we become known and predictable? :/

Heh, and all I'm met with are blank stares and the braying of sheep.
 
So, is the fix for high unemployment to "Like Firing People"?  Because, that's what Romney does:  Fire people, and enjoys it.
 
The problem with our workforce is this. Pre World War 2 everyone worked in labor based jobs. During World War 2 everyone made something, guns, tanks, planes, cars, trucks something. once again they made thing with their hands.  Then the war ended, and everyone wanted their children lives to be better than what they had. So the pushed them [their children] to go to school to be come doctors, accountants and such. Well they wanted their children to do better than they did, so they pushed them to be Engineers, ect. And we've forgotten that this nation was built on manual labor. It was built on getting their hands dirty, and since no one here feels that they should get dirty they push the jobs off to countries where people are not afraid to get dirty leaving us jobless. 

IF this country wants to create jobs, we need to create trades that require mass labor. Auto factories, train factories, people making rails, and working train stations. That sort of stuff. 

It has nothing to do with race, creed, nationality or faith. It has everything to do with the "i'm entitled to ___, and i'm not getting my hands dirty" or the "my dad didn't get his hands dirty, and neither am I" attitudes.... 
 
No, that's not what he said, +Corey Reichle  

What he said was: "“I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.”. 

Because that way there's something he can do when they provide poor service. You can fire FedEx and hire UPS. 

You can't fire the Post Office. Gee...do you think that's why their service sucks?

Nah...

But of course, if you get your news from HuffPo or CBS or DailyKos, you wouldn't know what he actually said, would you...
 
+Corey Reichle Please read my post earlier in the thread to shed your ignorance on the subject. Let's keep things in context, shall we?  If you have ever stopped going to a business due to horrible service than you also like to fire people. 
 
+Corey Reichle  used to live in South Africa. There it's illegal to fire people unless you can literally prove they stole from you or something to that effect. Know what the unemployment is there? 24%.

Counter-intuitively, firing people creates more alert workers and more production, and hence more business and jobs.
 
So, basically, he said,"I like being able to fire workers", did he not?

And, I do not think the USPS sucks.  They, have without fail, gotten packages to CONUS locations reliably, quickly, and for a much lower cost than any other shipper.

In fact, I prefer USPS to UPS and FedEx.
 
+bobby pelletier How many poor people have you ever been employed by?  Who creates jobs?  The rich or the poor?  
 
+Corey Reichle No, he did not "basically" say that. He said what he said, despite your burning liberal desire to change it. 
 
+Corey Reichle 
No - basically he did not say that.  Not even close.  Go watch the whole speech and inform yourself as to what Romney was talking about then come back and we can talk about it.  He was saying that if a business provides terrible service than he likes to be able to fire them and go somewhere else.  For example if a kid spits in your food you should be able to fire them and get your food somewhere else.  Or if you go to a hotel and there is hair in your bed you should be able to fire them and go somewhere else.  
 
No, firing workers creates an atmosphere of distrust between workers and managers.  It doesn't make more alert workers, or any other such nonsense.  It creates a workforce that wont take chances (For fear of being fired), and instead just do enough to not get fired.
 
I've been employed by at least one poor person...  Most small business owners are poor in the first 10 years.
 
After 3 abysmal years of Obama, leftists hang on to their "anti-rich" rhetoric while Obama attends $40K/plate dinners.  
 
Abysmal years?  GDP is growing once again, unemployment is on the way down, DJI is on the way up...  What more do you expect him to do?
 
+Corey Reichle Again - please educate yourself.  Romney never said he likes to fire workers.  He likes to fire businesses that have terrible service.  Ignorance is bliss, is it not?
 
He said,"He likes being able to fire people providing services"...  He never qualified that, until after he was called on it.

Kinda like all the other Mitt vs. Mitt moments.
 
+Corey Reichle When somebody I work with get fired for not doing their job, I'm not fearful, because I'm doing mine. I'm relieved that my employer isn't losing money paying a parasite. 

Are you hoping Sodexo hires people who don't do their jobs to work on your project? So there's an "atmosphere of trust"?
 
I've never known of or even ever heard of a poor person(say makes less than 40k a year) that runs a successful business. 
 
 +Corey Reichle, you are talking impulsively. Can you show evidence that firing people decreases productivity? Obviously nobody is going to fire people without cause.
 
Um...Corey - Unemployment has been above 8% for over 40 weeks.  The reason it went "down" is because so many people have given up looking for work.  The effective unemployment rate is well above 11%.  GDP has been revised down I believe twice already, and is barely growing.
 
+bobby pelletier As someone who lives in Massachusetts, I can say that Romney was a much better governor than our current governor, and was better than any Democrat governor we've had in the past three decades at least.  He was also better than some of our other Republican governors.  Are there some other governors I liked even better than Romney?  Yes, but they were also Republicans and agree with Romney's economic platform.
 
Clearly there are some language barriers here. +Katina Walker may not be completely literate in English, but her point comes across well enough. She seems to give more credence to HBO than to actual news sources. Her racial identity is blinding her to the damage this administration has done to "her people" simply because she sees just the black part of our bi-racial president. 

A few points of fact for our friends following this thread. +pragnesh parmar Please understand that +Katina Walker has no understanding of the Mormon religion (+The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ) and if you think HBO's "Big Love" series has anything at all to do with the Mormon religion you're sadly mistaken. 

For +Erik Collett to each his own. I hope you find what you're looking for. 

Now to the political aspect of this. Empirically the President has failed to accomplish many of the things he promised. Only now, after trillions of dollars spent (What did you get for your extra $15,000 in debt we have now?) is the economy improving even slightly...and appears to be slipping backward into a possible recession again. There is no record to run on for President Obama. Romney may not be the ideal standard bearer but he at least understands incentive, and motivation when it comes to the private sector and if his policies demonstrate that understanding then we can expect a period of real growth.

I love hearing from people from other countries. Their perspective on US Politics is interesting and enlightening. I would like them to be better informed about things so that perhaps they will be able to see all of America and not just the media misrepresentations. 
 
+bobby pelletier Massachusetts jobs are still being shipped to India under Obama's pal Deval Patrick.  Just look at the big State Street layoff.
 
+A Fellow , I quote: "Parmar, love u live in India u know nothing about Mitt okay he wants America to know about his faith and many wives." Racist much?
EDIT: Also this: "Are u for real nobody like u but white people and your cult wives u sound insane Mitt whatever the hell your name am poor and black but I hate u and really I hope America wake up and NO VOTE U IN THE WHITE HOUSE REALLY"

I also notice some liberal tricks at play here: where is the empirical defense for Obama?

I too would like to see a plan put forward by Romney, but I have no doubt that even when he is ready to unveil his plan, you will read it with the same liberal blinders you wear now.
 
Robme?  LOL, like we're supposed to take you seriously.  
 
+A Fellow “nobody like u but white people and your cult wives u sound insane Mitt whatever the hell your name am poor and black but I hate u”
“"BIG LOVE" it was based on Mitt and his family “
“my people “

If this is not racist, hate filled bigotry and religious intolerance then I don't know what is.
 
+Nate Cook I think you meant to tag someone else in your post - not sure why I got pulled into this?
 
A QUESTION TO ALL POLITICAL ACTIVIST...WHICH PLAN WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED TO CHANGE THE CURRENT SITUATION? IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE NEW GOVERNMENT WOULD BUILD NEW FIRMS TO ACCOMODATE UNEMPLOYED INDIVIDUALS? I FOR ONE THOUGHT THAT UNEMPLOYMENT IS A GLOBAL CRISIS!
 
+Deon Mhlongo , the first step would be to implement education of the existence of the Shift key. This would effectively eliminate the use of unnecessary Caps Lock.
 
+Ifechelobi Meks +Steven Roy +bobby pelletier Fully laying out and explaining a recovery plan is more than can be done in a sound bite.  Having spent months examining policies of all candidates, though, I can perhaps provide an outline of Romney's approach.

First, some background is needed.  Job creating is the result of a balance.  The incentive to hire someone and create a job is that a business can produce more and serve more customers with additional employees.  The disincentive is that adding an employee costs money - not just the amount that the employee is paid, but also fringe benefits and overhead.  Whether or not a job is created depends on whether the benefits to the employer in terms of serving customers better outweigh the costs in wages and benefits.

The government has little control over how much value to the customers a new employee creates.  However, the government can strongly affect the costs of a new employee beyond take home wages.

Romney's economic plan revolves around decreasing those nonwage costs of hiring employees.  I'll give two specific examples.

First, Obamacare adds thousands of dollars a year to the costs of hiring a new employee by requiring small businesses to provide expensive health care coverage or face a financial penalty.  This is a big hit to small businesses because they don't have the negotiating power of large businesses to keep their health insurance premiums reasonable, and Obamacare prohibits small businesses from banding together to get that negotiating power.  Repealing Obamacare or providing waivers, both of which Romney has repeatedly said he would do, will reduce that cost and thus encourage new job creation.

The second example is taxes.  The higher the personal income tax, the more a business has to pay an employee for the employee to get the same take home pay.  Romney has stated that he will cut the personal income tax rates on earned income - that is, wages - by 20%, which will reduce that tax burden and make it possible to hire more people at the same take home pay rate with less expense to the employer.  That will also result in a big uptick in job creation.

Hopefully that outline helps.  You can find this stuff on Romney's web site if you dig for it.  It would be nice if it were easier to find, but the average voter doesn't seem to be interested in that level of detail.
 
Yehuda Cohen IN CASE YOU DID NOT NOTICE, IT IS A STYLE I USE TO WRITE MY VIEW.HOWERVER IF YOU HAD ANY IDEA OF WHAT I WAS ASKING YOU COULD HAVE GIVEN ME THE ANSWER I WAS LOOKING FOR. YOU SHOULD LEARN TO DEAL WITH WITH ONE THING AT A TIME... 
 
