Sue, it was a different debate format.

So right Sue. In reading this string of comments it becomes clear that whatever or whomever you believe in and support is not going to change, and the other side is "stupid" if they don't agree with you. What ever happened to civility and open debate where we actually listen to each other with open minds and hearts? What I did not hear is HOW Romney and Ryan are going to do all these wonderful things, no details. When asked, Ryan would not even man up and say..Yes we are going to get rid of the mortgage interest deduction for homeowners...when he has said that for years in congress.. Come on we aren't that "stupid" tell us what you are going to do so we can make an informed decision.

Interrupting the moderator is one thing. Laughing out loud and interrupting the person your debating against, constantly, is extremely unprofessional and rude.

Agreed.

Also, let me get this straight, the debate moderator stated she's spoken to commanders on the ground and they were against the reduction in forces during fighting season. Biden thrashes out and asserts the Joint Chiefs (e.g., top brass who get so sit in plush chairs next to President in war room) agreed with the President's decision. Does he think we're stupid?

Also, Iran might be a year away, but who knows? We got North Korea wrong (we thought they didn't have a nuke but they surprised us and the world) and everyone thought Iraq had nukes (another surprise). I don't want to go to war with Iran, but concerned about the path.

Finally, did I hear correctly? Last night, I heard VP Biden assert "Obamacare makes medicare solvent to 2024". Did he mean 2124? That's 12 years from now and based on likely rosey projections. What are their plans to reform to extend and strengthen? Why didn't he respond to "Why not raise the age over time gradually?". When I google CBO's long term projections, the current system is unsustainable. I'm not sure about Ryan's plan, but no plan is terrifying.

Sue, Mr. Biden interrupted Mr. Ryan 82 times...82 times! That doesn't include the number of interruptions the commentator, Ms. Raddatz, also imposed on Mr. Ryan. Paul Ryan had to debate TWO people not one. Through both debates, Romney/Ryan maintained their dignity and class and presented FACTS not yammering.

NO Romney did not interropt BHO

Biden had to interrupt in order to call out Ryan's lies, and there were plenty of them. Ryan continuously dodged the questions and refused to back up his statements with facts. As far as the smirks & laughter from Biden, there was plenty to laugh about. It is very clear that Biden schooled Ryan in this debate!

And it seems that we pay more attention to how they act, or appeal to us, that what they really say.
i noticed that too that Biden was impatient to demonstrate what He know. But I paid a lot of attention to the content of what each contender said.In many times, Ryan was lost to a straight answer. When talking to tax reform, he has more mumble jumble with terms. Bidden offered to translate what Ryan said. Me, as voter did not get any word Ryan explained about tax reform. Ryan showed so inexperienced, and brought a lot of expeculations to the table. Like studies said result like that...When its obvious that Vice president has more details about facts.

Well I've got a brain and all I saw was Biden being a jerk all night. You can't simply dismiss someone with a different viewpoint from your own as a mindless moron who only votes a particular way because they feel its their "duty". I vote Republican because I honestly feel they have better answers and are seeking to control my life less than the Democrats. You've got your opinion and it's different then ours but us on the other side aren't stupid because we don't share your opinion. Broaden your horizons a little.

+1 to Tim

Come on Mellissa you can't possibly say America is better off after 4 years of Obama? Did he follow up on any of his 08 campaign promises besides attempting to pass Obamacare? But even that got struck down in the supreme court.

Duty is the 98% of African Americans who vote for Obama because he's black. 88% of Union Members voting democrat. And probably 100% of people living off welfare voting democrat to keep their checks coming in.

Republicans have to do their research before they vote because most aren't fiscal conservatives.

Melissa, I'm just going to take a stab in the dark here and guess that you have no business experience at all. If you think what Obama is doing for this country is good then the only articles you are reading is from the Daily Kooks. Three huge companies this week just reported that they are cutting hours or employees in order to get ready for ObamaCare. This is one example among hundreds that Obama and the dems don't know and never will know how to help our economy.

What seems to be missing is the fact of where the majority was in both the House and the Senate from 2007. If looked at more closely, I think that the Democrats were in control, AND NOT BUSH. So who is really the blame for the MESS?

Apparently Melissa you missed the economics lesson of 2008. The economy took a hit in August. This was primarily due to President Clinton repealing Glass-Steagel and opening the floodgates to damn near anyone who wanted a home. Mortgage defaults skyrocketed, the fed stepped in and provided stimulus to shore up the banks and the toxic assets. Then comes Dodd-Frank. Chris Dodd is now President of the Motion picture association of America now btw (see anything cozy there?) The economy had stabilized and smatterings of a recovery had started. Then Obama comes to office. His heavy hand, over regulating, green job supporting and $787billion stimulus drove a nail right into the heart of the recovery. There is no disputing the numbers, so keep deluding yourself. My question to you. Are you ready to see this country deteriorate even more if Obama happens to pull it off and win?

And it seems that we have way opposite opinions.
I can't stand the fact that Romney say a comment at one momment and Republicans covers him up. He is not a 15 year old that can make mistakes and correct them later by saying sorry. We speak from what its really inside. And He has dome it repetitive times. I won't trust him as my President. Republicans argue that bringing trops home would send a wrong message to the enemies. What has Romney been sending messages to us????? Its clear that He can't stand middle class or the poor.

Matt.
read this from facts:
Paul Ryan on partisanship: In 2009-10 "they had the ability to do anything of their choosing." That's nuts. In the real world, a minority of 41 senators can block almost any legislative measure. What's more, even smaller numbers of senators can create massive delays in the legislative process. The Republican caucus in 2009-10 was unusually aggressive in deploying these tools and it had a major impact on the course of legislation. GOP filibusters blocked the DREAM Act, kept Federal Reserve and Federal Housing Finance Agency offices vacant, killed hope for climate change legislation, blocked a number of fiscal stimulus measures, and so forth.
from state.com\blog

Melissa,
It is my respondsibility to vote... Republican OR Democrat. Very few see Biden as a "smashing" success... even the left sees it as a tie at best.
Many of us on the right have brains...We see P Ryan as a winner.. not just in the debate but in congess and in life. The counrty might be constued as "in a mess" after Bush. Hoewever BHOP added $6T to our debt. he spent $90B in green energy FAILURES; "enough money to hire 2M teachers". What has BHO done to return $14T in corporate profits to USA banks for investment on OUR economy?; possibly enough money to hire 10M people in US businesses.
You might redefine common sense.
Over spending,
over regulating the population,
over taxing all earners,
raising healthcare premiums, taxes and gas prices is not good for any economy.
You "smashing" victor is just a loud braggart with left sided experience with little substance.

You are correct about the last part of your comment Melissa. Romney and Ryan will have a tough row to hoe when they take control of this country after the election.

