Well Said! not to mention his foreign policy, his bailouts of private companies with taxpayer money (GM and Solyndra) at least GM is still barely in business, Running the debt up so high it will not be paid off for 100 years or more. Throwing money at every issue. (it cant be printed fast enough) and all the free give- aways. We are in deep! Under his watch we are a drowning nation

Actually, the Republican Senate has failed the country, and purposefully. The President proposed the Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act of 2011, The Rebuild America Jobs Act, a bill to put workers back on the job while rebuilding and modernizing America's infrastructure were voted down by Republicans. These acts would have put and kept millions of jobs. What I remember from Romney's tenure here is that first and foremost, he was barely here. I remember writing to his empty office asking him to make some effort to help the floundering school system, but he wasn't there. My husband lost his job due to cutbacks during Romney's tenure and didn't work a regular job again till the president was Obama and the Governor was Patrick. So, I did see the gas prices, they reflect the big oil companies terror of paying their fair share of taxes and paying back bailouts.

Karen.

The current US Senate is Democratic. Whoever has failed who, it's not the Republican Senate. Did you mean the Republican House, or the Democratic Senate?

Hey Pat Brown. Karen is correct. The Republicans in the Senate have used filibusters in the last several years more than at ANY time in history,solely to prevent passage of legislation proposed by the Democrats. Total obstructionists. That' all they know.

Hey, JT.

Karen is still mistaken. It's still not a Republican Senate. This is why Nevada Democrat Harry Reid is the US Senate Majority Leader. Democrats hold the majority in the Senate, and both (Democrat) Jon Tester and (Democrat) Ben Nelson--and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid--voted against the American Jobs Act.

Or, as that bastion of conservative journalism (Irony Alert!!) Firedoglake put it:
...the bill itself is going nowhere, though it was a political vehicle all along more than a serious piece of legislation.
http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/10/12/american-jobs-act-fails-first-senate-cloture-vote/

But regardless of the political shenanigans involved, it's not a Republican Senate.

Corn cob, there's no benefit to balancing budgets in a recession; look at our unemployment and recovery, versus England's (England followed your advice). The right time to balance the budget (or, perish the thought) is during a boom, like we did in the later Clinton years. Probably the best way to do this is to raise taxes on the rich; not only does history show us this is compatible with economic growth, recent history shows that putting more money in the pockets of the very wealthy does not lead to higher median incomes, job growth, or a stable economy.

Katy G, I think you completely misread what I wrote, or were unaware of economic trends in England. I am using them as a BAD example of how not to respond to an economic crisis (with austerity and premature budget balancing), not as a GOOD example of successful socialism. And it doesn't matter WHO is protesting, only that their economic policies hurt their economic growth and raised unemployment.

David Chase, please forgive me for misunderstanding your post. Next time I'll try to read your posts more carefully. Thank you for the good insight.

Yours truly,
Kate

JP,
After you visit Romney's campaign site, identify which of his policy statements on Federal spending, taxation, federal regulations, small business intiatives, etc are incoherent, then maybe we can have a discussion.

Romney can"t provide any coherent policy because he is always changing his positions depending on what Loony Limbaugh and all the idiotic right wing wackos are telling him to do. He will say anything in order to get elected. Absolutely spineless.

Please provide one single coherent economic policy that obama has offered, Oh that's right take from me and give to illegal aliens. Wait 'till the college loan amnesty is announced, that will get him re-elected.

A big concern for me is that Obama and the democrats have not put forward a budget for anyone's scrutiny in the past 3+ years. Where has that six trillion dollars that his administration added to the debt gone? 'karen's' husband shouldn't be the only one back at work with that kind of spending. Everyone should be employed with their mortgage or rent payed for that much money.

"Economic history has clearly demonstrated that everytime the tax rate was cut, revenue has increased."

This is a false statement.

Chris Schaffner - saying it is false doesn't make it false. Reference the Wall Street Journal (08/07): "...The (Obama's) Tax Policy Center" also ignores the history of tax cutting. Every major marginal rate income tax cut of the last 50 years - 1964, 1981, 1986 and 2003 - was followed by an unexpectedly large increase in tax revenues, a surge in taxes paid by the rich, and a more progressive tax code - i.e., the share of taxes paid by the richest 1% rose. For example, from 1980 to 2007, three tax rate cuts brought the highest marginal tax rate to 35% from 70%. Congressional Budget Office data show that when the tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid 18% of all federal income taxes. Whith the rate down to 35% in 2008, the share of taxes paid by the rich doubled to 40%". This is directly from the WSJ. What is your source...MSNBC? Rachel Maddow? NPR? Lets stick with factual data, not personal opinion.