YES! T IS STUCK! AM I GONNA GET ANY ANSWERS FROM THOSE WHO HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT SHOULD BE DONE TO CHANGE THE GLOBAL CRISIS
 
Anyone who has used the word "cult," could you define it for me?  Thanks in advance.
 
The country's issue at the moment, is electing someone that will be able to examin in a disciplined, informed, reflective and reasoning  manner on how to work with a Congress, that has adopted the "oppositional defiant disorder", in order to move in a direction that furthers the country as a whole.

But, expecting to have an intellectual president with heightened critical thinking skills is out of the question. These two candidates do not fit the criteria. The last intellectual the US had as a president was Clinton.

He had poor morals and ethics, most politicians do, however, he did a good job overall in particular with the budget, leaving office with a surplus of 239 billion. Something his last 5 predecessors never hoped to achieve. 

Blaming one person for the numerous reasons behind the poor economy is illogical. There is a justifiable ton of blame to go around. So many false dichotomies, ignorance is rampant. 

Regardless of who becomes president, neither one has a viable short term solution much less a long term solution, but they still insist in  force feeding short term solutions, something Washington seems to be addicted to. Neither candidate has given a lucid plan, why, because they know the truth. Neither president can fix the economy, to believe this is to be completely disconnected with reality. 

The US economy lies at the feet of Europe and China, period. When Europe stabilizes, we will. We are in for a long recovery, the candidates should stop lying and start being more honest about this. How unfortunate that they cater to the ignorance and emotions of a nation, and the nation dances to its tune.
 
I AM MAKING IT A GLOBAL ISSUE, BECAUSE EVEN HERE WHERE I LIVE THE RATE OF UNEMPLOYMENT IS HIGH.IF THERE IS A PLAN WHICH WILL WORK FOR THE U.S.A IT MIGHT WORK FOR OTHER COUNTRIES...THIS IS NO A POLITICAL MOVE...JUST POST AN IDEA THEN WE WORK ON IT...THESE ATTACKS ARE TAKING US NOWHERE!
 
+Warren Dew  I would actually argue that what businesses want most of all is certainty and clarity about policy. This is the thing that most top executives have requested the most. When companies know how much it will cost them, it’s much easier to do business and hire people.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-cfos-say-certainty-in-tax-code-has-become-even-more-important-than-reduction-in-corporate-tax-rates-according-to-new-survey-by-alvarez-marsal-taxand-2012-05-29  
Unfortunately, Romney has limited himself to the standard Republican mantra of “lower taxes on top earners so they can hire more people”, which has questionable effectiveness at best, as history shows. 
What this country needs is comprehensive tax reform, which both parties will have to participate in, and sacrifices will have to be made on both sides. I highly doubt that Romney, who famously said he wouldn’t take $10 in cuts for every $1 in revenue, will be the person to bring together both parties to do a comprehensive tax reform, especially given his priorities on day one – approving pipelines and repealing Obamacare.
 
Darn straight I agree!  Great ad, Governor!
 
+Georgi Trifonov I agree that certainty or at least predictability of policy would help as well.  Obama has done a particularly bad job in that area by engaging in brinksmanship with congress, which results in everything being left until the last moment.  Romney would likely do better, as he has experience as governor of Massachusetts in working in a more bipartisan way with a legislature dominated by the opposing party.

Your characterization of Romney's tax position is incorrect.  He wants to cut the tax rate for all earners, not just the top earners.  The only people he doesn't want to cut tax rates for are investors like himself who pay capital gains rates, which he considers low enough already.

In addition, Romney has been very clear that he wants overall tax reform - "lower the rates and broaden the base" are his exact words in various primary debates earlier in the season - in the medium term.  He just thinks we need some short term action as well, given how poorly the economy is doing.
 
What has happened to my Republican Party?  Smart, hard hitting, and effective ads?!?  Keep it up, Governor Romney, we want to change your title to Mr. President.  
 
+bobby pelletier Well, if a cult is a small religious sect I guess every religion in the world is a cult, or at least started out as such.   I guess this would include all Mac/iPhone users as well...
 
+Katina Walker you are races as hell but if someone was white and said what you just said to bho that would be races. what is with us black people these days thinking that we can say anything races to them but if they say it to us its races as hell +Jason Philo 
 
+Warren Dew I would blame the Republicans in Congress equally, if not more, for the lack of engagement. The House Republicans, particularly the Tea Party freshmen wanted to let the country default on our debt, remember? The lack of cooperation with the executive branch has been unprecedented for this Congress. Look up the number of filibusters – double the number compared to what Bush had. Mitch McConnell’s first priority was not to serve the American people, but to “make sure Obama was a one-term president”.  Where do you go from there?

Romney’s tax policy disproportionately favors higher income earners, so even if he cuts rates on all earners, the vast majority of those tax benefits go to the top earners. And then there’s the problem of what to do with the debt and deficit – independent analysis by the Tax Policy Center shows that Romney’s plan worsens the problem instead of fixing it.

Here is more on that: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/romneys-budget-plan-doesnt-add-up-2012-06-18
 
this streak was started by Bush and the exact same policies that Mitt for Brains is peddling !
 
How exactly was it started by Bush?  Lets not forget democrats have had majority control since 2006 and were deep into the mortgage crisis.
 
Actually, it's Congress's fault, not Obama's. They are the ones who are passing this stuff, Obama is just the one who is signing the documents. If you want to fix the issue, vote every Congressman out of office and someone new in.
 
Actually the bitterness is mostly Obama's fault, he's the marxist and the most decisive President.  Lies and blame are all he has to stand on, and only leftist moonbats continue to follow him.
 
Again, democrats have had majority control since 2006 with several years of super majority.  Did they do anything to help with jobs and the economy?  No, they were too busy making back room deals for Obamacare.
 
It's actually our own fault for electing these idiots into office. Until we wake up and start electing genuine and honest people, we have no one to blame but ourselves....
 
+Spencer Scott Actually, Democrats “controlled” Congress for only six months (from July 2009 when Al Franken formally took office, to February 2010 when Scott Brown took office, minus one month that it took to fill Ted Kennedy’s vacant seat after he passed away). It takes 60 Senate votes to get anything done, so please don’t count a 50% Senate majority as “controlling Congress”. 
 
+Georgi Trifonov To the contrary, the most some Tea Party members tried to do was to defer the debt ceiling increase until Obama would agree to some real budget cuts.  That would have allowed the government to continue spending current tax revenues, which would have covered interest on the debt, entitlements such as social security, and many discretionary expenses such as military salaries.

Unfortunately Obama stonewalled.  But hey, even if you were correct, my point would still stand:  Romney is better at working with a recalcitrant legislature, as demonstrated by the fact he didn't provoke this kind of thing while he was governor like Obama has as president.

By the way, +Spencer Scott is correct about the Democrats having majority control of the senate.  A majority in the senate still provides a lot of power, even if it's not absolute power, and is normally called "control" of the senate.  They didn't have a supermajority for the full two years, but that's probably why +Spencer Scott said "majority control" rather than "supermajority control", isn't it?
 
+Warren Dew I thought US Constitution says that "All Laws shall be made by Congress" and the President "signs or vetoes it".  Since 2010, Republicans have been in power for 2 years and now we are blaming the President for black unemployment.  How about for once blaming the "Do Nothing Congress" for the high levels of unemployment?  

Everything that goes wrong is President's fault and anything that goes right "anybody could have done"....remember "Osama Bin Laden killing."  Come on, grow up people.
 
+Arun Kumar Well, let's look at what happened before and after Republicans took control of the house in 2010, shall we?  Black unemployment was 15.4% in November of 2010, up from 11.2% in November of 2008, under Obama and a Democratic congress, so that combination was disastrous for black employment.

Since the Republicans took control of one of the two houses of congress in 2010, black unemployment, while remaining high, has at least not continued increasing, drifting down to 13.6% today.  So the evidence is that Republicans in congress have been good for black employment, though ot good enough to offset Obama's problematic policies.
 
+Warren Dew I'm not gonna get caught up in definitions of what 'controlling Congress" means. To me controlling Congress is the ability to pass legislation that the party wants to pass without hitting a brick wall. For that, nowadays you need 60 votes in the Senate.
 
+Georgi Trifonov Neither party ever had a 60 vote supermajority in the senate under either Clinton or Bush, yet legislation got passed in a reasonable fashion.  It's just under Obama that it's become a problem.  That points to Obama being the problem, not Congress.
 
Being governor and being president are very different posts, comparing governance over a state to governance over a country lacks common sense. It's like saying, "I can be a coach for Stanford because I was coach for little league". It's not just about balancing a budget. I wonder if he knows that?!  A successful financier does not a successful president make and he's banking his campaign on this solely, apparently.

The evolving theocracy in which Republicans so firmly engage, is nefarious. They are quick to brand the president, a Socialist or Marxist, inclusive their own party members who attempt to adopt bipartisan ideas, as sympathizers of such, if it does not fit into their monopolization of how to run (rule) the country, it is not feasible. It's their "leave-it-alone and see him drown" approach that has impeded, in large part, this president in fulfilling his role.

The social and cultural changes of this nation will eventually supercede that of an non-progressive and banal Conservative party and walk it over a political cliff.
 
+Warren Dew Where were you when the Great Recession 2008 took place? You seem to conveniently ignore that recession fact. Tell me which specific policies under the president and democratic controlled Congress before 2010 led to high unemployment for African Americans.

You are missing basic facts. It would be impossible in our current system of budget cycle to influence policy decisions in short span that Obama and democratic Congress was in power. First of all, the first ever budget passed by Obama was not until October 2009 because until September 2009 fiscal year, the budget was Bush budget passed in 2008. That is a fact because our budget cycle works from October to September. Republicans took control of Congress in November 2010, which leaves exactly 1 year to implement any policy. For a fact Obama was focused during that 1 year on Health Care. So tell me +Warren Dew HOW COULD OBAMA AND DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS HAVE MADE SITUATION WORSE FOR AFRICAN AMERICANS? I can't think of any major policy was passed focused on African Americans that made their situation worse under Obama. Please enlighten me.
 
