Christie could bundle the whole mess together, shove it out 40 years along with enormous interest accruals, quadruple the amount owed and still look like a hero...just like he did in NJ. The only guy better than that would be the Amazing Kreskin!

It's just so. You're being seduced by liberal b.s. Read this: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/12/curl-romneys-game-changing-pick-obamas-worst-night/?page=all#pagebreak

Think Romney is going to cut medicare? Guess what? Obamacare already did that.

For my part, you have to wonder if Obama has anything positive to run on. If he does, they why is his entire campaign focused on attacking Romney and the Republicans????

It's just you.

i agree romney put the nail in his own coffin - the ryan pick definately made me decide to vote for obama again. the romney-ryan ticket will be the final end of the middle class..both these men benefitted by being born into wealth - that is a huge advantage that gave them good solid homes, adequate health care and a quality education - things many others do not start with...romney picked ryan because he was loosing in the middle and had to move to the far right ...i am not thrilled with obama, but there is no other choice.

Joe is in Athens formulating their recovery policies....policies that they can believe in!

We already beat around the bush with Bush. Promised us flourishing economy. Got us 2 recessions, a war based on WOMD's and 5 TRILLION in indebtedness in 8 years.

Then O'Bummer with "Change We Need". That got us an additional 5 TRILLION in debt and a health program we can't afford. Now entering a "double dip" recession.

So does 2 recessions equal one depression?

http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2012/07/25/do-two-recessions-equal-one-depression/

Romney's "America's Comeback Team".......come back to what? More of the same?

@Roll Back Or Tax: Yeah, and we got 9/11 thanks to Clinton being more interested in his Sexual trist in the Oval Office with a young intern, what's your point? Can tie your entire statement right back to Clinton's failures, or is that not acceptable?

Amen Chris!

No, Bush 4 trillion over 8 years. Obama 6 trillion in 4 years (by year's end). If you take the workers who have given up looking unemployment would be 15%. Poverty is back at pre Great Society levels. Labor percentage is back to Jimmie Carter. 42 month unemployment over 8%. Gas prices have doubled and food is up over 50%. That would equate to a $8,000 tax rise for a middle class family of 4. The top 1% earn 13% of income and pay 39% in taxes. The top 20% pay 80%. Bottom 50% 1.7%. Top 10% tax cut ='s $85 billion. Bottom 90%- $375 billion.

Scott, as my father said figures don't lie but liars use figures.

If it didn't matter it would have been Joe B.

Really Welfare???? the total spent of welfare of the US budget has been reported at 12%. Over a third (37%) ]the biggest line item in the category “Social exclusion n.e.c.” (meaning Not Elsewhere Considered) is the Earned Income Tax Credit. How, exactly, is offering a tax deduction to people who find and maintain employment welfare? It shouldn’t be a line item anywhere unless you are going to get into every deduction and tax credit on the books, the majority of which benefit wealthy taxpayers and corporations. That’s why they’ve hidden it under the boring-looking “miscellaneous” category of Not Elsewhere Considered.

Think you nailed it!

The real question is not why did he choose Ryan over Christie, but why did he choose him over Marco Rubio. Ryan may help pull WI over to Romney, but Rubio could have helped with FLA, which has a whopping 29 electoral votes.

A rock looks like Einstein compared to Joe Biden.

And Biden looks like Einstein compared to Sarah Palin lol

Regarding Rubio, what many haven't realized is that he's a Cuban. I know that race-ophiles in the Democratic party see every Latino as the same, however, a Cuban will not necessarily help in relation to the Hispanic vote in general. He would help in Florida but not in NJ or in New Mexico.

Ryan has no skeletons in his closet? How about how he was against Obamas stimulus except when he was requesting it. And the recently released footage of his promoting Keynsian economics in House testimony in 2002 when GWB requeseted stimulus funds from Congress. Paul Ryan has proven he will say whatever he is told to by the highest bidder.

The bottom line answer is that Rmoney chose Ryan because David Koch (his real boss) and his brothers told him to.

Good non-reply, just what I expected. Kind of like Clinton and "not having sexual relations with that woman". Nobody excepts blame for their actions, but to use the only defense which is to deflect and distort....

If someone did something wrong, shouldn't they be held accountable? How far back does one go? I don't know, why is a line drawn to begin with? But having a short term line drawn meets the need of the Liberal agenda of most to blame one, and not the many that caused it. Now, since you wish to discuss Economy, IF Clinton had not failed to get Bin Laden when he had the chance while he was having FUN in the Oval Office, would the domino affect of monies spent on National Defense, Homeland Security and the financial market failures that took place during the 8 years of Bush admininstration. Chances are, no. But again, spread the blame around to those that caused it, not the ones left holding the bag, which is the same claim liberals like to make currently.... Can't have double standards to simply meet ones needs...

And don't forget Kennedy.......always seems to be the Dem's who's pants are always dropping to half mast.

Same answer to both questions: it's not your business.

Or, if you think it is, why are Obama's school records still sealed?

Your absolutely right- fear and not fact will help Obama carry the state. And guess what? It'll work. That's the problem. People buy 30 second sound bytes and dont bother with the details. As Pogo said "We met the enemy, and he is us".