Well said, Tim. Joe Biden was a fool. He laughed like a fool because Paul Ryan was very intelligent about everything. He also had to debate the moderator. It always seems as though the Republicans can handle fending off more people than the Dems. Also, Bush is not the one who screwed up. Look at the housing market ... that was the Clinton administration working with Fannie Mae to lower regulations so people making $10/hr could get a 250K mortgage. It takes about 8-10 years for policies like that to work their way through the system, and guess what? In 2008 we hit an all time low. Tell me: is your house worth more now than it was before? You can thank Clinton for that and stop following in Obama's footsteps and blaming Bush for all the problems.

"Romney didn't interrupt"? Did you even watch the debate? You don't recall, "He got to talk more! I get to talk now! I get to talk! He got more time!"
Romney was a spoiled brat, and frankly, Ryan looked like a dehydrated 10-year-old in the debate.

Heidi, I watched the first debate and don't remember any of what you claim. In fact, I think you've confused Romney with Biden because I do remember him tonight frequently claiming he wasn't getting enough time even though he finished 2 minutes up. BTW, didn't Romney finish almost 4 minutes down so if he did complain, would that not be warranted?

Heidi, Romney talked more, cause he had MORE to say! Not because he was a rude jerk cutting of Obama. Obama was a deer caught in the headlights. DUH......

agreed ACE

Heidi, I think you are one of the 25%; because only 25% of the people in this country were politically blinded enough to think Obama won the debate.

These debates were different formats. The first debate between Romney and Obama was supposed to be like that, an open exchange. Leher said that at the very beginning. The second debate was designed as a Q and A session with more moderator involvement.

It is not rude to interrupt when a faulty premise is being used to make a long string of conclusions. Politicians love to make a faulty to then defend why their approach would fix the flaw, The problem is that the flaw is not clear cut. Am interruption has to be done to be clear on the issue. The person using the flawed premise is actually being rude in wasting everyone's time. Goes for both sides.

You're right, ACE. Romney didn't interrupt, he simply tried to take back his own position. He was interrupted and did not allow Obama to walk all over him. Biden, yes, was rude and childish. More like a fool actually. I'd like to see him debate 2 people instead of 1 like Ryan had to as the moderator was also trying to take down Paul Ryan too.

agreed

Mental problems? Wow, really? Ryan never fully answered the questions, never gave facts or numbers. Biden had to continuously jump in because Ryan was making things up as he went along and not stating true facts. How is that respectful? He looked pathetic, and deserved to be laughed at!

So Jennifer, how could Ryan fully answer any question when Crazy Uncle Joe interrupts him 82 times? Biden's behavior was rude, embarrassing, and far beneath the standards we should hold someone to in the office of the vice president. Character DOES matter and Paul Ryan was the man integrity at that table.

Wow, all caps. That gives your comment such gravitas.

SARA,
THAT'S HOW I ROLL!
BY THE WAY SARA, THE CAPS LOCK IS ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE KEYBOARD. ROUGHLY IN THE MIDDLE.
WEE DOGGIES!

but did you pay attentio to what they said, or only their faces and posture?
That is what the debate is about.
Instead, I may send an actor to debate, who may appeal more to your eyes and mine.

New leadership--but not from either one of the candidates--be it president or vice-president

I agree. You have to be brain dead to belong to a political party with the loss of ethics in both parties. Abolish party affiliation and vote for candidates alone.

So you have an opinion and feel that no one should be allowed to hear anything different?

I don't like Ryan, I probably will never like Ryan, but I agree with Meg: I didn't like the condescending behavior. I didn't like the way the moderator (Martha?) handled this debate; it felt more like an inquisition.

I also saw that the moderator (who is more familiar with foreign policy and the Afgan situation) took a little side, but maybe because what Ryan was saying did not make sence to her either. Ryan had no other choice but to stay calm. But it was brutal the lecture from Bibben. It could be a lot more if Bidden has hold more composture. Then it would had look even worse that an inquisition.

Hey, did you vote for Bush? Yeah, let's have more years of that with Romney & Ryan! Where's the logic?

You're one of the few people that I've heard from that are both pro-choice and pro Romney-Ryan. Most Romney-Ryan people think government should prevent a doctor and female patient from deciding that.

As a human: Killing a baby mid to late term is cruel...

As a conservative: I think there's some room for compromise for VERY early termination. But this "It's my body" is a bad argument when you have another human growing inside you... it was your body when you decided to have sex, if you didn't (heaven forbid) take the morning after pill. No more of this abortion for convinience whether it be for timing, wrong gender, what have you.

Biden had the better answer. His personal religious beliefs are HIS OWN, and not to be imposed on others who do not share his beliefs. His reminder that the next POTUS will likely appoint 2 Supreme Court justices was timely and insightful. Women who want to maintain their right to choose should pay attention.

So Edward, I believe stealing is wrong. I guess I shouldn't impose that belief on anyone else though?!

Just wondering Chris, how do you judge insincerity? I thought Ryan was very sincere. You may not agree with what he was saying or not like his ideas, but how do you know he is insincere? Is he insincere because someone said he was lying or because as a Republican he couldn't possibly want to protect Social Security and Medicare? When he talked about how those programs have helped his family, he seemed surprising honest about wanting to save those programs. Also, when has a candidate not said what they were told to say? It's what politicians do. Finally, I happen to be another Republican who is Pro Choice. I think overturning Roe v. Wade would be a disaster.

@ Meg - well said. You make a great point that by supporting a candidate for the presidential election does not conclude that we have to emphatically agree with every minute detail. We should look at the larger picture of where they will take this country.

I appreciated that Ryan shared the story about Romney's personal generosity since Romney does not toot his own horn with respect to that. Actions speak louder than words....Biden's actions were despicable.

"kind of laughing in disbelief"

This is how I interpreted it as well. Better to laugh than to get angry. You need to have a sense of humor when the lies and distortions start flying from the other side. Biden, who is old enough to easily be Ryan's father, and wiser and more experienced, and it showed. He simply is the greater statesman, has the inside view of what occurs during the decision making process and many years of being engaged in that process, so he had the edge in the debate (as he should, given his experience and knowledge base).

Quite frankly Ryan scares me. His comments about Iran and Syria (uninformed and reckless) indicated they would be likely to send 100,000 troops into another ME war and spent another trillion dollars on it. Involvement in Syria would be a greater fiasco than Iraq and would lead to a great regional war.

Ryan had plenty of criticism but no specific solutions. He couldn't even give specifics on his tax plan (cut which loopholes for the wealthy? He never said).

"ARE PROBABLY MEMBERS OF THE 47% SLUG GROUP."

And this killed your credibility as a poster . . .

Blair, you should take off your caps lock first of all. Then maybe start to think about what you are saying. You are ill informed and insulting, and obviously seem to think you are a psychiatrist. The first sign of insanity? Really? 47% slug group? How dare you!!! Such ignorance is really pathetic!

JENNIFER, IF THE SHOE FITS, WEAR IT.
I'M SURE IF LIBERALS HAD THERE WAY, CAPS LOCK WOULD BE ILLEGAL.
THE HYPHEN GAVE YOU AWAY.
LOL!