Yeah Mitt, Love you Brother! 
 
+Arun Kumar Expanding entitlement programs hurt everybody. Extending Unemployment Insurance has only encouraged people to remain unemployed. Expanding Food Stamps has rewarded poverty.

When you invest in failure you encourage failure. The African Americans have been reduced to a Dependent Class by Liberal policies aimed at buying votes with taxpayer dollars.

Liberalism is far worse than slavery could ever be as its victims are all too eager to feed at the public trough.
 
+Milton Ragsdale The issue with people like yourself is that you refuse to read and get knowledgeable.  Do you have any proof that extending unemployment insurance has encouraged people to remain unemployed?  I can guarantee you that there is NONE WHATSOEVER.

In 2011, Brookings Institution published a study by Joe Rothstien of University of California, Berkley on the very topic you so ignorantly claim to know more of.  The title of the paper is "Unemployment Insurance and Job Search in the Great Recession (2008-2010)".

Here's the excerpt of the conclusions from the EMPIRICAL study (All Facts, No Opinions):
1) Unemployment Insurance (UI) had "small or no negative effect" on the probability that eligible unemployed would exit unemployment benefits

2) UI benefit extensions raised unemployment rate in early 2011 by only 0.1-0.5 percentage points (e.g. it moved unemployment rate from 8 to 8.1%)

3) Half of the 0.1-0.5 percentage point increase is attributable to reduced labor force exit among the unemployed rather than to changes in reemployment rate (i.e., people staying on benefits far too long as you claim so).  In other words, unemployment rate went up because the unemployed continued to search for jobs because UI benefits afforded them (positive effect), but once they found jobs they immediately left (hence no change in reemployment rate)

In short, Unemployment Insurance did not make people stay on Food Stamps like you claim to.  Understood.  

Here's the link to the article:  http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/Programs/ES/BPEA/2011_fall_bpea_papers/2011_fall_bpea_conference_rothstein.pdf

You make Fox Lies and News continue to have high rating.  

Thanks.
 
Btw, +Milton Ragsdale , I do agree with you that entitlement needs to be controlled. Cost of medicaid and medicare ought to be slower than GDP growth, which today it's not.

Thanks
 
I agree, higher taxes on higher incomes will create more jobs.
 
+Angelica Dzana Sorry bad argument.  Being Governor is better experience to being President than spending very short time as a Senator.  At least Romney has some executive experience - both in government and out of government.  Obama had no executive, management or leadership experience at all.  He had never run anything his entire life. Try again.
 
+Nate Cook Unfortunately Obama is not in the company of Sarah Palin and Wormney, who have plenty of executive experience. A quitter, being 47th in job creation, #1 in long term debt, cutting education, increasing taxes on middle class through fees etc. Yes, I agree with you that Obama lacks experience or leadership to do all the things that Romney can do.
Q Dog
 
+Spencer Scott Thanks for the link about Bush's warnings about the Housing Crisis.  
 
+Nate Cook  if you had read correctly, you would have understood my emphasis in that, the differences between serving state and serving an entire country are not the same.

For example, serving as an executive to a state of 6+ million, is not in comparison to serving as an executive to a country of 311+ million and its numerous extensions of critical and intricate branches of importance, not only to the US, but to the world. The experience is different. Regardless of the transferable skills. It does not predict his future success as a president, any more than that of a senator. Why? Because it takes a certain quality of mind, not experience, to understand the true meaning of such.

It is illogical to think that someone who serves as governor, will affirm, that the experience served as president, is the same.

Romney has not based his experience on being a successful governor  rather he bases it on, finance experience in the private sector not the public. Which ironically, is what he should be doing.
Q Dog
+
1
2
1
 
+Georgi Trifonov Most presidents do not have the luxury of a super majority.  Reagan didn't and he managed.  Clinton didn't and he managed.  In fact neither had the benefit of having even the majority in both houses at times during there presidencies.  Carter was the last to have +60 and look how that turned out.
 
+James Tepe when the other party wants to defeat you at any cost, then the comparisons are moot. There were more moderate people during Reagan and Clinton time than during Obama. Don't disagree with me...just look at the Republican primary debates.
 
As for the Housing crisis, well, another misinformation given by the Republican party. Let's be honest here. A legislation, the "Federal Housing Finance Reform Act" was introduced to the house in 2005, it passed, regardless of President Bush's opposition to some of the policies in the legislation. It was then sent to Congress, who so steadfastly opposed it, from both Republicans and Democrats. 

Republicans have always claimed that government-backed lenders, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the sole cause of the financial crisis. But according to Congress' Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, the evidence showed a mixture of deregulation with irresponsible and probable illegal practices by private firms on Wall Street that was the main cause to both the bubble and the collapse.

If Congress had passed the FHFRA legislation, and the Bush administration not been adamant that the only solution to the problems presented by Fannie and Freddie was their privatization, maybe, just maybe, we would be in a different set of circumstances.
 
+Arun Kumar It was you who first mentioned 2010 as the year Republicans gained control of the house.  I was just using your date.

That said, Obama started messing up the economy with auto bailouts and "stimulus" patronage spending within a month of taking office, long before October.  Likewise, legislation passed preventing an economically disastrous tax increase immediately after the Republicans won the house.  No one waits for the next budget cycle any more.

As for the explanation you ask for of specific policies that caused black unemployment to soar under Obama and the Democrats, start by reading my earlier comment explaining why Romney's departures from Obama's policies would help.  That explains why Obama's policies are hurting employment for everyone - including blacks.

Then, realize that Obamacare in particular, since it adds the same extra cost to creation of any job, adds a larger percentage cost burden to lower paying jobs.  That means that it suppresses creation of entry level and working class jobs even more than it suppresses higher paying, professional jobs.

And while there are more and more blacks working their way into the professional ranks, blacks are still disproportionately represented in the working class, many looking for entry level jobs, especially the teens.  That means that Obamacare's suppression of the creation of those jobs hurts blacks even more than it hurts everyone else.
Q Dog
+
1
2
1
 
+Arun Kumar Not sure if I agree with more moderation during the 80's and 90's than now.  Gingrich was the head of the opposition during Clinton and was vehemently against many Democratic proposals to the point of shutting down gov't during the holidays.  Remember the "Contract with America".  Pretty much the Tea Party of the 1990's.  What about The Ken Star led witch hunt and impeachment.  But somehow Bill AND NEWT managed to reform welfare and create a surplus.  Most Dems forget the AND NEWT part when discussing the SURPLUS.
Q Dog
+
2
3
2
 
Obama has no legitimate excuse for his failings.   He campaigned that he could change Washington and knew what he was getting into.  He told you he could make everything better.  Don't blame Republicans.  You can blame us when we take over, but until then, look in the mirror for blame.  
Q Dog
+
2
3
2
 
+Arun Kumar Primary debates are usually pretty nasty.  But after the nomination process has been decided, the smart candidates gravitate back towards the center where independents are.  Smart presidents should do the same if they want to get anything done.
 
+Warren Dew The claim that it's Obama's fault why legislation didn't get passed by the legislative branch of government is just absurd. 

You are forgetting one important thing: back in the days of Clinton and Reagan there were still moderates on both sides of the isle who were willing to work together to move this country forward. Today we have a handful of extremists running the show..

Obama has repeatedly made concessions so the debate with Congress would move forward. He upset a lot of Democrats by doing this, but that's how politics are done - by compromising. The right doesn't think so, apparently. The goal there is clear: "one term president". They are not even shy about saying it out loud. Legislation that the House has passed in the recent months has been a colossal waste of time and money, solely to appease the right with zero chance of ever becoming law and they know that. At the same time, the Transportation bill is being passed over and over.

Of course, the Senate is guilty for playing the politics game too (Paycheck Fairness Act), but even that in its core is built on the principle of equal opportunity. The lion share of idiotic bill proposals come from the House. My personal favorite: a bill proposing no government regulations on anything until unemployment falls below 6%. It will make it the law that Congress does nothing. Brilliant.
 
He needed to be in front of Rubio no matter how transparent.  How much of the media do you suppose will even report the Rubio proposal.
 
America is the land of opportunity, the land of the free, the land of limitless abundance. We are independent but interdependent of one another. Our choice of president is not just the only answer but we must all be willing to be part of the change! We need to choose our president from his ability to lead not just manage. Leadership requires interdependence of all Americans. America is and will continue to be the greatest nation in the world.
 
Liberals would rather abort children then return them to their country of origin.  Makes sense.
Leo T
 
I was liking Mitt a lot but this beating the economy thing to a pulp is getting old with me.  I seriously doubt he could single-handedly lower unemployment.  So stop already Mitt!!!
 
+Georgi Trifonov I provided quantitative data supporting my contention that the problem is Obama - unemployment increased when he had cooperative Democrats in Congress, and decreased slightly when he had Republicans.  In contrast, you have provided no quantitative data, only partisan rants.  Surely you don't expect people to change their minds based on rants?
 
+Angelica Dzana So you think it's better to have no experience at all?  Being Governor of a state and an executive of a large business better qualifies a person to be President than community organizing does.  Basically you are saying it's impossible to get experience to qualify someone to be President outside of actually being President which just does not makes sense because that way nobody would ever be qualified.  

I find it strange that you would rather have someone with no experience whatsoever become President than someone with vast experience.  The office of the President should not be given to those who have never run anything in their entire lives - not so much as a single lemonade stand.  

The majority of the small time Obama spent as a US Senator was spent campaigning.  That's all he knows how to do.  One brave reporter asked Obama about his total and utter lack of experience back in 2008 and he basically said that running his campaign gave him the experience to be President.  Now that was funny!  So anybody that runs for President is qualified to be President because they all have their campaigns to run.  
 
+Nate Cook  Do not give summations to my comments, you are not qualified, in that your misrepresentation of my comments show dishonesty and attempt to undermine rationality in discourse. 