Of course not. They use the term "the wealthiest Americans" and "rich" to cater to imbeciles who think that a 100K income for a family somehow makes you "rich". You have to question a party whose base consists of those in poverty and/or on Medicaid and welfare.

What happens in 2018? The winter Olympics?

Yup, can you say AIG and many other big financial institutions came running for a bailout...

I can't wait to watch Bobby Jindal ask for government assistance after Isaac decimates his state...and then come to the convention railing against government.

I'd like to agree but what about organizations like AARP whose motto is "gimmee gimmee gimmee!" Entitlements are consuming the budget and need to be fixed. AARP is against any cuts. They favor letting the youngins' pay the freight.

What data do you have to support your claim of "55% of the voting populace who will not for any reason vote for an incumbent President"?

Please stop calling them "entitlements". Social Security is not welfare. All of us paid into it. The government borrowed what we paid in -- surplus that was supposed to deal with the elephant going through a snake that is the baby boom generation. They took that money and now refuse to pay it back. What do you call someone who borrows money and doesn't pay it back (besides "Bob Schroeder" -- sorry, I couldn't resist!) -- A DEADBEAT.

@ B@B- It is an entitlement as in a windfall for some and is unsustainable.The ratio of workers paying in for retirees is down to about 2 to 1. It took a bipartisan effort to fix it for a 40 year window about 30 years ago. We need another bipartisan effort to fix it not an ideological war. Maybe put in means testing to adjust benefits for higher earners (Reagans and Rockefellers got checks and promptly donated them to charity, Buffett probably keeps his). There is no lockbox but IOU's and AARP will fight any adjustment tooth and nail. So if you look at the operating model, it is an entitlement as people collecting today (which is their right) get an equivalent rate of return that no one could ever dream of. I think the model should be in place for those who collect but needs to be adjusted to keep it solvent for the BIG wave that is now gathering momentum. I agree with the issue of govt raiding the box but it's too late. The damage is done and needs to be repaired. Unfortunately anyone having the cojones to assess the issue will not win an election.

Paul Smith: So what you're saying is that ONLY those who have paid in on ALL their salaries should sacrifice...that the middle class should forgo their pre-tax status for health insurance premiums, their mortgage interest deduction, their tax-exempt status of educational and job training programs -- everything that benefits them, rather than ask Mitt Romney, Sheldon Adelson, Donald Trump, and the Koch Brothers to kick in one thin dime.

Social Security becomes an entitlement for people who tap into it prior to reaching retirement age: the disabled. Social Security Disability comes with Medicare. Everyone who applies for it, does not receive it. Thus, it is an entitlement.

It was bi-partisan, Ron Wyden D-ORG helped Paul Ryan on his plan. None of the dems want to recognize that tho. All they say is Ryan wants to kill grandma. They are now so desperate that they have unleashed Joe Bbbbiden to deliver another race card analogy "Voting for Romney will put y'all back in chains". What a disgusting putz.

Tell you what. Let me have the $178,000 that I and my employers have paid into the system for the last 40 years that I've been working....with interest...I'm not going to be greedy, how about like 3-4%. Give me that payout and I'll go quietly.

By the way, Sick of it All, Paul Ryan went to college on SS survivors benefits.

Actually, he did. His family is comfortably affluent, and he was entitled to the survivor benefits. So he banked them after his father died when he was 15 and used them for college. Good for him, I say. I don't begrudge him survivors benefits or what he did with them. My problem is that the very same benefits he benefitted from, he would not deny to others.

Then why did Obama and Erskine Bowles praise him and his budget? While it may not be perfect, it's better then what ANYBODY has come up with in 4 years. At least he's trying and there is nothing sinister about him. Do some digging, you nay be surprised on how well like he is on the hill despite Obama and Joe's desperate attacks on him.

Where did the President praise Ryan and his budget? Please provide the source for this statement.

Actually this is a moot point, since he has sided with Romney and his Budget.... But keep the wheels of the speculation machine rolling, it's all you got....

I didn't ask about Bowles, he isn't the President.

The President didn't "praise" Ryan's plan. He acknowledged it and pointed out differences he has with it, e.g. vouchers for future Medicare recipients.

Nice try.

He also pointed out what he liked about the plan....why does everything have t0 be so partisan??? Why can't we take the one and only plan anyone has come up with for 4 years and work on making it bi-partisan??? Because this president has gone out of his way to alienate certain groups while stroking others. He as been the Great divider instead of uniter his entire presidency and now he's going to pay the price for creating all this division in the first place. If we don't work together to get out of this hole we will never get out of it. But at least admit no one is trying to kill granny or keep anyone in chains. It's disgusting and uncalled for.

Why not start with Ryan's plan and make it bi-partisan? You'll have to read his budget proposals yourself. I'm not being partisan when I say that his proposals are extreme. It reads not like someone who is actually concerned about the budget, or jobs even! Of course no one anywhere in the mainstream media can admit this, so it never gets out.
Ryan doesn't mention how he'll get job growth! At least Obama had a plan for this that the Republicans stubbornly blocked. How then can Ryan's plan be the starting point?

Want to get out of this hole? How about we rally around someone who has a real plan to grow jobs and fix our housing crisis, which somehow has been drowned out. Even Obama has been terribly weak on this. This is the real reason our economy is in the toilet right now, not SS, not Medicare, not Medicaid, not welfare, none of that. There are things we can do right now to fix the economy, but our good for nothing elected officials are having a philosophical debate among themselves and not doing anything to fix near-term problems.