So Jennifer instead of picking on Blair because he related what others defined as insane and his use of caps locks
WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION?
HOW WOULD YOU SOLVE THE DEBT THE TAXES THE MISERABLE ADMIN. THE CORRUPTION THE COVERUPS TO GET RE- ELECTED?
Are yo concerned that
BHO added $6T to the $10T debt in one term that
we have over 10% unenmployed that
BHO added 85,000 to SSDI in one month,
the catastrophe in Bingazi the
increase in health premiums.
25000 pages of regulations for ACA
gas prices over doubled since 2009
Tell US Jennifer what really concerns YOU.

Blair the 47% referred to by Romney were the voters supporting BHO. They were not slugs. Coincidently, Romny at the moment had 47% support from the right. Romney made no reference to non tax payers as slugs; he merely stated that to make an argument for lowered taxes to those rich or poor who do not pay taxes for any of several reasons was a non workable offer to attract the undecided voter..
I can support your postion however referring to anyone as a slug is not acceptable

You continue to use all capital letters. Seems like a tantrum to me.

I am an older American and I thought VP Biden was rude, childish, arrogant and condescending. He was loud too because he wanted to shout down his opponent.

I would be concerned IF Biden became President. He was said to have international experience yet we've never seen him on the global stage in the term. He opposed the surge he opposed the raid on OBL. He's been horrile on the judiciary committee. He is capable of extending the debt thru social spending, raising taxes on everyone. He was correct that he does what he says.. that tells he a lot about J Biden.
P Ryan is thoughful with repsect to taxes, operation of congress. His views from the right will be good for the country, the budget, the $16T debt, global economy. . He has worked in government for many years; locally and in Washington. We really need a change wwe can afford
. Romney Ryan... is a better choice.

Ha, Eli, it's true. The people who HAVEN'T made up their minds probably didn't watch it, but will take their opinions from the sound bytes tomorrow. Why are we fighting each other? We're the people who care enough to pay attention.

MATT,
MUCH LIKE YOUR VEEP?

Thank you for your service. It is true Government run health care is awful even in it's most simple form there is substandard care. If you have something you need to see a specialist for you have to wait six months for a referal from your own doctor to then have it reviewed by a pannel of beurocrats to determine if you really need an outside private sector doctor to see you... meanwhile you're cancer is raging.... it's sick... we see so many vets show up in the ER to be seen because they couldn't wait anymore for the green light from the VA:(

I consider myself a very conservative Republican, however my viewpoint on national healthcare has changed a little (but NOT Obamacare). What you are dealing with is incomprehensible to me, however. It simply should not happen. Thank you for your service! You (and everyone who serves their country) should be taken care of in perpetuity (forever) regardless of what type of healthcare system we have. To add to that, though, I don't believe that the government should run healthcare (or Social Security or much else); but some sort of "baseline" national healthcare system that would ensure basic care for EVERYONE I think is needed, but keep the subjectiveness out of it...As important, it would eliminate a lot of red tape and ASTRONOMICAL administrative costs of the current system. The US healthcare cost is 2x any other country in the world and much of it is administrative. I personally don't want to pay for the next guy's neverending healthcare because they eat nothing but garbage and are lazy...But there are many great examples of national healthcare systems that do serve the people, are NOT run by the government, still allow for free enterprise and choice, etc but also ensure that care is available to everyone and costs are controlled. Check out (for free) on the internet PBS's Frontline video (documentary) called "Sick Around the World." It was enlightening to me. I still am VERY conservative on the subject of abortion, economy, national security, and foreign policy.

Kelly, and everyone else. It is Liberals who consistently block tort reform and reigning in lawsuit abuse. Just look at what that scumbag Ciresi did to big tobacco. His firm netted $110 million dollars from that extortion.

Thank you for your service to our country ragardles of weather or not we agree on your comments. All vets should get free health care especially combat vets.

Rick, Ceresi applied Republican freemarket principals and invested his own firms money to support the lawsuit at at the risk of loosing their investment. I thought that was the free enterprise system unless your side loses. I actually met Mike Ceresi and he is a pretty decent fellow.

Thank you for your dedicated service, Mr. Konen. I'm so sorry that the VA has denied care to you. It seems the very LEAST our country could do for a soldier.

My husband is a recently returned soldier from the Afghanistan mountains bordering Pakistan. He was wounded there and received care immediately after his injury. He is now doing pretty good, but will always have an injury due to this war. He finally came home in April and our family health care had still been covered - until last week. In going to the pharmacy today to pick up 4 prescriptions, I was greeted with a bill of $609... for one month of medication. ONE MONTH.

This is our first month paying out of pocket for our RX's and honestly, I am appalled. While my husband was literally laying his life on the line for his country, we've been socking veterans and their families with ridiculous health care costs? No wonder veteran's are finding it hard to stay afloat after returning from war.

This is the sad and sorry state of our country right now. In all truth, I'm not sure there is just one government party that could pull us out of this mess.... just like there isn't just one party to blame for it. This is our government as a whole.

Yes, I will say that we have it better here than other places, but seriously America... if you want to regain the 'land of opportunity' title, then you need to start by taking care of your people.

[Stepping down off of my soapbox now]

Kelly, while I disagree with you on so many issues, I would definitely vote for you if you were running for the Presidency. You sound like a person of conscience and critical thought.

Finally someone said something that is absolutely true. (not that everything said here is false) I just happen to agree that no matter who is President, nothing will get done until congress decides to get their heads out of the sand and start working together. You can't blame whom ever is the acting President on every problem we have. HE does not run the country, congress does. So stop blaming the president for congresses lack of responsibility. Their main goal the last four years has been to make sure Obama is a one term president and keep him from achieving his goals when he took office.

And Biden launched into their campaign monologues, it's Bush's fault, Romney is protecting the rich and hates the 47% (you people have to really read the ENTIRE context of that conversation) and Ryan's questions kept being changed or "challenged" by the moderator or he was interrupted by Biden. She never hammered Biden on anything. Reliable facts...just look at this Sept. jobs records...in 40 years this is the ONLY September that there was growth? Look it up.

Well said Paul!

I honestly don't understand how anyone could be "undecided" at this point! Both parties, both candidates clearly have different views & beliefs on all of the important issues. There is so much information out there.

Monopolizing, what debate were you watching? Biden was monopolizing. And the moderator was allowing the interruptions and giving Biden softball questions.

Paul, please bring something to the table, or in this case the thread, your posts are a waste of time. How about why Obama hasn't come up with a comprehensive plan to tackle the deficit? One simple question; lets see if you have anything productive to discuss.

The Republicans have not at all been respectful of the Presiden Obama. The birther trash is still going on. The Republican have openly welcomed the angry white guys including the segregationist Dixiecrats in 1964. The web is full of anti Obama comments that have nothing to do with policy or governance. The southern red states have been part of the Republican southern strategy since Nixon. Harvest votes from disaffected white guys who won't compete on and equal plane with decendents of former slaves and other minorities. Keep them afraid of their 5 button issues guns, gays, God, gynocology and govmint while picking their pockets at the gas pump and keeping wages low. So much for the rich fellows sponsoring the grass roots tea party.