You may not be aware of the eligibility to be president so here they are, The person must be a natural-born citizen of the United States and must have been a permanent resident of the United States of America for at least 14 years. Additionally, a candidate must not have served more than one previous term as president, not have been impeached by the Senate, and not have participated in a rebellion against the United States. Candidate must be at least 35 years of age. Knowledge and experience in politics, in essence, is highly desirable, and standard but not necessary. As there exist those that are independent, or are a non-party politician, not affiliated to any political party.

Now, I did not make a preference to who would best serve or was "better qualified", those words belong to you. My intent was to argue your initial comment that Romney would be "better" than a senator because of "experience". Since neither office, senator/governor, are a necessity to be eligible, however do serve in government leadership roles for their respective states, and acquire knowledge, qualification and experience, in service to the political arena, which is highly desirable, and in essence qualifies them equally for presidential office. How successful they are, is dependent on many factors, and not on experience alone.

But, if you insist on the "experience" then I will overstate the obvious, Obama is the president. Therefore in this election, he is much more knowledgeable, qualified and experienced.

There are those, such as yourself, that limit, personal ability, to reach a complete intellectual journey, by not looking beyond a subject matter.

Edit: Add
 
+Warren Dew Whether or not you see it as partisan, that doesn't change the fact that what I said about legislation coming from the House is true. Those bill proposals have absolutely zero chance of becoming law and are a waste of time and our tax dollars. And this trend will go on for all of 2012 until the elections are over.

As far as unemployment increasing... surely you are aware of the external factors that contributed to unemployment going up while Democrats had majority in Congress... The global recession is one that comes to mind...
 
+Georgi Trifonov I think you have an oversimplified view of legislation.

The normal course of legislation is that it originates in one chamber - the house in the case of budgetary bills - then it goes to the other chamber, where it is amended to the other chamber's liking.  When the two houses of congress are held by different parties, the amendments often amount to a complete rewrite.  The two versions of the bill then go to a conference committee where the house and the senate iron out their differences.

What has been happening since Obama took office is that the Democrat leadership in the senate, at Obama's behest, has refused to allow the budget even to be considered or amended.  That short circuits the process and prevents compromise and bipartisanship.  That's why things are becoming so much more extreme in DC - Obama and the Democrats in the senate are refusing even to consider a process for compromise.  Instead of permitting representatives and senators from all 50 states to have their input, Obama wants to deal with just a few elite party leaders.

As for global economic conditions, they have not been great, true, but they have continued to be poor in 2011 and 2012 just as they were in 2009 and 2010.  It still remains the case that, under similar poor conditions, unemployment increased when a Democrat controlled congress supported Obama's initiatives, and decreased once the house Republicans started curtailing Obama's excesses.
 
+Warren Dew I am well aware of the legislation process. And- there is a difference between proposing legislation that has a chance to be amended and passed and proposing bills solely created to appeal to your base. Things like repealing major provisions of the ACA, things like banning new regulation until unemployment drops below 6%... Those things can't be amended and passed, they are DOA in the Senate.

Blaming only Obama and the Democrats for the lack of cooperation in Washington is naive and one-sided. I agree that the Democrats are certainly not blameless and Obama for all his oratorical skills is no Bill Clinton when it comes to working with the opposition. That being said, the quantitative facts are that the Senate Republicans have blocked more legislation through filibusters than ever before. The House has only passed bits and pieces of the jobs bill Obama proposed, then blamed him for not fixing the economy. And what about the total no compromise on revenue increases under any circumstances, when every single serious analysis has shown that we can't reduce the long-term deficit by simply cutting? How do you negotiate a compromise, when one side won't budge? So please look at the situation a bit more objectively. Republicans are equally responsible for the gridlock. 
 
+Warren Dew Seriously, when Obama took office, the country was losing 800,000 jobs a month for the next 6-months.  I am not making it up, it a fact.  One has to be a complete moron to say that the economic conditions were similar in 2009 and 2010.  Even a 3rd grade kid will tell you the difference between losing 800,000 jobs per month in 2009 and 2010.

How about Equal Pay Fairness bill?  Why did the Senate Republicans prevent it from passage?  How about the student loan?  I can go on and on, but it takes the courage of a moron to deny that Obama and Democrats are the only one preventing big legislation to be passed.
 
+Nate Cook Yes, Sarah Palin, with her total intellect and governor experience would be as good as Mittard Wormney.  I think it is unfortunate that Obama does not have the experience like Sarah-Palin-in-the-company-of-Mittard-Wormney to drive this country forward with the right level of experience.  The only experience that Mittard Wormney has is sucking the money out of companies and not creating anything.  He will destroy this country and move it more closer to 3rd world status.  If you are up for it, then you should vote for Mittard Wormney.  
 
+Arun Kumar when you understand how much 5 trillion is and why local and state government is bankrupt, then we can talk... idiot.
 
+Arun Kumar Indeed, the U.S. lost a lot of jobs after Obama's "stimulus" bill, which was supposed to get us out of the problem, was passed.  That kind of shows how badly Obama's policies failed, when his bill that was supposed to stop the bleeding in fact made it worse, causing the country to continue to lose jobs well beyond the 8% unemployment peak that most economists thought would be the maximum without the "stimulus".
 
Actually Mitt is ahead in the polls by more then the margin of error. The media just doesn't report positive Romney info, you have to look for yourself.
 
+Jonathan Kim idiot, stop listening to Fox news and read some objective news. 5 trillion in debt increase is driven by revenue shortfalls not just over spending. did you go to school in North Korea that you refuse to use your brain?
 
To Arun Kumar, How is it that the debt increase is NOT Obama's fault? How is that he alone of ALL previous presidents has managed to rack up this record breaking debt, in only three years? Does he not control the budget? Shouldn't he have cut back on spending since the government's income was down? A wise and experienced president would have adjusted spending to levels appropriate to the current income. He promised to go through the budget line by line and remove wasteful spending, he didn't. He said he was going to reduce the deficit, he didn't. Instead, he increased spending. I don't need to listen to Fox, or anyone else. I just listened to him and waited for results, that never came. He spent at least two years blaming Bush, and in fact may still be doing so, but, after more than three years, this is his economy and this is his debt. As for objective news, how in the world do you figure that the major news outlets are objective? You really need to pay attention more to what is going on. Their bias is so extreme and so obvious that it should be clear to any thinking person.
 
Funny how the weakest argument always devolves into name calling.  Demeaning language directed to those who disagree on principal never adds to the strength of ones argument .  Guess Who
 
The fault for our current malaise lays decades ago when the government first stuck its nose into credit and credit risk mitigation.  Both the Rs and the Ds have taken a hand in digging this whole.  Getting the government out of the credit and credit risk mitigation business will be long but if that tide is not turned we will be on the road to serfdom.  The one thing we can be certain of is that President Obama is not going to withdraw government influence from anything. 
 
+Michelle Traynor Excellent points on how Obama is playing the blame game instead of offering workable solutions.

I also agree that Obama has accentuated the divisiveness in today's America.  To be fair, though, while he has escalated political divisiveness to previously unseen heights, I don't think he's actually said much with respect to race.  It's the press that has pushed the racial issues.
 
+Matthew James Just because Obama's policies have ended up making things worse rather than better doesn't make him an "asshole".  Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.
 
I'm not so sure you can say that this president is incompetent or even not getting the result he desires.  Taking a bad situation and making it economically worse  opens the door to the revolution he espoused in 2008.  Unfortunately most voters were not listing and those that were, heard what they wanted to hear.  The transformation he spoke about is upon us; the end of all that makes the USA great.  Look forward to blending in if Romney fails. 
 
+Herbert Wittnebert Care to explain your point in more detail? How is the economic situation "worse" now than it was in 2008? What measures are you looking at? And what exactly has Obama done to "end what makes USA great"? 
 
+Georgi Trifonov He let illegal immigrants into this country, he put gays into our military, he's a racist, he sent out the food police, added to our country's debt, won't let us drill for oil, MICHELLE OBAMA, the fast and furious, and the list goes on and on and on.
 
Amber it's hard to tell if your joking or you really are so misinformed and ignorant of reality...watch faux news much?
 
romney is going to take usa to war again .. good luck . i think you have fun going to war
 
Egads Mitt is such an idiot.  40 months of George W Bush recession, with a GOP Congress committed to punishing the American People as long as Barrack Obama is President. 
 
When you gone sign your George Bush Contract after you do that go tell the BlackJ God you sorry for DQ not being strong enough to handle his jail time I'm feeling like a Black Republican
 
+Warren Dew I don't disagree with the fact that unemployment surged past 8%, while Obama suggested that it would stay below with the stimulus.  You are holding him accountable.  But, let me ask you a tangential, but relevant question.  When Bush went to Iraq illegally, the whole reason was that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.  Having spent billions on a war, there was ZILCH / ZERO weapons.  Bush conveniently blamed George Tenet (CIA director) for providing bad intelligence.  Likewise, could it not be true that the Economists that advised Obama and did the math could have gotten it wrong just like Bush blamed George.  I trust that Obama did not intentionally lie to this country, unlike Bush, to sell his stimulus bill.  

Ok, what could have been your solution to prevent the economy from collapsing?  More tax cuts?  What would your policy at that time have been in 2009 to prevent continued economic collapse of this country?
 
If "professional experience" is so pivitol in terms of the presidency, then the success of his presidency is reflective of, or should be, in that he is an "experienced professional/governor". 

Out of the previous four presidents, all of whom had "professional or governor experience", only one, it can be established, was successful.

In 2000, there was a surplus of 237 billion. In 2001, Bush's budget estimated that there would be a $5+ trillion surplus over ten years. Bush argued, that government funds that were not used should be returned to taxpayers. He argued "the surplus is not the government’s money the surplus is the people’s money". 

Then, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, cautioned that a recession was forseeable. Bush again argued that a tax cut would stimulate the economy and create jobs.