@Poppaone - and saying it is true doesn't make it true.

“High Rate” Income Tax States Are Outperforming No-Tax States", Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy
http://www.itepnet.org/pdf/junkeconomics.pdf

You said - "For example, from 1980 to 2007, three tax rate cuts brought the highest marginal tax rate to 35% from 70%. Congressional Budget Office data show that when the tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid 18% of all federal income taxes. Whith the rate down to 35% in 2008, the share of taxes paid by the rich doubled to 40%" ...

...to back up your claim that "everytime the tax rate was cut, revenue has increased".

But having the richest 1% pay a higher share of the total is not the same as a revenue increase.

Lets stick with factual data, not personal opinion.

For the first six years of George W. Bush's presidency we had 5% or less unemployment with a GDP above 5%. In spite of 'inheriting' Enron and World Com from Clinton's administration (which, by the way, he never complained about) and in spite of the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11, President Bush managed to keep the economy in this country growing. In 2006 the democrats took the house and senate making Bush a lame duck. I must admit that he was way too soft on the democrats throughout his presidency. At one point he wanted to investigate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the GSAs being run by democrats Barney Frank and Franklin Raines, but the democrats accused him of racism because Raines, who was embezzling millions of tax payer dollars from Fannie and Freddie, was African American, so Bush backed down. That was a bad decision, but Bush didn't cause the economic collapse of the housing market that began our financial woes, Fannie and Freddie did and they were run by very liberal democrats.

You guys really buy into the Obama bumber stickers. The dems lie so much they start to believe their own bullsh*t. The financial crisis started with Clinton (and Barney Frank and Sen. Dodd) when they forced banks to give mortgages to everyone or else face enormous penalities. That started the housing bubble and when it burst, it was downhill all the way. It was big government that is the source of our problems (9/11 didn't help) and it won't begin to get better until we throw all their asses out. Obama MUST be defeated.

There was a clear Democratic majority starting the last two years of the Bush administration and lasted through the first two years of the Obama administration. Obama and the Democrats accomplished nothing during that time so you can't blame recent history on Republicans. Obama now has an imperial presidency where he doesn't even bother with congress and rules via executive fiat. He must be defeated.

Just look what the Republicans did the last time they had power for 8 years under George W. Do you really want to go back to that?

Corn Cob, I would happily go back to the less than 5% unemployment and greater than 5% GDP of the first six years of Bush's presidency. He was a lame duck for the last two years of his presidency as stated above more than once. You should read the posts of other people if you want to form a cogent argument. Under 4 years of Obama we have added 6 trillion to our national debt, unemployment has been above 8.1% for more than three years, four million Americans have been out of work for more than a year, the black unemployment rate is 14.4%, the Hispanic unemployment rate is 10.3%, and Obama says, "the private sector is doing fine." In the first two years of Obama's presidency the number of American troops killed in Afghanistan was double that of the whole Bush presidency. I have a son and two nephews in the military. No one in my family will be voting for Obama.

Katy G. you sound like a Mitt Romney stump speech. It's all Obama's fault -- the prior 8 years of Bush/Cheney never happened and the Republican economic collapse is -- forget about that. Republican lie, Democrats try!

Corn Cob, calling someone names isn't an argument. You need to show me how greater than 8% unemployment for the past three plus years and 6 trillion added to the national debt is an improvement on what was the economic average under Bush before he became a lame duck. If you have a hypothesis you need reasons to back it up and facts to back up your reasons, then you need to be able to refute the opposition. Name calling is for a grade school playground, not an adult discussion. Explain to me how the present unemployment rate of 24% for Americans between 16 and 19 years of age is an improvement in this country and you will be making a cogent argument for why Obama should be re-elected.

Maybe you sound like an Obama stump speech, "It's all Bush's fault, ATM's fault, the tsunami's fault, the drought's fault......"

I didn't call you names. In fact, I called you Katy G. Doesn't it bother you at all that Mitt won't release his tax returns? I mean, even the loopholes he is going to patch are a secret.

You want in on a secret: Mitt Romney knows he is going to lose this election and he is moving CA as a backup plan. If you have lived in MA for ever, why move to CA now -- during an election that comes with a big white house?