Oh, and the Ryan plan, he eventually talks about job growth but it is very vague. All he says will work is cut taxes and job growth will come.

So if Ryan is soooo extreme (like Obama's not) and Obama hasn't been "strong" on job creation (an understatement) then who do you think we should vote for??

Ryan was a member of the Simpson-Bowles commission and voted AGAINST the bi-partisan plan they issued. Obama chose not to adopt the paln. So much for bi-partisan.

Oh please, who's the fear monger-er now?? ...and Obama didn't strip over 700 billion from medicare to fund his obamanation of a health care law...did you happen to read that whole thing??? He took it from CURRENT seniors so what are they supposed to do now?? At least Ryan's plan called for 55 and younger. If we don't do something now, there will be NO SS or anything else to help when we're old.

More lies. The $716B in Medicare cuts as a result of the ACA are from payments to providers, hospitals, and drug companies. The cuts don't take anything from "current seniors", who will continue to receive the same services they receive today.

I'm not fear mongering here. Paul Ryan is on record for wanting to dismantle SS. Who's in support of that? As you saw when Bush proposed it in 2005, there was absolutely no support of it. Romney talks about partially privatizing it. Of course, I think we should make adjustments to eligibility requirements of SS and such. But the idea of privatizing SS is the first step towards dismantling it. That's unacceptable by pretty much everyone.

The $700 billion 'cut' from Medicare...this is sloppy work by some of the media and smart tactics by Republicans. The Republicans have changed the word from 'savings' to 'cuts'. The CBO came out with that estimate, saying it was a 'saving' NOT a 'cut', big difference. The savings would come from fraud reduction (I admit I don't know how they do this) and reduction in overpayments and payment growth by providers. Current seniors will not lose any benefits.

More Fantasy from the Obamaphiles.

The cuts will most definitely reduce the services Medicare patients receive. If hospitals and health care providers are receiving less $$ for the work they do, they will provide a crappier service.

Only in the world of Liberal Economics can you lower the price of something by government fiat and expect that the service level will remain the same.

The only "current" seniors who will not be impacted are the ones who DIE before the full Obamacare mandates kick in. Obamacare will slowly turn Medicare into Medicaid.

So I guess the phrase "more with less" is just a fantasy? The term efficiency is something that never happens? The US spends more per capita than any other nation on health care. Do you think we have the most efficient system? There is plenty of room for driving out costs without impacting delivery of services.

http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php

The Stig, the money saved in Medicare in the Obama plan comes from better record keeping systems as well. However, I must ask you, why do Republicans want to cut the salaries and benefits of all public employees like teachers, policemen and firemen as they already have done in the private sector already if they believe as you do that by cutting them they will "provide a crappier service"?

Unfortunately the idea of bipartisanship from the extreme right is to have to do everything they say or they will block everything.

When it comes to the government you never get more for less. You may get less for more, but never the other way around. And if it's soooo easy to do, why do all the Obamacare efficiencies kick in after his theoretical second term is over. Guess he's going to leave the heavy lifting to whatever sucker moves in after he's gone.

As for how to slow down the cost of health care increases . . they could have tried Tort Reform (big jackpot justice awards = higher insurance costs, more defensive medicine etc.), but Dems are a wholly owned subsidiary of the Trial Lawyers association, so that didn't happen. So much for Hope & Change!

Medicare is in terrible shape (it's already costing more than the Medicare taxes are bringing in). Why would you strip those "savings" and move them to a new entitlement program??!! So now we'll have Medicare collapsing, and a new runaway program that will further drive the deficit/debt to new levels that we cannot afford.

My recommendation kiddies - Stop drinking the Obama KoolAid.

The impact of tort reform on health care cost is estimated at $54B over 10 years. So it's less than 10% of what's already in the ACA.

http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/feb10/managing4.asp

That's serious money, and REAL savings. So why isn't it in Obamacare?!

The $700B that Obama and the Dems pretended that they'll save was just a made up number to get the CBO to score the bill as being cost neutral.

In reality, it will be just like the Doc-Fix that Congress always amends every year, after they pass their budget (at least that's what used to happen when the President & Congress were passing real budgets. Since Obama/Reid have taken charge we've just seen a lot of continuing resolutions).

Ditto for the the AMT. First they pretend they'll get all the revenue from the unadjusted rates for budget purposes, then they patch it so the entire middle class doesn't get hit with a huge tax increase.

It's all a big sham, and the people who show up here and defend it are a JOKE.

The trolling business is slow? What am I missing? Your property taxes also sound too low for New Jersey... just sayin'

You need to stand up and take accountability for your failures. It's not the President's fault you are a loser.

First, the Dems wanted an even bigger Rx Entitlement for Medicare. Second, when the opportunity presented itself, they jammed their "upgrade" into Obamacare. It's just another reason why the government run/sponsored HC system in this country is going to send us into bankruptcy.

"Sir" is an idiot...just ignore him. He posts on every topic just to seem relevant.

So how's that going to work out when you're 94 and they hand you a voucher and tell you to go shop for your insurance this year?

Mr. Nedd. You are nothing more than an Obama sword swallower and I pray to God you choke on it come election day. Now try not to speak with your mouth full.