Under his administration, the GPD rate was 2.5%, below average.  By October 2008, as a result of increases in spending, the national debt had risen to $10+ trillion, from 2000 when the debt was a over $5 trillion. Most of the debt was a result of  "Bush tax cuts" and increased national security spending.

How, does anyone logically think that President Obama can create any advantageous short term solution in 3+ years, to 8 years of such a vast mismanagement of the economy by his predessessor, and a Congress that prefers to pass legislation on the renaming of a post offices and resolutions honoring sports teams, than pass a budget on the US economy, not possible. You have be more disconnected to reality than a schizophrenic.

One can only reason to ones conclusions on the basis of history and facts, and if the premises of an argument are true and the reasoning is logically valid, then one can be absolutely certain that the conclusion is true. 
 
+Amber Fraley You are grossly misinformed. I doubt that giving you the facts will change your position, but I'll still give it a shot:

Obama didn't "let illegal immigrants into this county". In fact, until the recent announcement that children of illegal aliens with no criminal record and a GED and/or military service will not be deported, deportations under the Obama administration have been increasing compared to the Bush years.

Gays have always served in our military and died for this country. The only difference is, in order to do that, they had to hide who they really were before "don't ask, don't tell" was repealed.

Obama has never brought up race despite many opportunities to do it. It's the media who has been constantly discussing this issue. I don't know what your argument is based on, frankly.

"Sent out the food police" - please, you're free to eat lard from a bucket if you want and nobody will stop you. As much as I want to see regulation of what passes for food in school cafeterias, Obama has not really done anything major that addresses the issue. Along this line, what fault do you find in Michele Obama? She picked the most non-controversial issue to back - increasing awareness of childhood obesity and what kids can do to eat healthy. Somehow that's bad now?

"Won't let us drill for oil" is also incorrect - U.S. field production of crude oil is up since 2008. As a result, oil imports have shrunk 11 percent in the past year. The administration did tighten some regulations around burning pollutant gases at wells, but those won't take effect until 2015.

Finally, "gun-walking" operations have been conducted in the past as well, with similarly dismal results as F&F. "Wide Receiver" was done in 2006-2007 with no resulting arrests or convictions and the guns ending up in Mexico unaccounted for. 

Hope this helps you.
 
+Arun Kumar If you really want to know what I personally would have done, the best thing to do is probably to read my blog.  Here are some of the titles of my entries on the economy from 2009:

"The free market at work" on how the then nascent housing recovery could spread to the rest of the economy if the government didn't interfere (unfortunately the government did interfere)

"The free market strikes again" on how Ford, without a bailout, was doing better than GM with a bailout

"Paying the piper" on runaway government spending

"Stress test foolishness" on how stress testing of banks using assumptions of a continued recession could become a self fulfilling prophecy (it did)

"Stimulating the recession" on how the "stimulus" bill helped prevent private sector recovery by preventing price reductions

"Slow recovery" on how the "stimulus" bill, even if it had worked as designed, wouldn't result in a recovery for years

"Fixing the economy" linking to a good strategy to fix the economy

http://psychohist.livejournal.com/?skip=33&tag=economy

2009 saw a blizzard of government "interventions" - which is to say, interferences - with the economy.  Perhaps you can tell just from the titles that my strategy would have been to have the government get out of the way and allow the private sector to do its work, instead of weighing the private sector down with baggage like bailouts, micromanagement of banks, and Obamacare.

What's more relevant to this thread, though, is what Romney would do now, not what I would have done 3 years ago.  For a summary of why he'd do a lot better than Obama, see my earlier comment - I think about the 64th comment in this thread.
 
+Matthew James The U.S. Department of Commerce real GDP numbers don't appear to me to show any slowdown in growth with Republican control of the house.  As a percent of 2005 real GDP numbers, the last three years' numbers are:

2009Q1 - 100.319
2009Q2 - 100.145
2009Q3 - 100.567
2009Q4 - 101.509
2010Q1 - 102.494
2010Q2 - 103.450
2010Q3 - 104.093
2010Q4 - 104.699
2011Q1 - 104.792
2011Q2 - 105.140
2011Q3 - 105.614
2011Q4 - 106.385
2012Q1 - 106.877

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1

That looks like a fairly steady growth rate of 2% per year to me.  Sure, growth has been mediocre under Obama - even more mediocre when you consider that much of that growth has been eaten up by population growth - but it doesn't look to me much different under split congressional control with a Republican house in 2011 than it did under the Democrats in 2009 and 2010.

At most you can say that the Republican house hasn't had the salutory effect on GDP yet that they have on employment.
 
+Georgi Trifonov If you looooveee obama sooooo much why don't you tell me all of the lovely things he's done for our country and made it soooo much stronger.
 
+Cdnblaze B What you call faux news is way better than abc or the other crud who just loves obama. Just thought you'd like to know:-).
 
40 months straight over 8%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
its been like 3 maybe at the most
 
That's a nice claim and all, but what is your ACTUAL plan to make a difference? And is there any data or evidence to back up that plan?

Tax cut's haven't created any jobs all the times they have been tried recently. All they have done is make the deficit and debt worse.

Firing people from their jobs doesn't create any jobs, just makes unemployment worse and takes money out of economic circulation. Just because they are public employees doesn't make them any less important to the economy. People with jobs have stability and money to spend to drive the economy. Firing them doesn't magically create a private sector job for them or replace the salary they used to circulate through the system. Just creates an unemployed person needing benefits.

Cutting national debt doesn't create jobs either. Reducing how much the government owes cannot magically create jobs.

Increasing liquidity and supply won't magically create jobs either. It will devalue the currency and drive inflation which will make exports slightly more competitive and might create some jobs but companies and banks are sitting on a mountain of cash, a record amount of cash, so giving them more cash isn't going to change much. They need incentives and drive to invest the cash they are sitting on.

In order to create jobs you need to stimulate demand. And all the policies the republican's seems to have are all based on disproved supply-side economics. In order to stimulate demand you need to either directly spend, induce to spend or redistribute from those sitting on assets to those who will put those assets to use. Making it easier for people sitting on assets to gain more assets to sit on does not stimulate demand. Giving the people sitting on assets more assets to sit on does not stimulate demand. And so long as the demand is not there the supply won't even try to meet it.
 
+Amber Fraley I never said I loved Obama. I too have had my share of disappointments with his administration, although they are different than yours. What I said was that your information was incorrect and your claims were not based on actual facts.

While it's certainly not perfect, I do believe that Obama's vision for the upcoming years is better suited to address the challenges we face than Romney's. And although I've said in the past that I'm not concerned if Romney won, because at his core, he is a moderate (despite trying to pander to the fringe during the primaries). What I'm more concerned is actually what Congress' composition looks like after the elections..
 
does anyone honestly think Mitt could do better with a divided Congress?  Blaming Obama with Republicans in control of the house is just wrong.  Even worse the Republicans in the Senate have filibustered just about everything.
 
+Matthew James  If you mean "unemployment", please say "unemployment"; "growth", which is what you said, usually refers to GDP.

While widely reported in the press, the last two months of bad job reports constituted only a 0.1% increase in the unemployment rate, from 8.1% to 8.2%.  That's about half the average rate of increase in unemployment for the two years Obama had a fully Democratic congress to support him.

That said, I'm more than happy to lay that 0.1% increase in unemployment at the feet of the Republican house if you will credit the Republicans in the house for the 1.6% decrease in unemployment since they got elected, from 9.8% to 8.2%, as compared to the nearly 2% increase in unemployment under the Democratic house.

The fact is, the decrease in unemployment under the Republican house has occurred in basically two bursts, about one percent in the months after the Bush tax cuts were extended for 2011-2012, and about half a percent after the payroll tax cuts were extended for 2012; given the intermittent nature of legislative progress, it's not surprising to see that pattern, which includes the unemployment rate languishing, as it has for the past two months, once the effects of legislation are factored in by businesses.

And again, the Republican initiatives would have a much stronger effect if they weren't watered down by Obama and the senate Democrats, and if we didn't still have Obamacare and the lingering negative effects of Obama's 2009 economic initiatives hanging over our heads.
 
+Warren Dew To the contrary, supply side economics is a nice theory. Unfortunately when it has been applied (via Reagan and recent Bush years) the data speaks for itself. It does not translate to the real world because it does not account for human nature. Supply side advocates can pretend all they want by looking at theoretical models or trying to point out isolated data without context such as saying tax revenues rose when tax cuts were made. Well yes, the total revenues did rise. But that is ignoring both economic growth and inflation. When adjusted for those factors tax revenues suffered and the growth did not increase in response to them. And that is the problem with supply side economics, its nice on paper but the peer reviewed data and simulations do not support it and in fact show the opposite.

But I agree there is a place for supply side economics. And that place is in a supply constrained economy which currently doesn't exist. Taxes are already so far to the left of the Laffer Curve that in many places they could be raised with minimal impact on growth and redirected to area's that would provide FAR more stimulus to the economy. Such as to the hands of the people most likely to spend it on the basic goods and services that drive the economic engine, the bottom 25% of income earners.

Supply side economics under Reagan years onward is the reason why the national debt is so large. Reducing tax revenues did not stimulate growth to replace those lost revenues while spending grew roughly at the same rates. The deficit overhangs built up into the debt you face today.

And as for the great depression of the 1930's? You can blame the gold standard preventing demand side economic action for that as well as the vast amount of protectionist policies enacted that choked global trade. The sooner a country got off the gold standard and ran a expansionary monetary policy and invested the results in stimulus the faster that they got out of the depression. And it took a massive Keynesian stimulus to eventually pull through the depression via military spending for WWII. Military spending for wars is a example of Demand Side economics at work.

Why don't you check out a comparison of the two theories here which references real world examples and data.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0514-20.htm 
 
+Scott Barnden You should check out the graph in the link I provided earlier in this thread.  That graph clearly that there was higher than average growth for the decade after the Reagan tax rate cuts - as well as after the Kennedy cuts.  The empirical evidence strongly favors supply side stimulus.