Corn Cob the federal budget has been a secret for the past 3+ years. How much are all of those czars being paid? I guess you're right, you didn't call me a name. You called what I said a 'stump speech.' What I presented you with are facts that you still haven't addressed. I don't care about Romney's tax returns. He earned the money he made. His success isn't a crime any more than Bill Gates success or Steve Jobs, or all of those Hollywood actresses who were 'stumping' for Obama at his convention. Obama is worth over $11 million, is he part of the 1%. Liberal politics have become the politics of envy. Romney's money wasn't taken out of the pockets of tax payers. Obama's vacations were paid for out of my pocket as well as the massive expansion of government that he's implemented. I'm paying for this and so are all of the other hard working tax paying Americans in this country. We're a dwindling group. Where's the money going to come from when there aren't enough paying in to cover the cost of Obama's massive government? It's not Romney's tax returns that I'm worried about. It's my own, and they're going to be painful in 2013 if Obama is re-elected.

How have we taxed and spent in the last few years, Pimp? The Bush tax cuts are intact and in the very few cases that the Republicans have NOT thwarted stimulus spending, the Dems have not spent wildly, but relatively prudently, to spur job growth (of course, there have been a few project failures in that time, but overall nothing more than usual). Everybody is crowing about $6trillion being added to the deficit in 4 years. Well, GW went from a surplus to $10trillion in debt in 8 years, and he had revenue coming in from a pre-crash economy. Obama's been a spendthrift by comparison....

Richard P, You're mixing budget and debt numbers to try and make your arguement. The national debt during the 8 years of Bush went from $5.6 to $10.6 trillion or an average increase in the national debt of $629 billion. 40% of the increase in the national debt during the Bush administration occured in the final 2 years when Democrats controlled the House and Senate. In the 3 and half years of the current administration, the national debt went from $10.6 trillion to $15.8 trillion or an average of $1.47 trillion per year.

Romney's tax returns are right next to Obama's college transcripts. Time to "move-on". What else ya got?

Leaving out W's indulgencies, aren't we ? I guess still operating under the "let's heap on the excrement and something will stick eventually" mode. Didn't anybody EVER tell you that civilized people do not substitute lies, gossip and distortions for facts ? That Obama was a Constitution Law professor means nothing to you ? Carnival barking, unfortunately, is the communication norm for the likes of you. Here's a heartfelt advice - don't get your "news" from anything owned by Murdoch.
Maybe , after a while, you'll be able to use your own thoughts instead of slogans. And, just maybe, you'll realize who is really screwing US. Hint - it is not that black muslim commie in the White House.

Corn Cob, list the lies that you're referring to.
"You didn't build that." has rung in the ears of small business owners as a lie since Obama said it.
Medicare's chief actuary found that Obama care will triple the growth rate of net insurance costs, but Obama said that his bill wouldn't increase your healthcare costs one dime. That's a lie.

Katy G, "you didn't build that" is taken completely out of context. Go listen to the original speech; he is referring to all the infrastructure that government provides to help business and commerce, everything from highways, to small business loans, to education. And taking quotes out of context like that is very nearly a lie.

Here is a purported list of (some of) Romney's lies: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/08/29/mitt-romney-tells-533-lies-in-30-weeks-steve-benen-documents-them/
I reviewed some of the list; I think it contains duplicates, repeated at different places, but I'd still call them lies.

And everything I have read suggests that Obamacare is supposed to damp the growth rate of healthcare costs overall. Be careful that you do not confuse an increase in "insurance costs" from more people obtaining coverage through insurance companies (overall, that will lead to increased spending on insurance, though not necessarily on health care) from a direct increase in what each customer pays.

Mr. Chase, I did listen to the entire speech and the massage was clear that Obama thinks that business owners owe it to the government for their success. Obama has never held a real private sector job like so many of us. I have been gainfully employed, with the exception of a six year break after our third child was born, since I was 14 years old. I can personally attest to the fact that all of the business owners that I worked for not only worked long, hard hours to build their own businesses, but they also paid greatly into the taxes that paid to pave the roads and sidewalks in front of their businesses. Tax payers pay for the maintenance of infrastructure as well as the police, fire department, schools and military. The government doesn't make money. It takes it from people who do. The more money the government takes the less tax payers have to spend and invest at their own discretion which actually decreases tax revenues. More and more, whether they mean to or not, the democrats come across as having contempt for those of us who work and pay taxes as well as businesses and the military, and women, for that matter. What an insult to assume that what matters to me the most is whether or not taxpayers pay for and approve of my intimate life. That whole attitude is what cheapens the value of women in this country. No Thanks!

Politifact heard the words and read the text too. They rate Romney's claims as a lie: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/26/mitt-romney/putting-mitt-romneys-attacks-you-didnt-build-truth/

Obama's remarks, in context: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/jul/18/context-obamas-you-didnt-build-comment/

In particular: "Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that."