Lurky Loo: Romney will lose in November and it has nothing to do with politics. Watch.

I suggest you look at any electoral college map prediction and tell me Romney's path to 270 electoral votes. What swing states do you feel confident he will win. Patch doesn't allow enough space on its servers for me to tell you all the pathways the President has to 270. I have been asking this question to GOP types for 6 months not one of you right wingers have been able to point to a credible path for Romney to hit 270. Why is that? Is it because it isn't likely to happen? Stop kidding yourself and accept the facts.

When asked by Britt Hume of Fox News when the Romney budget would be deficit neutral, Congressional budget wonk Paul Ryan replied, "we haven't run the numbers on that". That's the most outrageous thing mentioned in the campaign so far. How can you claim to have a plan that will fix America's fiscal ills and you can't answer a simple question as to how long the patient will continue bleeding?

For the love of heaven, do you really think anyone with a functioning sixteenth of a mind doesn't know what "you didn't build that" refers to? What is the point of rehashing idiotic talking points that are based upon deliberate misinterpretations of what someone says? There are enough real problems with the Obama administration, there is no need to essentially make stuff up.

Sir: you are an idiot and don't deserve to finish your current term on earth.

The full quote (from Fox News) clearly shows Obama was referring to The American System, roads and bridges, the internet, etc. Taking this snippet of the quote out of context reveals your agenda and lack of intelligence.

"If you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. 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. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/24/obama-claims-romney-twisted-his-words-on-didnt-build-that/#ixzz246fhHxSV

Do you really believe those figures? Let me cite you another little known fact. Medicare has never in its history been anywhere near to being on or below budget b/c the assumptions used in forecasting its costs and solvency have consistently been shown to be unrealistically optimistic. This has been a chronic problem w/ programs like Medicare since inception. I suspect a few years from now you will find that the same sort of unrealistically optimistic assumptions were used in justifying the ACA and you will find that the costs are going to be far higher than originally estimated and the benefits far lower.

So was Ronald Reagan stealing from the American people when his administration took proceeds from secret gun sales to Iran and illegally funded Nicaraguan Contras? Was GWB stealing from the poor students when his education budget cuts provided more funds for wealthier students, while taking educational opportunities and assistance away from poor, disabled and immigrant students? Labeling spending priorities as "stealing" works both ways depending on one's perspective.

KMN, can't change history, it's over. Are you attempting to justify the current adminstration? Because it is my understanding 2 wrongs do not make it right.

Not trying to change history. I'm pointing out the absurdity of labeling one's spending priorities as "stealing". I happen to agree with the President's cuts to Medicare providers. Apparently, Paul Ryan does as well because the same cuts are assumed in his budgets which have been passed by the House in each of the last two years.

Thank you for the clarification. But if they are the same, why is the President throwing barbs about it then? Kind of hypocritical on Obama's part...

According to FOX News, not exactly the MSM, Ryan's plan comes with a 3.1 trillion dollar long term deficit.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/14/fact-check-ryan-budget-plan-doesnt-actually-slash-budget/

I agree Christie shouldn't have been the VP for all the reasons stated, but none of this makes Ryan a good pick either. The first rule of choosing a VP is to do no harm to your campaign. Given the limited pros and cons that are already apparent and growing, on balance, not sure if this was a "great" pick.

Someone who is supporting a ticket with the HumanGaffeMachine, aka Joe Biden, shouldn't be giving lectures about "first do no harm." Ol' Joe makes Bush look like the president of Phi Beta Kappa.

Even Loopie has had enough of his idiocy - http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election-2012/joe-biden-a-ball-chain-2012-election-president-obama-dump-ticket-favor-hillary-clinton-article-1.1137284

The hottest ticket this fall will be the Veep Debate. Ryan by KO in Round 3.

Last time I checked, Obama's pick of a VP turned out OK when the smoke cleared on the morning after the 2008 election.

But since you want to talk about gaffes, you might want to ensure your boy wonder is prepped before his next solo interview:

http://mediamatters.org/embed/static/clips/2012/08/15/25986/fnc-sr-20120814-ryanbudget

But he would draw more voters to Romney than Ryan will. The independent voters who decide elections aren't concerned about about who's the bigger advocate for small government, or even how good Christie is doing in New Jersey in reality. They will remember Ryan as the guy who tried to do away with Medicare--and pass.
Candidates should choose VPs who draw voters to them, not turn them away--doesn't always have to be, but in my opinion, Ryan just protects a groups of voters Romney didn't really need to protect.

If that clip, from the Obama Attack Team at MediaMutters, is the best mud they can throw at Ryan, I'll sleep soundly until Inaugural Day.

Joe B., on the other hand, no has his own Twitter # - #GuessBidensNextGaffe

He's now Legendarily Stupid. Last time he just had to better than Palin, which meant a turnip could do the job. Now he's up against someone who makes him look like the Plagiarizing Fool that he his. That's the only comparison that matters.

Stig,

You keep sleeping. If the map in the link below doesn't move in Romney's direction, it's going to be a long nap!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html

The only Electoral Map I care about is the one from Election Day. And given the ferocity of the Obama Attack Machine, I'm sure they're not taking any solace in current polls.

First rule of politics, always campaign like you are behind.