Note also that not all tax cuts are tax rate cuts, and not all are supply side stimulus.  For example, tax credits are demand side, not supply side.  The increasing use of tax credits under Bush and Obama is part of the problem.

Finally, while I'm not a fan of Bush, the economy was much better under Bush than it has been under Obama, despite a huge economic shock from 9/11, so even that comparison favors supply side intervention over demand side intervention.

By rights, the 2001-2002 recession should have as deep as the 2008-2009 recession, but Bush's policies managed to stave it off for 7 years.  I'm not saying that was the right policy, mind - it might have been better to take our medicine in 2001 - but it does go to show that supply side policies do what they're designed to do.
 
+Warren Dew And like I said, the premise behind that graph is completely false. The stimulus after the depression was not complete demand side stimulus since it was constrained first by the gold standard that prevented a monetary expansion policy required by a demand side stimulus and secondly by further commitments to try and 'balance the books' when the balancing should have started after growth was realized, not at the same time as trying to realize it. And all the economist agree that the growth that did occur was due to demand side stimulus enacted by Roosevelt on taking office and the measures taken to get the economy off the gold standard.

Also note the massive growth during rearmament and WWII which as I pointed out is an example of demand side stimulus unconstrained by monetary policy. It kicked off some of the strongest growth over all the period shown.

The chart being used is very misleading for the argument being presented. Because it shows the growth of GDP per capita as opposed to the RATE of growth of GDP per capita. Recovery, growth and contraction should all be based on the rate, not the gross.

When investigated in detail the numbers show the opposite to what you are claiming. Supply side economics consistently over-promised in theory and under-delivered in practice. 

Supply side advocates like the pretend that the great depression was due to demand side economics and that supply side saved the day. But again, this plays fast an loose with the actual facts and data and ignores context.

Review here:
http://gecon.blogspot.fi/2011/09/did-supply-side-economic-policies-end.html
 
Like you care about unemployment... too funny!!!
 
+Warren Dew, yes the economy is not at its best, but you need to know that Romney is the most unfit and worst canidate to run the United States. He has no plan for taax cuts, medicare, or the economy. With Romney, America will be in its worst shape. All of the other countries will be laughing and mocking us because of the unenployment rate. And like Scott said, the graph is extremly false.The stimilus is not complete at all. And nobody favors the supply side.
 
+Spencer Scott Your statements are contradictory.  Roosevelt was permitted to devalue the dollar relative to gold in 1934, which allowed expansion of the money supply and as much demand side stimulus as he wanted in the "New Deal".  Yet economic growth continued to lag for the remainder of the 1930s, with a second period of negative growth starting in 1937, until the advent of WWII resulted in a large influx of capital to the U.S. from the rest of the world.
 
+Brandon Nwokeji To the contrary, Romney has plans for all of those things.  On tax cuts, his plan is to lower the tax rates and broaden the tax base, which is more efficient economically.  He has endorsed the Ryan plan on medicare, which permits growth but at the rate of inflation only.  Both those will help the economy, as will getting rid of Obamacare, which is an albatross around the neck of all job creation efforts.
 
I think we should get rid of Obamacare as soon as possible!!!!
 
What is Romney's specific plan for healthcare reform? I keep hearing "repeal and replace Obamacare". With what? "A market-based approach" cannot be more vague. What does that mean specifically? 

What is sad about America is that people here blindly believe that everything they have is the greatest in the world without the slightest idea of what other nations have. Healthcare is a prime example, so is education and sadly - infrastructure is becoming one too...

Instead of learning from some of the Asian nations that figured out how to reform their healthcare systems with tremendous success, we are not even aware of what they've achieved. Nations like Singapore and Taiwan, that used to be third world countries a few decades ago today have healthcare systems that ensure universal coverage, high quality of care and affordable costs, something that, even with the ACA, we can only dream of here. Singapore's system actually allows for the one thing we don't have here: doctors and patients making decisions, not the government and not an oligopoly of HMOs.

So I'm all for repealing Obamacare, if we got the Singapore system here. Alas... it's like wishing for that moon base that Newt promised.
 
+Angelica Dzana awesome...'lf you insist on the experience then I will state the obvious, Obama is the president and therefore in this election, he has the most experience'. That ought to silence the 'experience-mongering' crowd. Great one, +Angelica Dzana
 
Funny how the Democrats haven't been able to do anything about the economy in 3 1/2 years......Obama just keeps throwing our money away, he never works, he's never in the white house......Plus bush had a Democratic congress what does that tell you......Democrats are starting to act more like Communist than Patriots..
 
People, if you have time, listen to the testimony from Dr. Elmendorf, CBO Director.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/TermBudg

Excerpts:
1) ARRA (Stimulus) had a positive effect on the economy - economic multiplier was >1, i.e., spending $1 stimulus generated >$1 in economic output
2) Republicons try to corner him on voo-doo stuff and he deftly disagrees with them on why deficit reduction must be accompanied by a bigger spending reduction and revenue increase (either larger tax base or higher rates)
3) Expanding the tax base does not automatically result in increased revenue
4) 80% of leading US economists (in a survey by University of Chicago) agree that the ARRA (stimulus) bill had improved GDP and reduced employment compared to a policy without it
5) On the effect of public- or private-section spending during recession, Dr. Elmendorf clearly said that it doesn't matter where the spending comes from so long as there is spending to drive demand

It gets interesting between 45min and the end (especially towards the 1.30min time frame).
 
Huh... lets see how long it takes to fix THIS mess!..... -.-
 
+Rheanna Jean ik its a big problem, but if we vote for Mitt Romney he'll have it fixed in NO TIME FLAT. Believe me.
 
This mess was created by GOP and their policies and they want everyone to believe they will be able to fix it ... huh !!
 
Hate to burst your bubble.Mitt Romney is not going to win the election.Dems know it and Republicans know it.Romney is a "sacrifical lamb" just like Dole & McCain.Republicans are waiting for Rubio & the next  "fresh"generation of Republicans to come in,in 2016.They will let Obama win and "demonize" him for another 4 years.I'll bet $10,000 that Rubio is not Mitt Romney's choice as VP.Rubio does not want his image tainted like Palins. 
 
Obama was an untested & unproven entity in 2008; all talk,no walk -then and now.
 
+Esther Sewell very true. Well said. Even now with whatever on the job experience he has got, he is no better than a community organizer. what has he done in the last 3 years. Gutsily kill Osama bin laden, stabilize the financial meltdown, bring back the auto industry from the brink, pass healthcare for people who cannot afford etc etc. I am sure even Sarah Palin could have done. It's so easy. If a community organizer can order the killing of Osama bin laden, anyone can do it. Common its so easy....its like going to the grocery store.
 
Obama did walk in to a tricky situation, though. The economy had just collapsed and he, as president, was expected to fix all of that. That's a tall order.
Either way, I'm very glad I don't live in the states, because it seems to me that you guys have some pretty shitty republican candidates this year.
Also, +Arun Kumar ? All those things you just listed? Those are pretty damn awesome, aren't they? And they don't sound like just some walk in the park to me.
 
People need to understand the President can't do much if congress wants to see him fail. Get a grip on whats really going on!
 
All I see under Obama, is good people being put on the street and a middle class/young people under attack.  $1 trillion spent by Obama administration and I am losing my job.  Can't be all on Congress, President has responsibility for this crapy economy.
 
+Megan Malach of course, Megan.  Those are not trivial :-)  I wanted to point out the argument from our republicon friends who said anyone could have killed OBL.
 
You couldn't turn the economy around yourself.  You blame the president for something the 1% is doing to the 99% - while you sit in your %1 bracket.  You and Bain Capital have put more people out of work than you have employed.  Turn that number around and then you have a personal argument you can use against your opponent without looking like a tool. 
 
Hmm maybe because apple and other big companies are produce every thing in China leaving no money in country so mitt romney u own those companies put them in,America smart ppl may elect u not doosh bags who don't know the first thing about the country
 
This whole Presidential election thing blows!
 
As President Obama has left us with massive debt, high unemployment, business killing regulations, more Americans on food stamps then ever before, high gas prices, and Obama has killed the American dream of owning a home. Now ask yourself... who wouldn't support a record like that?
 
Historically, doesn't it typically take about 2 years to clean up the previous president's mistakes??? So, if that's true then that means that #BarackObama has only had 5 months. So, if #MittRomney  were elected then theoretically his 1st 3 years should be really easy. 
 
+David Wayne what planet are you living? Talking to you is like talking to a dining table...we have no interest and you can take your vote to loser Wormney
 
change yeah obama changed the econmey for the worse
 
Obama should be impeached and that's it.
 
Yes, more people need help from the policies you and your party have inflicted on the middle class. But then again, there are gullible people everywhere so yup, good luck!
 
And if the Pubs wouldn't have been grandstanding, 'bustering, and ruining the economy on purpose to have Obama oustered in '12, his plan might have succeeded.  Unfortunately, those who bet on the country to fail (Cantor, Boner, and McTurtle) won't be tried as traitors.
 
+Ben Anderson  Now to the political aspect of this. Empirically the President has failed to accomplish many of the things he promised.

Oh, ignorance is bliss. When you are faced with a party that contradicts itself, simply to "stop the President", please what result do you expect aside from  earning "do nothing Congress"? I love it when people make a mess, and don't see their own footsteps.

Only now, after trillions of dollars spent (What did you get for your extra $15,000 in debt we have now?) is the economy improving even slightly...and appears to be slipping backward into a possible recession again.

Yes, after trillions of dollars spent in the country, the nation still needs help. And just to make it clear, please don't muddle the "trillion dollar bill" as if it was spent by the President. He paid for our bills racked up over the years on the "credit card". A decade long war on credit, tax cuts on credit, etc. So when a bill comes up that invests in the country's infrastructure you have a problem? Exactly what spending do you have in mind? None? Who will spend money then? You? Nobody? How does the economic engine work then? Fairy dust?