I think it's pretty sad that the people putting on the RNC had "build that"-based slogans plastered all over the place, since they clearly took the remark out of context. It's an intentional lie, and it's apparently the best thing that anyone in the Republican Party could find to say about Romney's campaign.

You delusional in thinking Obama and Warren think "we cannot become successful unless big government allows us to do so."

If Romney's lies were hurting Obama, and if those lies were plastered all over the Republican Convention, don't you think Romney would have seen a little bit more of a bump in the polls after that convention? There's some sort of crazy conservative idea that Democrats are all longing for the policies of Lenin and Stalin, and the lie certainly plays well to that crowd (Romney will need every last one of their votes), but it doesn't change the fact that it is a lie, Romney said it, and Romney has repeated it, along with many others. I can't see ever voting for anyone who embraces the Big Lie strategy.

This is a classic Republican comment. First, Obama's campaign isn't hurting -- today's papers report it is doing great: a 3-5% bump after the conventions and they got more donations in August than the Republicans. You just can't make stuff up all the time and expect to win.

More good news -- the government made an $18 billion profit on AIG stock while Mitt Romney is flip-flopping (again) on ObamaCare -- now he likes most of it. And I also read that Paul Ryan won the Tour de France (borowitz report).

Poppaone, the cost to build a Volt: "The actual cost to build the Volt is estimated to be an additional $20,000 to $32,000 per vehicle, according to Munro and the other industry consultants." The $89,000 figure includes development costs which must be amortized over all the cars sold, but loom especially large in the first years of production. Developing a new drive-train is costly, but what is GM's choice? Let Toyota have that market instead?

The Volt's design (meaning, much of the money spent on R&D) also predates Obama: "The Chevrolet Volt concept car debuted at the January 2007 North American International Auto Show."

At least for now, coal use in power generation is down because natural gas is cheap. I think it's also a little peculiar to ding the Volt for using coal-fired power, and then also criticize cap-and-trade. People (and corporations are people, or so I hear) respond to monetary incentives; if the cheapest way to fuel a car is with electricity from coal, that's what they'll usually do. Cap-and-trade or a carbon tax would change that incentive.

The point is they are producing a vehicle that the free market rejects because of it's very complex technology and is also cost prohibitive. The only reason the Volt sales were up in August was because you could lease one for as low as $199 a month. And the were trading in their old Prius to get one. And it is not just Government Motors. Prius is only now making money now that it's in it's third generation. Nissan, Honda and Mitsubishi are all losing their shirts on electric vehicles. Is this the highest and best use of our research and development dollars? What if those dollars were put into more highly efficient gasoline engines? How about converting to cheap and available natural gas? The government cannot choose winners and losers - that is the job of the free market.

Poppaone, would you consider the following argument for e-vehicle development as not just picking winners and losers? (Consider the possibility that liberals have brains, and reasons for their positions.) We burn a lot of oil in this country; without it, we're sunk, and when it's expensive, our economy tanks. Getting more electric cars (hopefully fully electric, for people with appropriate commutes) gives us a route to depend less on oil -- via the plug in the wall and the grid, cars can burn coal, natural gas, biomass, solar, hydro, wind, or nuclear. And as costs shift, cars can change their fuel as quickly as the power generators change theirs, and we don't need to invest in a new network of gas stations, or coal stations, or whatever we are burning today. This is a national benefit that the free market does not see.

There is not a lot of extra efficiency to be gained in internal combustion engines; laws of thermodynamics require ever higher temperatures and ever more extraction stages to increase efficiency. We can afford that in power plants, and there we can afford the necessary pollution controls that accompany the higher temperatures. Internal combustion engines also lack the ability to capture braking energy for later reuse.

I think it also affects world politics. Suppose we're negotiating with Iran, and they know the domestic effect of an oil price spike. If our economy's less sensitive, that strengthens our hand.

@Valera Bochkarev +1

I guess we got your attention now. It is apparent that you really don't know what the hell you are talking about. I would like to remind you that Bush is not running for president, Obama is. For the record, Bush was a C+/B student, with his GPA a few points higher that Kerry. Also for the record, Kerry may not be a communist, but he is an asshole. He violated several federal statutes when he collaborated with the Viet Cong and the communist North Vietnamese government during the Vietnam war (some will say this is treason) by illegally meeting with them in Paris. He LIED to Congress during his testimony before the Fullbright Committee hearings in 1971 regarding war crimes and other alledged atrocities. His tesimony was fabricated and slanderous. He reviled and vilified all 2.8 million Vietnam Vets with his lies. That is why Americans called returning vets "baby killers" and worse. I proudly call myself a Vetnam Veteran and I was there when Kerry was (although he was only in country for about three months). He was on my radar since 1970. You friend Hanoi Jane joyfully met with the NVA in North Vietnam in July 1972 while my brothers were still fighting and dying. Why do you think the Navy vets went after Kerry when he ran for President? They knew what kind of man he was and wanted no part of him. Have a nice day.