Totally agree with Terri on this. Thank-you for the respectful comment. The American people do not win anything with debates such as this one.
Why are people still trashing Bush? What has happened in this past administration has very little to do with Bush. The debate is about what this administration has done and what the next one will intend to do. Biden did not win this debate nor did Paul Ryan. Just maybe though much more would have been accomplished had Paul been allowed to finish his sentences so we knew what is actually on the table to debate about. Tragically we all lost on this debate.

Well said, Terri! It is true that Romney - and the President - were respectful when they interrupted and went over their times. But it does trouble me when polls indicate Americans think Romney is a better leader because of that rather aggressive performance. And I think the Vice President was playing into the same thing. (Ryan, on the other hand, wore the classic Catholic choir boy expression, which I saw on my own brothers' faces a little too often.) I want to suggest that the growing incivility in this country, as well as our inability to understand the importance of compromise, is shaping our politicians. And then we complain about them!

I agree. He wants a "free market" solution (privatization), and that means allowing for-profit insurance companies into the mix. Medicare, as it is right now, has VERY low overhead -- much lower than any private insurance company -- because it is administered by the not-for-profit government. Why would we want to give more of our money to Wall Street and less to our health care providers (for direct services) as we age? NO, THANKS.

Another tell is that the Ryan supporters are spinning for a "draw". They know Biden won on substance so they attack Biden's style and attempt to do damage control by pressing for a consensus of "draw". I find the spinning almost as interesting as the debate itself.

The tell for me was the immediate response from each side in their own spin rooms. The mood in the Democratic room was ecstatic, jubilant, high-fiving, elated, big smiles on every face. When the cameras rolled to the Republican side it was downright somber. You could hear a pin drop in there. It was like a funeral home, quiet, like someone had died. The contrast couldn't have been greater.

Edward, I saw the spin rooms last night too and you are wrong about the moods. Yes, the Democrats were excited this week (as opposed to last week when they just turned tail and ran away entirely) but the Republican room was also excited. As I've said before, I'm sure both sides will see this as a win for their own guy as is evidenced by your belief that Biden won the debate.

I guess I'm wondering what kind of party could be so excited that their representative in the debate behaved like a horse's ass all night and tried to simply shout down any discussion from the other side. I know you guys like to think he was "shutting out the lies" but that's just spin and its excusing bad behavior merely because you liked what he was saying better. It doesn't add anything to the debate and it continues to lower the level of discourse. How do you debate with a raving lunatic? The answer is that you don't and Biden knew that going in. So instead of having a reasonable fact based discussion, he behaved like an idiot!

Too funny. Why isn't it a win for Ryan?

Because some (most?) people running for office falsely build themselves up and their opponents need to call attention to that. Hopefully, voters can recognize the difference between mudslinging and legitimate criticism.

While I can't argue with your sentiment, Lightsrus, our founding fathers didn't get along, either, and politics have always been this way. Sigh.

Um, the healthcare reform act had no reflection on those numbers because it is essentially not in affect yet. Who cares about one country congratulating another country's candidate for election win? This is diplomacy. All Presidents have done it, and other countries do the same in reverse. Not sure at all what you mean about money being taken from the middle class.

Hey, what money has Obama taken from the middle class? I'm solidly in the middle class and the only change I've seen in my federal taxes was a 2% drop in the FICA tax. I guess I also bought a new car in 2009 that I got a federal tax credit for and I bought a new high-efficiency furnace and central air that I got a tax credit for. NONE of my federal taxes have increased.
Maybe your healthcare costs are very slightly higher because people up to age 26 can be covered under their parents' plan. But that's the only change in government policy that's affecting those rates. The rest is mostly demographics, new drugs, and increased costs at the provider level.
Re: Libya - I think Obama was afraid of an over-reaction. Our embassy was attacked by terrorists and some people died. But think of all the soldiers who've died in Afghanistan and Iraq. We didn't need to send armies to the middle east in response to 9/11. We could have found bin Laden and taken him out much more quickly without all the frenzy. Obama has a better track record of punishing the actual culprits of terrorist attacks than Bush had. I believe he will have success finding and punishing the people behind the Libya attack as well.

The "Loophole" argument? Most Pres. Candidates who use that really don't do anything about it. First, some of the loopholes are caught by IRS themselves. The other problems? Nothing that will benefit the Big Business in those loopholes, or tax structure usually get's fixed w/o states pressuring for it as well. Including, things like sales tax. There will be a fight to keep some of those in Congress, especially for big business that have multiple offices in other states. The Internet sales tax collection for larger business, and collection of that is making some headway, but it's been a battle and some claw back policies don't always work.

People do tend to forget that the percentage rate that Corporations see, is not actually what is paid. After deductions and loopholes they often do not pay those rates, and smaller businesses don't usually have the same advantage.

Some corrections are needed for this comment. The DOW hit its low in late March 2009 (when Obama was in office). The fiscal collapse in this country (and why the DOW fell to this level) happened as a result of a major credit crunch driven in large part by Wall St Banks failing. The Wall St Banks failed because of the dramatic fall in real estate prices due to an overwhelming number of foreclosures. Why did the banks make these loans? Because of laws like the Community Reinvestment Act passed during the Carter Admin that went after banks for "redlining" areas out that they didnt want to provide mortgages to high risk people. Then of course -- the big banks and the federal government collude via Freddie mac and Fannie Mae to ensure that loans to almost anyone are being made with guarantees to the big banks that the government will not let them fail. This ticking time bomb was laid during the Carter administration and greatly enhanced by the likes of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. I will agree that too many Republicans went along with it as well.

"Community Reinvestment Act passed during the Carter Admin that went after banks for "redlining" areas out that they didnt want to provide mortgages to high risk people." The Community Reinvestment Act required due diligence including credit checks, down payments, etc. They still have a low failure rate. Lots of credit worthy purchasers were descriminated against by banks because of race or neighborhoods. It had nothing to do with the mortgae bubble. I had to sit in front of a banker as a single male and prove that I could make the payments because that bank would lose the money! .Mortgage brokers exploited stated income loans and similar devices meant for people with lots of assets but no regular income to push loans on unqualified inexperienced people knowing someone else would get caught holding the bag. They frequently encouraged borrowers to borrow more money than they needed. Deregulating banks and the mortgage industry proviede the green light for dangerous speculation. Nothing to do with Community Reinvestment.

Well said.

LOL... I'm neither wealthy or Catholic, but thought that Ryan showed more poise. I've voted both Democrat and Republican and therefore, do not have a solid urge to vote simply for one party or another.
Your comment made me laugh though. I wonder if I'm a closet Catholic who has oodles of money in my bank account that is unbeknownst to my checkbook....

I hear ya Lisa, Catholics are generally lower income. Which is why I said Wealthy OR Catholic. I guess I'd add Gun Collectors too. Gun Collectors, Wealthy, or Hardcore Chrisitans would be the only people to benefit from a Romney/Ryan presidency.