There is no record to run on for President Obama. Romney may not be the ideal standard bearer but he at least understands incentive, and motivation when it comes to the private sector and if his policies demonstrate that understanding then we can expect a period of real growth

Ignorance is bliss part 2. You know what "socialists" say about the President? He's a bad socialist. Do you know why?   Corporations have never been more profitable - and no, I don't think that's a bad thing, just pointing that out.  DJIA in 2009 around 7-8k  vs 12.5 - 13k? Yeah, "no record" indeed, and he must really "hate the private sector", right? Oh, btw, did you know that we've been drilling more today, than ever? Tsk tsk...damn socialist right? 

Aside from BC, exactly what "understands incentive and motivation" are you referring to? Do you even know what BC motivation is? No, its not a bad thing, but it's also not applicable to a country.

Yeah, let's all be gullible indeed, and forget 2008, the result of these so-called "incentives and motivations". If we do, we only have the mirror to look into when looking (again) for blame.
 
As an actual leader (not one the "leads from behind") you have to make very hard decisions.  Layoffs and firing is part of that.  
 
+Joseph Payne  "leads from behind...hard decisions"  

The problem with people who parrot talking points is that, yup, it's just parroting - there is absolutely no substance to it.

Laying off and firing is not a "hard decision" in business - it is only so if you are naive. It is in fact quite natural in business.

If you want to really understand what a hard decision is, look no further from the "leading from behind" ballsy decision to invest in Detroit. The ballsy decision to lead with Health Care even if to this day, it is sorely misunderstood by (gullible) people who don't even know they benefit from it.
 
+Ross Dmochowski Under Romney, Bain capital specialized in taking over companies that were about to go under.  Those people were about to lose their jobs anyway.  Sometimes those companies went under anyway, sometimes they became huge successes creating thousands of new jobs - Staples being an example - and sometimes the result was somewhere in between, with some but not all of the jobs lost - but it should be kept in mind that they started out troubled.
 
+Ross Dmochowski You seem to be confusing venture capitalism, which deals with small companies and startups and is what Romney did, with investment banking, which is where the leveraged buyouts come into play.
 
Could you please show us loyal fans how your going to create more jobs? Any plan? Please
 
So, your criticism of the President is that he hasn't done enough to undo the mess he inherited from 8 years of Republican rule. But I'm not hearing any ideas on how Mitt Romney is any different than George W. Bush or the Republicans who ran Congress during his term. Do you have a single idea, apart from continuing to shovel more money to the CEOs and Wall Street?
 
+aaron nyquist If you're actually a loyal fan, then you'll have no problem going to Romney's site and finding his job creation policies there.
 
It seems like all Democrats are answering and giving the straight Democratic b,s, 
 
And the all the families Bain put out of work have been unemployed for years and years What a hypocrite  Some of the families he left unemployed, he took their pensions, decimated their communities, were republican and, moderates and liberals, but did that stop him? No it did not.  if he did not care about those conservative families he took pensions from, what does he really care about you?  you are no more than a dollar sigh in his eye, a source of income for himself and he did it without remorse.  he has fully proven that he cares more about money than he does about people.  how much more proof do you need that he has no care for you only for your vote so he and his current billionaire partners can  make America a private business with a CEO and pee -on slave, that's us slaving away.cause they would just as soon pee on you than help you.(yes I meant to spell peon that way)   They think their money makes them better than middle class workers, we are stupid for working so hard making the more and more wealthy. peole better open their eyes and se, get you head out of the sand and take a stand for your own future, not theirs.  Want a preview of Romney and his current partners AmerCIAa as they call it, see the DVD  "The Hunger Games",. and you'll see their vision of America first hand.
 
+Middle Class Life The companies Bain Capital took on were about to fail, and all those people were going to be out of jobs and losing their pensions anyway.  In come cases, Romney managed to save them and even create thousands of new jobs.  In other cases, that wasn't possible, and they lost the jobs that they would have lost anyway.
 
+Warren Dew  Hey warren how are you today? hope your week was a good one. Not all of them.   Aside from that, why, if he was attempting to save a company   would a he put a hurting failing company under an unsustainable load of debt? would not that further weaken the business?  Was it being set up to fail, under those condition?  he lost the jobs, because it did not work out. so he has a hit and miss approach?  Can we afford to take a chance that he might have a Bush moment and we fall off a higher cliff and fall a longer way than 2008?  Did you know that some of the peoples who's lives he destroyed were Republican working middle class family people?  That did not stop him from walking away with their pensions which they worked for, for many years. Mitt shows absolutely no remorse for the people whose  lives he destroyed and the communities he left devastated.  To him the middle class is expendable. like so much putrid garbage.And God says a liar will not tarry in his sight, and MItt Romney has done more flip flops than the House OF Pancakes

he has not laid out a detailed plan, He only offers up broad platitudes that make a lot of noise but there is no substance. and like anonymous Mitt we don't know what and how he will do what he will do.  He cannot get elected on the truth so he side steps it 
 
+Middle Class Life How am I?  Not really any of your business, but some family and friends recently got laid off due to Obama's poor economic policies, so not too happy about that.  Probably true of anyone these days, though.
 
+Warren Dew I am so sorry to hear that happened to your loved one. I will hold them up in prayer.  I lost my job in 2008 just before the grits hit the fan.  But I started my own business so I am no longer placing my families financial future in jeopardy.  It is no longer in the hands of a stranger.  I thank God for the Freedom. I don't blame Former President Bush, I blame Wall Street. for it.  It was Wall street and the real estate industry with those interest only mortgages, and not telling people how they operate.  

My wife and I was offered one, and alarm bells went off in my head.  I told my wife I think they are dangerous.  My point was  when do you pay the interest? it has to come due sometimes, and I felt it would end up coming as a balloon payment so large you could not pay it.  Thank God for wisdom.  Again I am so sorry that this happened to your friends and family.  Warren if Your family is interested, I can share what we are doing to create a stable self directed income.  It's all free, and we'd love to help them. Let me know and I'll connect them with our pros. It cost nothing to them and provides a lot of free stuff to help them along the way.  There is a catch though.  When they become a part of the team, they have to pay it forward, sharing and  helping people who fall into the same situation they find themselves in.  MY personal goal is to help 120,000 families overcome this economy for good. so get back to me, I look forward to hearing from you.  Have a blessed week Warren dew ( love you last name, makes me think of the dew on the plants and flowers in the morning, Your name paints a beautiful tranquil morning landscape. Take care.
 
+Middle Class Life My family and friends have job search plans in place, so we don't need help on that.  There is one thing you can do to help, though - vote for Romney in November so that he can get the economy back on track.
 
+Warren Dew I love Your Tenacity Warren Dew (love that last name)But I know something that you don't.  I will continue to pray for your family to find employment.  Romney has a vision for america (Amercia as he calls it)  that is frightening.  The wealthy few owning the United States of America.  This is the first time in American history that corporate America has launched a hostile Takeover of America. And as a Venture Capitalist Romney and his current partners are going to own it at a bargain basement price (somewhere over a billion dollars) and they will take the under valued and  most profitable parts, like the prison system and sell it yo a private investor who will run it as cheaply as they can, which means lax security. but it will become a labor camp like China and the other places Romney has his money in industry, which is why he will give tax cuts to business who off shore jobs, to the business he has investments in over there.  The prisoners will be worked to death.even the non lethal ones.  all current city services will be privatized and we will have to pay out of pocket for police and for services. Education: we will have to pay out of pocket from kindergarten to college in schools the wealthy guys like Romney own.  This guy is poison to the middle class.

I followed Guys Like Carl Icahn, Rupert Murdoch, Reginald Lewis and T. Boone Pickens in the Wall Street Journal, how they preyed on weak business and sucked all the life out of them leaving destruction and carnage in their wake (the carnage were the people who lost their jobs. This is what venture capitalist do.  They do not care if the company succeeds or fails, they make money. always took the pensions or sold them off. So sorry Warren I cannot vote against my own self interest.  But thank you for trying.  Have a great one.
 
+Middle Class Life Romney created thousands of jobs at companies like Staples and Sports Authority.  The American economy and middle class need more like him.
 
+Warren Dew Hey Warren Dew,  How are you.. I hope you and your family enjoyed celebrating Independence Day.  Hope you had some good grilled franks and burgers and Ice cold soda.

Mr. Dew it was middle-class customers who created those thousands of jobs by walking in their doors and making purchases   Romney did nor buy all those office supplies and computers products.  If all those people and business  did not buy, those stores would have closed down.  NO business can survive without a customer.  You and I, we are the real job creators.  A strong middle class with confidence in the market and disposable personal income purchasing products and services that make or break a business. Let us have a National NO Buy for 30 days and watch  business fall to it's knees and quiver in it's corporate boots; stock market all thrown into chaos, fear and uncertainty.  When sales drop, stock prices go down, and people get laid off.

We have got to look beyond what we see with our eyes and see the writing on the wall. the gift of discernment is a powerful gift, I know what I see. With Romney the entire middle class will feel his billionaire partner's foot on our necks   "For the LOVE of money is the root to all evil" the bible says, and God should know; he knows everything.  These billionaires are giving all those millions and they will want a return on investment, and that is to OWN the United States for themselves, all her resources and wealth, and the middle class will have the same status as medieval serfs.  Think we had high taxes in the past? wait till the billionaire money vacuum comes to your neighborhood, then you will realize how accurate what I'm seeing is.

It's not an existence I want for any one's family in the middle class.  When He speaks about smaller government, he's speaking about laying off hundreds and perhaps thousands of middle-class families, throwing them into poverty overnight. His pioneering in off shoring jobs contributed to what we see here today. He gave tax breaks for companies to offshore jobs to places he had his money invested across the globe.  I'm not sure he even realizes he's had a hand in the USA going over a financial cliff in 2008. 