Breitbart ???????????? getting REALLY into the gutter now...

Valeria, your only argument in this case is to call names. If you want to have a cogent point of view you need to research all sides of an argument so that you can refute any reasoning that opposes you. The news agencies that you access, NPR, MSNBC,...etc are the propaganda wing of the left. You should understand that. If Hitler proved anything it's that propaganda works. It appears that what's frustrating you is that free speech in the U.S. is giving the rest of us an alternative source of information than the liberal propaganda machine that you apparently listen to. Poppaone is one of the only reasoned posters consistently posting on this feed. You, poor Valera, only make the liberal posts seem more incoherent. I'm not trying to be mean, but try to give a reasoned response to the opposing post, the way Mr. Chase does, instead of flying off at the mouth. Normal people quickly lose interest when you throw a bunch of incoherent ranting at them.

Katy G, I don't think that will happen, despite also being annoyed at the size of the debt.

First, if it were widely believed that dollar was likely to be worthless in the future, we would not be able to borrow money at the absurdly low rates that we currently can. Yes, I know the bankers screwed this up once already, but one hopes that once bitten, twice shy. If we want to claim that the free market knows best, then if people are loaning us money at low rates, then the risk must be low.

Second, we've borrowed a mess of money before and paid it off; for example, World War 2.

Third, which unfunded liabilities are you talking about exactly? Social Security is on track without changes from current rules (and current planned changes to ages etc) till about 2035; minor tweaks bring it into balance pretty easily. Obamacare, on paper at least, mostly "fixes" the growth in medicare costs (the devil is in the "doc fix", as I understand it; but we're close -- before, we didn't even have a paper solution). We ought to be able to provide quality universal care for less money -- about 20 other countries do it, why can't we? (quality = good life expectancy and low infant mortality, and since they all beat us on those two metrics, I think we have to admit that their health care is just fine).

So though I think it deserves watching and planning, it doesn't justify panic.

DC.
Low interest rates today are not reflecting borrowing risk or inflation risk, they are instead a function of Fed discount rates, lack of borrowing demand, and excess balance sheet cash. Treasury rates are low in part because there is a lack of alternative investment options in the worldwide economic turmoil and in part because the Fed is a willing buyer of treasuries (after "printing" new money to buy them). The reason we have not yet seen the full blown inflationary aspects of QE1, QE2, and subsequent Fed actions is because there is lack of volicity in the money supply. Companies and people are sitting on their cash until there is a change toward greater certainty about tax policy, Federal spending policy, and the nature of future Federal regualtory interventions into the "free market" (GM is a great example of investment risk created for investors who now face the precedent of the Federal Government violating Federal bankruptcy law and wiping out all the bondholder investors.) Once the cash sitting on the sidelines starts following again, you will feel the inflation more so than you do now.

S. Vietnam, Chile, Argentina, and most of Central American countries were examples of corrupt, hated by their own populace, foreign entities US supported, along with Saudi Arabia, btw. See rev Wright, Obama's pastor, referencing those "chickens coming home to roost" to the tremendous amount of hate and disdain by the citizens of all those countries where US supported crooks, liars and mass murderers in power. History is an un-forgiving thing, I am afraid.

I am troubled at the thought, most voters rely on media sources for accurate information, regarding a political candidate. If you lack knowledge of your party's: political,social, economic, and religious convictions ,you are not only deceived but irresponsible. Deceived were the voters that choose Franklin Delano Roosevelt for President in 1932. Much like the current administration, Roosevelt was a proponent of Social Justice or distribution of wealth. It's currently referred to as World Distribution of Household Wealth,in an effort to eliminate global in-equality.
As for Pres.Roosevelt,he penned Executive Order #6102 on April 5,1933. This E.O.called for the confiscation of personally owned Gold Coins,Gold Bullion and Gold Certificates,which was to be delivered to a Federal Reserve Bank. Failure to do so would result in a $10,000 fine.This was the end of the Gold Standard and the beginning of the Federal Reserve System. Citizens were issued fiat currency in place of the Gold.
In 2009,Pres.Obama pledged 65 billion dollars to the U,N.for its 2015 Millennium Development Goals.The pledge was made at the London G-20 Summit.
Suggested Google Search: Congressional Research Service United Nations Funding. (Look for the PDF file)