Anthony,

If everything you claim is true, why haven't any of the 241 GOP House members introduced an article of impeachment against the President for "stealing"? Surely if this were truly the case, someone would have done so by now. Why hasn’t Congressman Issa, who clearly hates the President (see the link below), gone down this road? Perhaps, because it leads to a dead end.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75552.html

My advice is to STFU until you have a clue what you are talking about.

As for you "revenue neutral" comment, the President never made this claim. He said it would reduce the DEFICT in the long term, which according to the CBO, it does:

http://cbo.gov/publication/43076

My, my, my...must have touched a nerve. We were having such a civil discussion, but now you've gone and thrown CAPITAL letters all over the place."My mission" is not to perpetuate an argument; my mission is to get people to rationally discuss the campaigns, without resorting to ridiculous name calling. Had you simply said you thought it wrong for Obama to use funds from the Medicare trust to apply to the ACA, I would not have engaged in this conversation.
But you didn't... you said he stole the money and that he personally benefited. Bunk. Obama is not a thief, not a socialist, not a Kenyan, not a radical, not a lot of things people say about him. And he is not "my boy."
Now you get over it or I'll have to lay on my All Caps....

@KMN: The article you cited suggest that Issa hates corruption, not the President.

@Everyone Else: Have you all read the ~1,000 pages of the ACA bill? How are you all so able to debate its faults and merits? Congress hasn't even read it.

In Oct. 2010, Issa made a comment calling President Barack Obama “one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times” on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show.

Perhaps I should have said Issa isn't fond of the President. My bad!

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75552.html#ixzz23kWanu6Z

Wrong answer Anthony.

There is nothing from stopping the 112th Congress from impeaching the President for a crime it believes he committee at any point during his Presidency. I seem to recall the congress that began to draw up articles of impeachment against Nixon in 1974 wasn't the same one that was in session when his crimes began in the summer of 1972.

I'm glad that was your last comment. It was as incoherent as your first one.

Wonder why a Google search on "Washington Examiner" and "Pulitzer Prize" returned no hits?

People who Worship at the House of MediaMutters shouldn't throw stones.

"That's pretty amazing, Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Ironically, his biggest accomplishment as president so far: winning the Nobel Peace Prize." --Jay Leno

Some things never change. lol

HK, your ignorance is abysmal if not downright frightening. Read the Declaration of Independence....."they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...". You and your "The-end-justifies-the-means" liberal friends scare the bejesus out of me.

HK your posts are very disturbing and are so ridiculous they do not dignify a response.

MediaMutters fancies itself as a Media Watch Dog. In reality, they are nothing but a rabid extension of the Obama Hit Squad, funded by George Soros.

As for the "news" story I linked to, if you had actually read it carefully, you would have noted that it was a book summary.

Speaking of Hypocrites, how about all those Obama supports who refuse to call their guy out on his continuing failure to not only close the prisoner camp at Guantanamo Bay, but for actually continuing the policies of the President he lambasted for trashing the accused terrorists' rights. At least the NYT's (dozens of Pulitzers, and counting) is consistent on it's position opposing the facility and calling the President to task. Why not people like Nedd? Hypocrisy, perhaps??!!

P.S. If you're going to use big words like Hypocrisy, learn how to spell them.

You're so right, I'd much rather have this guy a heart-beat away from the Presidency - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfjn4BpmirU&feature=player_embedded

So first we had dying (as in Romney KILLED my wife), now we have lying (because his staff sent out some letters), what's next . . . Crying, Flying, Spying . . . ?!

Biden had one thing right - It's all about jobs, JOBS, J-O-B-S!!! So remind us how many Obama and Biden have ever personally created in their combined time on Earth. Answer - None. Both are career, public sector trough-swillers (although I think that is redundant).

Team Obama has had four years to turn the economy around, and they haven't delivered. The President was right three-and-a-half years ago when he said, "I will be held accountable . . I had four years . . . If I don't have this done in four years it will be a one term presidency." From your mouth to God's ear Mr. President.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCN5-ovvFL0

The economy was in a defined recession when the President assumed office with negative GDP and job losses above 800k a month. When was the last time we had negative job losses and negative GDP? How about 26 months ago? Why has the stock market increased 76% since the President took office. Wall Street isn't stupid. The economy isn't where we want it, but it has "turned around". Would you like to go back to the days of 6 percent negative GDP and 800k job losses a month?

Dems like to pretend that the only two choices are the worst year of the Bush Presidency, and the pathetic recovery authored by Obama. There is a better way, and it starts with Obama leaving office at the end of this term, and returning to being a pretend constitutional law scholar.

The problem with your observation is the "choice" the GOP is now offering is founded on the same exact economic principles (huge tax cuts for the wealthy, more defense spending, non specified cuts to domestic programs, etc.) that brought about the "worst" year of the Bush presidency. So unless we are insane, why we want a repeat of the same policies and expect a different result?

You walked right into that one!

Another favorite Dem Falacy, that all problems were caused by the Bush tax cuts. It's complete BS. The tax cuts didn't cause the mortgage meltdown. Decades of bad legislation sponsored and passed by Dems and Rep did. The GOP isn't proposing a return to no money down, liar mortgages. Also, Ryan was one of e few people speaking up about the continuing disasters known as Fannie and Freddie. Where was Ole Joe???