Well Warren Dew I'm thankful for you and  thank God for our paths crossing.  I pray so much that I am wrong. I don't want to be right about this, but God made me a very analytic person, able to piece together things I've seen heard and experienced.  I told people when George Bush Jr. was running for office,  if they elect this man and he gets in office, they will deserve what they get. This man is dangerous.  It was worse than I saw then.  They stole the election in Florida and in the end our nation fell off an economic cliff.  President Obama acted and turned it around. and we started generating jobs. Now some of the people who stopped looking for work, many of them have started their own business like I did.  I did not go on unemployment or welfare.

Warren I am happy that I am able to help people start a new way of making money. In about three years some of them will  earn over $5,000 a month.  Better than a job I tell you that.  So warren I hope that you'll feel better and that tomorrow you will get a call from all of your friends and family telling you they got better jobs with better benefits than they ever had before.  That is my hope and prayer for them and you, because I think I understand how you feel.about their situation.  That tells me you are a good friend and family man.   Take care Warren Dew, the best to you and your family
 
+Middle Class Life You sure are a busybody, aren't you?  By the way, your consumerist view on economics is pretty shallow:  buying stuff is not the only driver of the economy.  Saving and investing wisely, as Romney specialized in, are important to a fulfilling life as well.
 
Mr Off shoring helped our current situation but pioneering off shoring jobs to places he had money invested in over seas making more money he could hide.  Off Shoring robs our nation of revenue so that we can have a strong military and good schools and public services. .He delays submitting his taxes so we won't find out some damaging information that could end his run for president forever..  he continues to dodge the truth, he can't tell the truth and he won't stand up for the truth. every time his mouth opens another lie falls out, he has lies for breakfast, lunch and dinner. and he cannot be trusted. I don't trust him as far as I can draw a line on an Etch-A-Sketch  All he has given us is platitudes and no specifics.  so what really is his plan?  Does he even know his plan or does his billionaire partners he want to make rich have the real plan? 
He's flipped and flopped more that they international house of pancakes has since it was founded.  Voting for him is voting for the elimination of the middle class.
 
+Warren Dew Now warren be nice :) lol  I know how saving and investment work but What I was speaking about and the point I was focused on was if no products are moving off the shelf, no money is being made, and mo hiring take s place/

However the market is sensitive to businesses involved in scandal or losing market share; Translation=losing customers/money.  The market uses so many euphemistic terms like: stream line, restructuring, streamlining and they all mean the same thing laying, firing, separating severing t's all the same thing Lay offs.  And Mitt Romney loves to fire people who work for him.  Well I'm going to hit the middle class hay, lol Enjoy your day tomorrow Warren Dew   
 
+Middle Class Life Products can't move off the shelf without their being shelves for them to move from, though.  That's why Romney's time at Bain Capital created so many jobs - because he built up retailing powerhouses like Staples and Sports Authority.
 
+Warren Dew  Now Warren Dew I know you know that is a weak argument, shure there were shelves, but without people coming in to buy products, there will not be a Staples or a Sports Authority.  IN odder for any company to be successful they need customers spending money, they cannot be successful Even in investments people make it all happen.  It's like trying to do an equation and have a totally blank entry limit =_ +(16 X_= ?  where the first blank is the customer and the second is the money. if you don't have the people, you don't have the money. All business needs a customer customers.  You cannot name one business today that has absolutely no customers

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/03/nation/la-na-romney-bain-20111204

Now If we look at Bain we see him sending jobs overseas, but how many did he send over seas and subtract that from jobs created if we give hi the benefit of the doubt, and the jobs where companies went bankrupt and subtract that then let's see how much is left.  Can we find the numbers to substantiate that no he won't give them and Bain won't give them.I think we need to know that.  Why is it not on record and if he has it,why has he not produced it? He even admits that his goal at Bain was not to create Jobs, but to make money for his partners and you cannot have it both ways when he was first at Bain, Bain only invested in  start ups like Staples and Sports Authority, he did not run it, so he actually created no jobs.  Then he wanted to find a quicker way to make money and they changed the focus from start ups to corporate raiding.

Let Me ask you a something Warren, If you are interviewing a candidate for a position and he gives you his resume  and a knock out interview and it's really impressive, but you cannot verify a single fact, he has made and the candidate was unwilling to provide any verification to you,. as the person responsible to the company for hiring, and it would be your head rolling for hiring this guy, would you risk your career on a guy with an unverifiable resume?  what would you do? Well please allow me to help you here is information coming from Massachusetts speaking about Romney's term as Governor, making the same promises he's making now..(http://www.barackobama.com/romney/economics/romney-model/romney-model-slide-01) Click the Governor tab at the top and watch the video. People from the  speaking about Romney's term as Governor.
GST Steel
*http://www.barackobama.com/romney/economics/gst/gst-intro)

Romney dishonesty about ACA
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-a-saunders/mitt-romneys-fakefacts_b_1643219.html)

Even if we just talk job creation: Romney=100,000 The President=4.6 million  who has created more? The president is 4,500,000 over Romney.  How can we argue the facts/ i don't know, but no matter how you shake it out, The President comes out ahead.

And Finally Warren the final tip.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/19/paul-krugman-ireland-is-r_n_1609089.html
 So Sir Dew I leave you to read about and view why America Cannot afford to have Mitt Romney in the Oval Office.  Have a great weekend Mr. Dew  Grill a couple of dogs for me.YUM can't wait
 
+Middle Class Life Again the one sided perception.  Can you not see you need both a seller and a buyer for commerce?
 
+Warren Dew Good Morning Warren How are you this morning?  I hope that all is well.  Warren that is my point exactly you need both.  It is the sellers that are claiming to be job creators, and simply taking a risk does not commerce make. as I have consistently stated a "business" needs customers, it is a complete equation. without the complete equation nothing is solved and no jobs are created.  "ceteris paribus"  all things being equal The more customers, the more successful the business, the smaller the number of customers the less successful the business.  

Out side of "ceterus paribus"  
(it means all thing s being equal some business only need a small number of customers to be successful that is usually high ticket luxury consumables.  Now one like the previous model would not work with few customers is high ticket durable items, because of the long periods before the consumer makes another purchase. So the examples vary from industry to product mix.  I must let know a secret, I took economics in college.  It was an elective I took so I could learn about how the economy works.. During that time I studied the Wall Street Journal Fortune Magazine and the like.  I was reading about venture capitalism, White Knights who come in and rescue business from a Corporate Raider, and Corporate Raisers who come in and try to buy companies, strong or weak, well below their value, knowing where they are undervalued, and how they can sell as is or chop them up and sell off parts, meanwhile scooping up pensions.  Poison Pills where by targets against Corporate Raiders. They put together a Poison Pill(s) to make the company look like a bad bet, like taking on a huge amount of debt and killing the profit a raider might see.  Leveraged buyouts where where the buyer used the value of the company they want to buy.  They would look at the balance sheets and determine how best to proceed. They would borrow our money from the banks to finance the buy.  Usually they convince the banks (usually bankers they have done business with in the past and is friendly to the buyer) to lend them much more than the business is actually worth.  Then they payed themselves out of the loan of what is left of the loan after buying the company whether they put up any money or not out of their own pocket.  So if the business did well, good, if it failed, no sweat off the raiders back, they have heir money.  

it is Romney's love for this game that has me so concerned. If America  would be a profitable sale for him?  will he break it up and sell of  the parts of our country if he finds it profitable for himself and his current investors? Will he borrow more money pocket it with a tax break and drive America into bankruptcy, just to benefit himself and his investors?  Will they just want to own America for themselves?  Iv'e see these guys in action, they are power hungry and hungry for dollars; they count wealth with righteousness and what they love is money.  And God said, "For the LOVE of money is the root to all evil"  Money is Romney's real god, he has worshiped at it's alter and he is fully persuaded by it.  He will do most anything to get more.  
My eyes are wide open Warren, and I always look back at past presidents and remember.  The middle class has been under attack by the GOP since Nixon. with his wage freeze (www.econreview.com/events/wageprice1971b.htm)

Voodoo Economics with Reagan (www.wisegeek.com/what-is-voodoo-economics.htm
Jun 11, 2012 – Voodoo economics is a derogatory term used to describe supply-side economics. The main purpose of voodoo economics is to reduce...)

And the Bush Tax Cuts which you already know.  Warren I am 56 years old and I have seen a lot.  And I remember it all, I've seen it before.  When People like Bernie Madoff come, they are good looking guys with charm and swagger and people go to the bank or draw up a check and hand over their wealth to these guys and then they find out to late and lose the money they saved up for all their lives.  If you can find American Greed On cable they tell not only about the greed of the con man, but the greed of people who fall for these guys, because they do not research these guys, just trust them with no real understanding f what they are doing. Fooling people sometimes for a decade or more before someone gets wise.  And to try and trust a guy like Mr. Romney with a poor record in Massachusetts and shipping jobs offshore does not bode well for America.  Warren You are free to vote for Mitt Romney. I would never ask you to change your vote. I want you to vote your heart.  I just want you to understand my reasons for not voting for Mr. Romney.  I like you and I respect you as a person, as a family man and as a good friend that I have come to know a bit about and I hope to learn more.  Have a great weekend Warren Dew.  Hope you and your family will be healthy wealthy and wise.  Will you adopt me so I can have your last name?  lol :)
 
+Scott Bourne Just shows how "job growth" as weak as it is under Obama can leave us further and further behind population growth.
 
Tax payer funded jobs comes out of our own pockets, give me free market , not big government. Scott you really must look at the trouble we are in.He should be fired!
 
Bankers and Wall Street made a fortune off the 2008 meltdown of the country with no criminal charges.
 
"Looks like you have reached 221 out of those 23 million out of work Americans to plus 1 your rhetoric +Mitt Romney"
Tell us something we do not already know please..like some real facts and cures!
Think your internet campaign is working? 
 
ROMNEY IS GOING TO WIN, EVERYONE MAKE SURE YOU VOTE SO THAT IT DOES HAPPEN AND TELL OTHERS THAT DONT NORMALLY TO GO VOTE
 
Try this, Mitt:  pull your head out and look around--nobody likes you.
Add a comment...