Oh Robert.... you got me. I am apparently 1/4 of those who would benefit from a Romney/Ryan presidency.
However, I like to go off the beaten path and keep 'em all guessing. I may be 1/4 wealthy OR Catholic OR hardcore Christian OR a gun-toter, but that doesn't mean I'm going to vote for the presidency based solely on money, religious preference, or weapon fascination.
Now, if only I were to do that.... I would be a force to be reckoned with then, I tell ya! Well, a force or a nut-job - you pick... ;)

Demagoguery - impassioned appeals to the prejudices and emotions of the populace.

Robert, you haven't a lick of proof that Paul Ryan is going to do any of those things. He has represented a blue collar area of Wisconsin very well for a number of years. How is voting for the platform that promises the most hand-outs not greed?

Lets hope Obama's term ends on Dec. 31, 2012.

May I ask why? Is there something that came through in this VP debate that alluded to Obama lacking health?
...or is this just your way of saying that he ought to watch-out for the boogie man?

Uh, no. It means that if something did happen to the President, a doofus would take his place.

Oh. Oops. Better grab another cup 'o tea and wake this noggin up.

Taxes are progressive, so at what wage bracket would suggest "shaving" off that two percent? In addition, those making over a certain amount don't pay anything at all, and that includes the employer share as well. Did I miss what you intended to say?

Okay, I think I can answer my own question. You meant the total rate on percentage. The 6.2 percent was lowered for 2011 for the worker to 4.2 percent . It's back up in place for this year. My apologies. I know understand what you meant. Now I have another question. You mean to do this for all companies, or smaller companies make less then a specific amount in net sales for the year?

IMHO what will create jobs is helping the Middle Class consumer so that they can go into those businesses and purchase more products and services and as demand grows businesses then hire more people to meet the demand or they risk losing business to other companies that will provide appropriate service to customers.

What debate were you watching?

Here is one of the funniest comments I have seen yet made about the debate:

Bill Maher tweeted: "Hello 9 1 1? There s an old man beating a child on my tv"

Brash, I'll give ya that! But better than being full of hate, as Ryan clearly is, towards the poor, homosexuals, and general freedom lovers.

rob, I was going to call 9-1-1 and tell about how this useless man is still living with his ex-wife after 5 years of divorce, because he cannot make it on his own. No not really, no man would ever be that pathetic.

then, there are those who move around the commentary and board screaming and go for the real information as much as possible.

What do you think? What cut and revenue ratio would be a good start, and where?

Fact- Obama isn't liberal. He, like Romney, and 99% of American politicians, are pretty conservative.

Look in the mirror and see how rude you are. This has been a lively repectful discussion with the exception of you!

Can you give us 8 or 10 specific points on how Obama has lead us towards a Liberal Fascist or Totalitarianist state?

Please provide us with some "facts" Mr. K.

1. Thankfully, Ryan has no shot at ever being in the White House as a VP.
2. For a hateful, greedy, sexist, Vatican cronie, he better be charming and handsome, or he's in the wrong line of work.

Look in the mirror and see how rude you are. Tihs has been a lively repectful discussion with the exception of you!

Interesting that out of all of the traits you list for Ryan you never mentioned:

Competent, Knowledgeable, Intelligent, A Leader, etc.....

It sound like you are looking for a Prom King - or a date for this weekend.

So a typical liberal is a rude, angry liar? Liberals believe in equality for all people, care about the poor & middle class, and believe women should have control over their bodies without government interference. I'll bet you're a hypocrite who preaches religion & kindness, and yet are against gay marriage. People like you are the most judgemental and unaccepting. What is wrong with you? Paul Ryan was well spoken? Were we watching the same debate? He never answered the questions with facts and doesn't have any kind of a plan. And I'm sorry because this shouldn't matter at all & seems quite shallow, but Ryan IS NOT handsome & resembles Eddie Munster on a good day!

Not sure why I'm a half pint, but it's certainly better than a half wit.

Robert, I think you meant "dim wit."

"Someone who's making $300,000 per year should pay the same percentage as someone who's making $30,000." Chris, they pay a much higher rate. We have a progressive income tax in this country.

"Someone whose income comes solely from stock dividends should pay Social Security taxes just like people who worked for their income." By what justification? They already earned the money through work, then put the money at risk through investment to earn a return. We need to encourage investment, not discourage it. Why would anyone contribute to the economy through investment if the government is just going to take a huge piece of any returns they may earn? Would you take the risk just to have to pay a lot more taxes? You have to understand, when you earn money through work, you're not putting any of your existing money at risk. You're getting paid as long as you show up and do your job. Investment does not work like that. You're putting existing money at risk. Money that you have already paid taxes on. There is no guarantee at all that you will earn anything, so if you will only get a portion of any returns you are lucky enough to earn, why risk it?

What was interesting last night was that on some topics Ryan was a little more forthcoming - but still not as much as he should be given his Conservative background and stated beliefs...

But Romney knows that this is his last chance and that if he doesn't win - that's it - game over - and he can kiss the Far Right off and never have to lower himself to their beliefs again - and no doubt he will be more than happy to get rid of them.

However, Ryan still has a long career and can't alienate his Base - and it will be interesting to see how Ryan handles the difference between Romney's desire to not be specific about Conservative positions vs Ryan's desire to remain a key politician in the Conservative field and he knows he can't stray very far at all or some other "Young Gun" will be more than happy to remind everyone on the Right of any backtracking that Ryan may make...

Rob, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Conservatism is a winning platform in presidential politics. It works every time it is tried. No Republican presidential candidate has lost when running as a conservative in 48 years. Nixon ran as a conservative twice and won. Ford ran as a moderate/liberal and lost. Reagan ran as a conservative twice and won. Bush 41 won in 88 when he ran as a conservative and lost in 92 when he ran as a moderate/liberal. Dole ran as a moderate and got smoked in 96. Bush 43 ran twice as a conservative and won both times. McVain ran as a liberal/moderate in 2008 and got crushed.

The truth is that the Romney campaign is split. There are some that argue he should articulate and uphold the conservative positions which are basic GOP Platform planks. There are other advisors who are erroneously urging Romney to moderate his statements in order to appeal to "middle of the road" voters and Democrats. The latter are wrong. His only chance to win is to act like a conservative and sound like a conservative.

You may want to tell Mitt Romney and the American people that Conservatism is a winning platform because he certainly ran from the Conservative positions he has been running on for the last years...

Romney was losing when running on Conservative positions - it wasn't until the debate when he jettisons most of those and ran as a Moderate that he started gaining ground on Obama.

Even now Romney is making Moderate statements to the general public and then his people are running around behind the scenes reassuring Conservatives that Romney "doesn't mean what he is saying"...

As for Reagan - the Republican Party is far different than it was when Reagan ran and when I voted for him twice, Reagan would never win the nomination in the modern Republican Party without a large scale make over and he, like Romney, would have to lie his butt off to make the modern Conservative movement happy...