So it was the mortgage crisis that caused Bush to add $5 trillion to the national debt during his presidency? Are you saying the tax cuts, the unfunded wars, and the unfunded expansion of Medicare had nothing to do with it all?

Thank God the founding fathers thought of the Electoral College and didn't leave things to idiots who believe the crap that can be thrown in their direction by a handful of billionaires via super PACs

The Bush tax cuts and the Deficits had nothing to do with the Recession, yet Obama tries to pretend that it does whenever he says, "we won't go back to the failed policies that got us into this mess." I'd like you to find one credible economist who agrees with that thesis.

His problem is that his "plan" to fix the problem is - Do anything but what Bush did, i.e., cut taxes, because that's anathema to all Liberals. Their solution to every problem is to make the Rich pay their "Fair" share.

Yet the Bush tax cuts helped move us out of the recession that Bush inherited from Clinton, and the deficits slowly shrank until the bottom fell out because of the mortgage mess.

And no, before the Recession hit, Bush didn't add $5T of debt, even with all his wars and tax cuts, etc.

According to the Weekly Standard:

"...when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion."

Paid? I wish, could always use the extra cash. If I ever apply, can i use you as a reference?

Re:Crossroads .. Karl's stuff is always great. What's lame is the President's latest campaign "slogan," Forward. And don't forget the period at the end.

http://static.thepeoplescube.com/images/Forward_Obama_Lenin_lemming.jpg

You call that an ethical lapse? Get serious. Isn't it really a matter of degree anymore? The entire congress is a bunch of liars and I do believe the democrats have the lead -- although I can't believe a thing any of them say democrat or republican! Do we expect too much? The fallen nature of man is probably the very reason we do not need a big national government telling us how to run our lives - else we will ALL end up in federal prison because we will always be breaking a law (not unlike now) - or be slaves of the government (huh, again, not unlike now).

The entire congress isn't running for one of the highest offices in the land. Paul Ryan is.

Do I want to be ruled by another person or myself or God (as best I can know his will)? That's a fair question, Chatham 98. Thanks for raising it.

Yet another Dan Grant LIE! Boy, oh boy, they just seem to slip out of your lips, and off you fingertips with such ease.

The internet. It's mostly cyber fiction.

So is the Romney/Ryan Campaign!

You must have confused with Paul Brown. My postings are based and sourced with facts. They don't have racial overtones. Try again.

Most of the taxes in this country are paid by the wealthy. The poor pay no taxes and "working people" pay none to very little.

Do your research and stop getting your information from carefully crafted sound bites.

Two great pieces on Paul Ryan in Saturday's WSJ. The more I learn about him, the more I like him!

Here's an excerpt:
"[Ryan] has invoked a principle called "subsidiarity" in justifying his view that people are more apt to flourish under government that is limited in its size and reach. ... The principle of subsidiarity, espoused by Pope Pius XI in 1931, holds that central governments should defer to communities that are capable of performing certain functions on their own. If a town is capable of cleaning up after a storm, for example, there is no reason a higher government body should step in and do the job instead."

Subsidiarity ... It's the best way to keep dependency to a minimum.

Medow -- Next time you walk into a Staples, Think Romney! Think too that the one store you are standing in is just one of 2,300 Staples Stores employing 52,000 people worldwide, giving them the ability to feed, cloth, and care for their families, and know if it wasn’t for Mitt Romney, Staples and many other industries wouldn’t be!

Also, next time you are on vacation, think of Obama, because at the end of the day, that’s what his Presidency will be remembered for. Their vacations, as the country rots.

Quit drinking the Kool-Aid and believe in yourself. Obama isn’t going to pay your mortgage, gas, or give you free health care. Forget the “G**Dam, G**Dam, G**Dam, America” words of Obama’s Preacher, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and remember the words of another Preacher, those of Adrian Rodgers:

“You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”

Gee, do you think Murdoch had any influence on the series of articles coming out of the WSJ? He's no sooner out of that British snoop-for-a-scoop mess than he's right back in the thick of it with his US political editors. Don't be fooled...this is part of the Big Money game...and it smells just like it always has...like herring.

Meadow, How can you post such lies and misinformation. Every point above is absolutely incorrect and part of Fear and Smear politics.

I believe you have him over a barrel, Ed! He might have kept a lower profile for a while.
http://montville.patch.com/articles/candidate-video-profile-dan-grant.

Monk ---- Your article said Dan's an Independent Car Broker?

Did you read this one?

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/morris/index.ssf?/base/news-5/1222403279212470.xml&coll=1

I wonder if his clients know he lost a defamation suit. Do you think he’d tell his clients he won’t use the word apology if his actions are regrettably not 100 percent accurate?

There are some sick birds walking around this plant!

Let's let the ranting, used car saleman lick his wounds in peace. This is so embarassing.

Since I am being attacked personally.
From the Star Ledger article ""I gave him a letter that there were things posted on our website that regrettably were not 100 percent accurate," said Grant, a Democrat who is again running for township committee this year. "I made it clear the word 'apology' was not going to appear and that it better not cost me a dime."
Does that sound like anything more than a settlement? I had no lawyer and defended myself and Soussa's high priced Lawyer pleaded with me to settle so he could end the case. Settlements are done when there is no prospect of winning and that is why Soussa settled.