And yet - even given what you believe - where are these Conservatives once they are in the White House - or in control of the Congress when they have the power to actually do what they believe?

No where - they run from Conservatism when in power and they only care about spending and social issues once they are out of power and don't have the power to implement their beliefs - because they know they would be creamed in the next election cycle.

The 47% which includes vererans, the elderly, & the poor? The truth is that only 18% of households pay no tax at all. Many of the 47%ers do pay sales tax, payroll tax, & income tax. So Sam, why don't you quit being so hateful in using this 47% crap. Even Romney regrets this getting out.

You really love bashing those 47%?

Those brave military men and women who sacrificed their bodies for you only to come back and live on government checks and not make enough so that they are part of the 47% - shame on you!

Oh - by the way - you are aware of why so many people are able to get under the Federal Income Tax limits don't you?

And you do know that there are about 7000 households that are made up of millionaires who are part of the 47%....

And just a major point - the 47% is the percentage of people who don't pay Federal Income Taxes (often because of tax deductions that Republicans helped to push through that brings their income below the income level for taxation...) - they don't "pay nothing" - but they do pay payroll taxes, state taxes, etc... so they do pay taxes - its just a very specific tax that they are under the income guidelines for and much of that again is because of Tax Breaks that Republicans have helped push through...

As for illegal immigrants - if you don't like them then I given that under Obama far more illegals have been deported than under Bush or any other President - you must be on Team Obama on that point :)

So they didn't reelect Strom Thurmond and Jessie Helms for near record length terms? Those weren't majority votes? My parents and grandparents came here legally and I can prove it. Are you sure all of your ancesters came legally? Are you sure you want to pay my tax bill? Are you sure of your IQ?

Hilarious!

Grow a backbone and stand up for what you posted Lisa. Nothing worse than a passive-aggressive - if you are going to post it - post it and own it. Don't fear having your bollix squashed.

Um... ok, Brit. Backbone has grown. Thank you so very much for your words of encouragement.
I can see that humor surely is your expert method in communication.

Is "Brit" short for "British" or "Britney" or both? I don't know how to address people if I don't know if they are a man or a woman.

Really Sam? Then you should definitely stop using the 47% phrase. It is rude & disrespectful to the veterans in my family, as well as to yourself.

Sam, how much income tax did you pay when you were full-time active military? Do you have any relatives living in a nursing home? How much income tax do they pay? Do you know any full-time college students? Or 100% disabled veterans? How much income tax do they pay?

Mitt Romney says, "My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Sam, do you think that the people I described above aren't taking any personal responsibility for their lives? Do you think that the President of the United States should not worry about these people?

That made me chuckle.

Well Sam, noone in my family is without a job and I am tired of your ignorant comments. I will no longer reply to your posts, and you should really get an attitude check.

@ Chris Mau - It's also not GOOD Citizenship to Rob Peter To Pay Paul - You honestly believe that is fair ??? This is a ridiculous thought, that the 'rich' are somehow going to solve our money problems. It is utterly insane and if you truely believe that, you seriously need help! The way to become debt free again is to STOP SPENDING! And if that means some go without - SO BE IT - WE CAN NOT AFFORD EVERYTHING! Furthermore, IT's FACT, there simply are not enough 'rich' people solve jack! Under no circumstance should an individual who EARNED their paycheck, 'BE FORCED' to give to others!
I don't give two cents about my less fortunate neighbor - if you want to be successful than EARN IT YOURSELF!
God, I can't believe these attitudes that have developed in the last two years since Ovomit has brought this up.
All you Democrats before you vote - go see 2016 Obama's America. Maybe just maybe this will snap some of you out of your trance!
It will be the end of the USA as we know it today, if a 2nd mistake is made for another 4 years of Obama.

Hey ABSG, why don't you use your real name? Is it perhaps because you are embarrassed about the fact that you are a selfish inconsiderate person who doesn't care about his fellow man? I think your way of thinking ~ "I don't give two cents about my less fortunate neighbor" is just incomprehensible! I hope someday you are one of the unfortunate ~ karma is a bitch.

Chris - That number has grown considerably under Obama..In round figures, about
30% under him. He's even advertising ways that people can enlist in food stamps.
Obama is in the redistribution business. Used to be called Communism.

It was like watching a calm, articulate man try to have an intelligent debate with a loudmouth drunk in a bar. I know it fired up the Democratic base for Biden to be so aggressive, but he just came off as belligerent and rude to anyone who wasn't already firmly in the Obama-Biden camp. A lot of women I work with especially are saying that his behavior was a total turn-off.

Nick, I enjoyed it tremendously. Yeah, he was rude and interrupting, but that didn't seem to bother the right last week. I knew the smirking and laughing was wrong, but someone has to get the point across that Romney is telling nothing more than a fairy tale. I am still waiting to hear what (massive) loopholes he is going to cut...

Check out the inaccuracies (lies) here:
http://factcheck.org/2012/10/veep-debate-violations/
http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-denver-debate-declarations/

Well, if the way you get your point across is by acting like that, you don't have any credibility with anyone who doesn't already agree with you, and your point gets lost. I thought you learned that here already. And what is this "fairy tale"?

Isn't Obama also telling a fairy tale, trying to get us to believe that anything is going to be better 4 years from now, if all we do is more of the same? Where's the improvement going to come from? What's Obama going to do? Where's his plan? At least Romney has a plan.

What possible justification is there for giving Obama 4 more years? A quote from Obama's 2009 inaugural speech is this: "If you don't have a record to run on, you paint your opponent as someone people should run from." That is EXACTLY what Obama is doing to Romney, and you, my friend, are eating it up hook, line, and sinker.

Nick wrote: "Isn't Obama also telling a fairy tale..."

So if you agree that they a both spinning a fairy tale, then doesn't it really come down to a belief between "trickle down" and "middle out"? The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, OR we help the middle class and poor and leave the rich alone to be rich....they are not hurting. No, I don't mean those free loaders, I mean the working poor which is the largest group in the 47%. If you start taking away their mortgage credits or EIC (or similar), imagine what will happen then...

That, and those darn social issues.

Susan, first of all, during the first Presidential debate, Romney said several times that he wouldn't cut taxes just for the rich. He said that the rich are doing fine. His campaign is focused on the middle class. You wrote, "we help the middle class and poor and leave the rich alone to be rich....they are not hurting." That's pretty much what Romney said too.

Where is Obama's plan to help the middle class? I have not heard one. If you can tell me what it is or post a link that would be helpful.

And it is a myth that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Yes, some rich people are getting richer, and some poor people are getting poorer, but to say that is true across the board is not the case. And to tie in the social issues, it is true that there is one group of people in this country that are getting richer and one group that is getting poorer. Members of married 2 parent families are getting richer and people who are not members of married 2 parent families are getting poorer. While that is not the case in every instance, it is much more accurate than the "rich are getting richer" statement.

The people in here sure are worked up, doing nothing but ranting and insulting each other.

Nick, I agree with your last statement, which is why I chose only to engage with you. Most of the threads look this way, but a few more people are catching on that respectful comments with substance are far better and more productive than the ranting.

Romney's tax plan is still changing and/or it's incomplete. He had been talking about a twenty percent cut across the board (the rich too!), but now it seems to be about cutting the loopholes, that he won't name. This is the fairy tale I speak of, and no, Obama's plan does not add up either, but we have had 31 consecutive months of job growth (5 million private sector jobs), and I fear Romney and his ideas more than Obama's current path. What an awful statement that is, but it must come down to which philosophy you think will work.

Does the recovery need to continue and possibly speed up? Yes.
Does the spending need to come down? Yes.
Is Romney the guy to make these things happen quicker than Obama????
Well that depends on if you believe that the rich can make the economy better all on their own (out of the goodness of their heart) because they think it's for the betterment of the country, or if you think that government needs to set some guidelines for that - expiration of their tax cuts etc. Yes, I know that alone won't do it, but neither will firing Big Bird...sorry, I had to. :)

Nick, I do not understand your comment about the social issues, unless you are saying that people who are married with children are getting richer, and those who are single are getting poorer. Is that what you meant to say? So, no more divorces? No more children out of wedlock? Good luck with that.

Social issues are MUCH more than this...

Susan, it's not about whether the rich will make the country better on their own out of the goodness of their hearts. It's about whether the American people can make the country better on their own, that is, left with more of their own money and freedoms; or if the wealth and power should be concentrated in the highest reaches of the government, and left to trickle down to people through government benefits, subsidies, and tax policy including loopholes.

It's my belief that the American people are who make this country great, not the American government. It's not the government's job to prop up people or corporations. It's the job of people and corporations to prop up themselves. That's how you achieve prosperity. Living on welfare and food stamps is not prosperity. Corporations that would fail if they had to give up subsidies and pay taxes is not prosperity.

Obama believes that prosperity can be achieved through government benefits and spending. That is clearly not the case. If it were, the Soviet Union would have been the most prosperous country in history. It clearly was not, despite a 0% unemployment rate.

And with my comment on the social issues, I just meant to touch on them, not encompass them. The idea was that social conservatives see the traditional married family as the ideal, the best possible environment for children to grow up in, and that it should be encouraged because of that. The social liberal does not see that as the ideal, that children do fine without husband-and-wife married parents, and that any manner of raising children should be encouraged, such as same-sex marriage, not seeing marriage as a necessity to having children, and the like.

Nick, Here is the problem with your statements about social liberals: You say that they do not see a traditional family as the ideal situation. You are right to an extent. They do not see that as "the" ideal but as an ideal. Also, its not felt that children do fine without husband-and-wife married parents, its that they "can" do fine outside that environment if nurtured.

The problem, Nick, is that the middle class and the poor are not able to make this country better right now. Hard work can only go so far when the country is recovering from a recession. The job creators are the ones who need to invest in the economy to help get it moving again – right now they are being very stingy about it. Will they release all that money if Governor Romney is elected....well, do you believe he will be able to quickly repeal ObamaCare and all the other "crushing" regulations that President Obama has supposedly imposed? I don't. They may feel more comfortable knowing that “one of them” is leading the country, but that does not mean it will make the country better, or that the (larger) small businesses will go on a spending spree.

Here is how I see the social issues Republicans want to regulate (or change) personal behavior that they disapprove of by restricting or denying things – gay marriage, health insurance paying for birth control, shaming women seeking an abortion, etc. Democrats understand that people are diverse and telling them that they are immoral, even if they are not breaking any laws, is wrong. They want to make an equal playing field for everyone. When did it become government's job to decide if my morals are good enough?

My bottom line…is our society evolving or decaying? And if you think it’s decaying, what do you want to do about it? Tell people how to live their lives, or adjust to changing times? Our country has been evolving for over two hundred years and it’s going to keep doing so.

John, I agree that my statement is only right to an extent. It was a broad, black/white generalization.

Susan, your social issues argument has a few flaws. You wrote, "Democrats understand that people are diverse and telling them that they are immoral, even if they are not breaking any laws, is wrong." This assumes that any behavior that is immoral is also against the law, and immoral behavior should not be judged by society. It assumes that the law determined morality.

First, what about infidelity? I don't believe that anyone, even adulterers, would say that their behavior is moral. But is also not illegal. Adulterers should be condemned by society, because society is much better off if less people cheat on their spouses. It is one of the most damaging things that can happen to a family.

And what about laws that are immoral, such as the Jim Crow laws? Was Rosa Parks acting in an immoral fashion because she broke the law? No. Law does not determine morality, either for better or for worse. Conservatives seem to have a better understanding of this than liberals do, which is why liberals always say that conservative are trying to legislate morality, when all they are doing is trying to encourage the ideal.

$16 Trillion Dollars in debt ...with many more trillion to come if Obama is re-elected.
What do you Obama supporters think is going to happen when interest rates rise again (and this QE artificial crap WILL end once nobody wants our bonds anymore). The Federal Reserve (on behalf of Obama) is artifically keeping interest rates down for now ....but multiply $16 Trillion Dollars times 5% means $800 Billion in annual interest payments alone. You will have to raise taxes on everyone (and destroy the economy and the country) to do that.....and I doubt you could even get $800 billion extra in taxes from the populace. Guess what would have to be cut significantly to reduce spending by $800 billion? Yep, those precious sacred cows you leftists demogogue the fiscal conservatives about.

This is the debate topic that should be discussed -- but both sides are too scared to bring it up in front of the American public.

This is right out of the liberal playbook. Don't touch spending. Drive the economy into a hole. 1-70 people on foodstamps in 1970. Now it's 1 in 8. The agriculture bill Amy Klobuchar and the farmers in her pocket were whining about? 2/3rds of that is food stamps as the dept of ag administers the food stamp program. This gvmt is advertising now for food stamps. They are creating a culture of dependency. This is by design. The more people on the dole, the more guaranteed votes. Romney had it right. 47% of the votes are lost. Who would vote themselves a paycut?
Yes, Robert, we're already seeing the end of America as we know it. The key part of that sentence is "as we know it." Just wait until the money runs out. When Romney wins, he'll be excoriated by a liberal media for cutting spending. This is by design to. Wreck the economy to such a degree that it would take ten years to fix. Hence, Romney will have the fight of his life in four years because of the mess Obama left him. And keep something else in mind... The economy was on it's way back when Obama took office. His policies killed any recovery. Now the new norm for unemployment is 8%? Yeesh, you liberals need a lesson in economics.