Dan, you are a Typical Obama Voter - You all can lie with such ease. Guess that is why you consider yourselves to be so enlightened? You published Fraudulent Facts about a person, and that person had the guts to stand up to your fraudulent bullying and sue you!

At the end of the day you had to admit you posted Fraudulent Facts! End of Story!

BTW, there is no personal attack of you occurring here. Think of it more like a Newspaper reporting the facts. A personal attack would be more like the post you put up here to chatham98.

Actually Ed, you couldn't be more wrong. If I hired a Lawyer because I believed I was slandered and that was the best he could do for me I would fire the Lawyer. Oh wait..........

No kidding he didn't start Staples, or Sports Authority. Bain Capitol is an Investment Company that provided funding that help enable those businesses to grow into what they are today. They do RISK analysis, and if it's a worth risk they invest.

Unlike Al Gore who DID NOT start the Internet, but he makes that false claim.

Keep trying, keep reaching, it does make for entertainment....

Another factually incorrect statement. Yes, if you include all types of taxation, more or less everyone chips in, but once again, most taxes in this country are paid by the rich. DO YOUR RESEARCH.

Harlan, why must I always correct you? Considering the rich control the vast majority of the wealth of course they would pay a larger amount of money. However, if one looks at the percentage of taxes paid compared to what one earns, the wealthy pay very very little compared to the poor and middle class.

BB, so what if the rest pay taxes at a higher overall percentage of their income than the wealthy. If one person is 1,000 times wealthier than another, are you saying he should purchase 1,000 times more food, fuel, clothing, etc. — and pay taxes on it — than the poorer fellow? How else would a wealthy person pay the same, unless the government treated them unfairly and singled them out for higher taxation. Of course someone with less discretionary income will pay a higher percentage of what he has in taxes! Stop the class warfare. There is enough charity in this country to care for the poor.

The only one guilty of class warfare is you Monk. Are you saying because a wealthy person buys more gasoline he should pay lower taxes on it at the gas station? When he buys an expensive car his sales tax should be less? No one is saying to single them out unfairly, but I sure as heck will never vote for a man for President that hides his money overseas. If he doesn't have enough respect and confidence in his own country, I have no confidence in him. BTW, why is Romney taking a back seat to Ryan? Who IS the top of the ticket? Shades of Bush and Cheney. One just wants the title, the other wants the power.

BB, you missed it completely. The wealthy man pays THE SAME taxes as anyone else at the fuel pump and the auto dealership, and everywhere else he spends his money. So what if he has a lot left over. It's his property. And the government takes the same or greater share from him as from anyone else. It's nobody's business if he has a lot left over.

Except when it comes to income taxes Monk, and you think that's just fine that the rich can pay less than half of what a middle class person does.

At least Ryan doesn't have to write his lies on the palm of his hand!

GGT You are so right ! The New Jersey unemployment rate is 9.8% . Three million New Jerseyans make $34,300 or less , and their take - home pay is shrinking . 30% of people with jobs rely on food stamps, up from 19% in 1990 . The number of children living in poverty is soaring .Seventy - five per cent of all the new wealth created in the last decade went to the top 20% ; families earning $132,000 or more. The nonsense appearing on this site has less legitimacy than professional wrestling .There are no political parties. Large segments of society have been destroyed and other segments are being destroyed by people who clearly display an insatiable, all consuming lust for power. Their mantra is, " Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven " , GGT, you are a sane voice in a Patch thread gone mad.Your comments are great !!

Four years ago we heard the exact same BS in terms of "enthusiastic crowds" and the fired up GOP base. Sorry to rain on the victory parade, but none of this matters if your candidate can't figure out a way to turn this map around. Against team Obama, it isn't going to happen. Romney/Ryan is a weak ticket. Glad to see the GOP convention first this time. Gives the Democrats more of a target a week later in NC.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html

Yes, just like we were afraid of Fred Thompson, Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, Michelle Bachman, Donald Trump, Herman Caine, Rick Perry.......... Righties get enamored of shiny objects too often.

KMN,
The map is turning. At this point against Carter, Reagan was 7 to 8 pts behind. Ohio, Wisconsin, Va and Florida will go Romney. Florida is the interesting one, as the seniors in Florida love their grand children and they want the USA to be a place where they can live the American dream, and not a hand out country. Also the Jewish vote will look and see that Obama is no friend of Israel and with the real threat on the Israel from Iran, well a President Romney will be the best for Israel compared to President Obama!!

Read and weep!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79865.html?hp=t1

This is such a joke its not even funny. Have you ever feard of estate taxes, capital gaines taxes, taxes on dividends or payroll taxes?

Concerned can you explain how restoring the tax rate to 2% of the population back to 3% more than they are paying now would through us into a deep recession, while the firing 10% of the public workforce is fiscally responsible?

Bellair, The expiration would be the largest tax increase in the history of the USA and moderate democrats and republican economists agree that it will throw us into a deep recession. In addition, the automatic govt spending cuts will cause the layoffs as will the recession. I do not think any of this is fiscally responsible and its all caused by both parties and the inability of our current President to lead.

Concerned, the only ones proposing that, actually threatening that, are Republicans. Did you miss the President asking them to pass the cut for the 98% and he would sign it right now? He said if we can agree on that let's do it and fight over the rest later. That would take the uncertainty away from 98% of Americans. Remember how Republicans hate uncertainty? The Republicans refuse and are holding 98% of the people hostage until they get what they want, and are threatening to throw the country into chaos if people vote for Obama. Why would you reward that behavior?

Hogwash. Increasing the top income tax bracket back to 39% would not be the largest tax increase in U.S. history. It seem to work pretty well back in 1992.

Bellair
That was Obama election pandering to his base. The Republicans want the tax cust extended for all, as the small business owners which create jobs cannot have a tax increase at this time. Even President Clinton has stated you cannot raise taxes until the economy starts to grow. Tax increases are inevitable but they must be passed along with entitlement refoms so we reduce the govt debt load.

KMN,
Its not hogwash at all. The Bush tax cuts expire equates to $4 trillion in taxes. The largest tax hike in our history. Here is a summary from the press:

Members of Congress from both parties are increasingly mulling the unthinkable: going home in December without acting to avoid the $4 trillion in tax hikes and deep spending cuts known as the fiscal cliff.

Neither Democrats nor Republicans claim this is their preferred option, as it could rattle global financial markets badly and anger their constituents.

Concerned you really just want to pick and choose your truths. If Obama was pandering to the base then his base is 98% of the people. If the Republicans cannot even vote on things we both agree, don't you think THEY are pandering to their base? Clinton said he thought everything should be extended to the end of they year, after the election. Don't put your words into his mouth, or at least listen to more than a Fox sound byte. The fact remains that the Republican party is holding the American people hostage, willing to destroy us all if they don't get their way. Just like they did with the debt ceiling. Most people are realizing this. Don't be surprised if you lose Congress again. That's the only way to get anything done now.
BTW, why did you remove your initial posting? Was is too full of holes even for you?

I don't know what you folks are arguing about. The Bush tax cuts expiration is a massive tax hike. Obamacare is a massive tax hike. The deficit is out of control and the automatic spending cuts take effect even if these massive tax hikes take effect b/c the spending limits Congress passed by law already factored in these tax increases into the budgetary forecasts and Congress has made absolutely no progress on what to do about the deficit or how to pay for any extension of the Bush tax cuts for some or all people.

Bellaire
I did not remove any posts. As for Obama and his political leadership pandering, he knew he republicans would not ever accept during a weak economy raising taxes. He just wanted to rant and rave about how republicans only care about the 1% blah blah blah. The republicans know that if we raise any taxes at this time it will send us into a double dip recession. Obama only wants to stay in office, at any cost. I am not a fox news junkie. I am an independent who voted for Obama the last time. I will not do it again as he does not have the leadership skills to be President.

Concerned, I don't for one minute think you ever voted for Obama. You just want to say that to try and give your position false credibility. Obama proposed to settle the tax issue once and for all for 98% of Americans right now. He said we can continue to debate the other points. You know that the Republicans need to hold all those people hostage to get what they want, just like they did last January. as far as leadership? He got Bin Laden, signed the Lily Ledbetter fiar pay act, got us out of Iraq, ended don't as don't tell, saved the US auto industry, and got health benefits for 9-11 responders. That's just a few. Why do you want to vote for a man that hides his money overseas and flips flops on every issue?

Bellair,
i did vote for Obama because I could never vote for a ticket with Palin a heartbeat from the Presidency. Obama cannot make decisions and if it were not for Hillary and Panetta, Osama would still be alive. GM is not saved, just given time and they will need another bailout in the future due to very heavy labor and benefit costs. they needed a restructuring, but Obama bailed out the unions not GM. Obama is the only president who could not get a budget passed even when his party controlled the congress. a new book has been released "Leading from Behind, a reluctant President and his Advisors". You will never read it but you should if you have any desire for an open mind. Obama lacks the leadership skills required to be
president.

Your point is irrelevant. Federal tax rates hit all states the same way. The nation seemed to be doing just fine with the higher upper bracket rates under Clinton.

I keep hearing that nonsense about taxes being just fine at the higher rates under Clinton but I never hear anyone volunteering that they themselves have their rates go up to the Clinton era rates. So if you really want to go down that path, how about every adult in this country just get all our taxes and our tax credits get rolled back to the Clinton era levels. If it is good enough for the rich then it is good enough for everyone.

Makes one feel wonderful knowing that if anything ever happened to Obama, that Bidden would be in charge. Now that alone is a scary thought!

Caldwell, Akin wasn't alone. His junk science source, Jack Wilke is a regular provider of dubious facts for many of the Republican leaders today. Check out Romneys use of him as a surrogate on his Pro-Life agenda in 2008.

It isn't just Akin. Republicans have been trying to convince people that any woman who is pregnant from a rape must have wanted it for years. Their junk "science" has to invent out of whole cloth a "garage door opener" for the uterus so that they can paint women with unwanted pregnancies as dirty sluts. The most egregious of these was a state legislator who in 2006 described (graphically) a grotesque situation in which the "sodomized virgin exception" might be invoked. Google "Bill DiNapoli sodomized virgin exception" and you'll see the very sick mindset these people have. (Hint: It's not about human life, because the woman never, ever, ever figures into their arguments. She is nothing but an unthinking, unfeeling vessel in their eyes.)

Caldwell,
so very true!

Well reasoned analysis.