Isn't it true that the wealthiest 1% are opposed to the Democratic tax plan because it would result in a pay cut for them?
Rick, you talk about government spending, but I've yet to hear the Republicans identify ANY meaningful cuts to federal spending. THe $762 billion Obama saved from Medicare and wants to spend on Obama care, Romney want to put that back into Medicare - no savings there. If he was serious about debt reduction, we'd shrink our deficit with those savings. Cutting PBS or other very small budget items helps only a little bit. But if defense spending is increased by $500 billion, that greatly exceeds all of the other cuts to little programs. Romney says "no" to social security cuts and no to tax increases. I guess I don't see any evidence that Romney will shrink the deficit in any way. He says "grow the economy". Well everybody says that. What specifically will Romney do differently to grow the economy that's different from Obama? The only thing I've heard is that Romney would cut taxes for people making over $250,000 per year while Obama wouldn't. I don't think that's going to grow our economy.

@Rick, you do realize that the majority of food stamps go to children don't you? Perhaps more focus on quality education which would give these very children at least the opportunity to survive and thrive without so much help (after all, we ALL get help from the government). Such a short sighted focus or black and white approach to dealing with our problems isn't going to solve anything. You take away people's food stamps, etc., they are going to have to feed their children somehow.
You give them an education and opportunity and they won't need food stamps.

It's easy to focus on the 47%, many of them are defenseless targets. I suggest we focus on bigger targets. Take the company in Florida that was fined 1.7 BILLION dollars for medicare/medicaid fraud (the charges included 14 felonies). One has to wonder if they were fined that much, what did they really steal from the U.S. taxpayer. The result?, The conservative folks of Florida elected the CEO of that company to be their governor. Now THIS is the kind of thing that we should be screaming about. Not the little guy - some of whom may be taking advantage of "the system", but these monster corporations that are able to take advantage of the American taxpayer. Cutting waste/fraud at this level will go a heck of a lot further than cutting some kids $300 a month food stamps.

Renee, thank you for making my point. Medicare is a disaster. For anyone to be able to rip the system off for that amount of money is evidence of a disgrace. And imagine how many Dr.s etc are ripping the system off for far less? That's why many Dr's refuse medicare patients. A: they don't get reimbursed on time or for the amount billed. B: the honest ones are always being scrutinized unfairly and if there is even the slightest hint of fraud, that Dr has to hire a lawyer and if found guilty, even over a clerical error by his staff, he can go to prison. Yep, great program.

Chris, Romney has said that money going back to Medicare will happen when that monstrosity of a joke obamacare is repealed. I'm not going to repeat myself. I wrote a rather lengthy rebuttal below.
As for food stamps, same goes as with what went re. the earned income tax credit (EIT). The eligibility for that program was raised, hence allowing more people onto the program. One of the reasons? Gas prices, food prices, overall prices are beginning to skyrocket. This is because of this Presidents reckless spending? Where's his budget Chris and Michele??? Continuing resolutions and Executive Orders. Yeah, real great way to operate the worlds largest economy. People, especially liberals, in this country should be totally disgusted with the lack of leadership and impotent governance of this administration. And don't go blaming Congress. Obama has the Executive Branch, 1/2 of Congress and has put two total novices on SCOTUS' bench. See, this is what else is right out of your playbook. Liberals can't defend Obama or cite anything positive he's done. So what do you people do? All you can do. Attack the right rather than admit this POTUS is totally impotent, an emporer without clothes.

A buffoon? This shows how much you know. He has a more comprehensive knowledge of foreign and domestic politics than probably anyone in congress. The fact that FOX has told you that he is a buffoon and you reiterate it speaks a lot to who is really a buffoon. Last night was a match up of a man against a boy and the man won.

For better or worse, Biden has always had a very gregarious personality. The real Smokin' Joe also has a long record of being able to work across the aisle. The current lack of working together is perhaps the biggest obstacle in moving our country forward. Congressman Ryan has been nothing but an obstructionist - check his ever consistent record.

Renee, as the only house of Congress that has abdicated it's legal duty to come up with an annual budget, and no one, not even his own party, would vote for Obama's budgets, how can you say that Biden is able to work across party lines??? If the Senate doesn't release a budget, no compromise bill can be progressed in Congress and we keep generating record deficits. So who is stalling fixing the economy, the Dems in the Senate, President Obama or the GOP house which is presenting options to discuss? Biden gave no facts about what the Dems would do, only demagogued what he "perceives" as what the unknown GOP changes would have. Get real!

Well Mr. Feia, your belief that Biden is the politician's politician is damning in it's own right. I would agree that he's been an insider for way too long. I've watched him off and on for years and his best contribution to the current administration is to get all of the thinking people praying for Obama's health. Maybe you feel that he's been around long enough to get a pass when he sticks his foot in his mouth but I expect better. Why dont you? If anyone from the other side shot his mouth off like that you'd be all over them.
As to getting my opinions from FOX, really? Is that the best you can do? That's pretty much the standard retort from the weak-minded segment of the left whenever anything is brought up that isn't in lockstep with the party line. Take a look at his comments on foreign policy and dare to have a real conversation without the knee jerk playground silliness.

Minkey, you don't really believe Congressman Ryan and his cronies are even remotely interested in compromising with ANYTHING President Obama proposes do you?

OK Smokin Joe, please give references to the "gaffes" that our Vice President made last night. Once again a response with no substance is typical from someone like you.

I didn't think that you could give an intelligent answer to that. The fact that you call a person a buffoon without any supporting evidence says it all. It doesn't matter if you get your rhetoric from FOX News or not. The content of your statements reveals the real buffoonery.

Kyle, I agree with you on the fact that both of them didn't tell the truth on several topics. However, I thought Ryan handled himself in a civilized manner. Biden is an arrogant, rude, S.O.B. and I personally don't want someone like that representing this country to the rest of the world. And as far as rebate checks go, what will yours amount to after you pay taxes on it? Better stick it away and save it for your medical bills when they get out of control.

How Biden behaves in a debate is not necessarily how he behaves in an international conference. And let's remind ourselves, Jim Edward, that Romney managed to insult more than one European country on his little world tour this summer. I can't remember, but didn't he say something insulting about the Spanish in the debate, as well? So, if you're going to use international perception as a yardstick, I don't remember Biden upsetting any other country with his remarks, which admittedly can be quite blunt.

"Government is a business?" You obviously know know nothing about the role of government. What does ABSG stand for, & why are you afraid to state your name? You have brought nothing to this conversation that is productive in any way, and have only spewed insults at Obama and Democrats. You are either a wealthy, greedy person who doesn't care about his fellow man, or an angry middle class average person who votes against his/her own best interests.

Actually I'm not addicted to anything, nor am I self-destructive, but thanks for your concern Sam. Oh, & stop looking at my backside!

Not sure what your intent on that comment was, if you disagree - it's fine but you can't use civil discourse?

Is paying ZERO taxes on 5 BILLION in US profits as GE did in 2010 the answer? I think not. Even Paul Ryan agrees:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ge-filed-57000-page-tax-return-paid-no-taxes-14-billion-profits_609137.html

Yes, it should. Income is income, whether you work for it, or your money 'works' for it.

According to Romney it shouldn't because the money was already taxed on the people who worked for it...

No it shouldn't, for two reasons. First, investment income is derived from company profits that are already taxed. If those profits were not taxed, your investment income would be higher. Therefore, there is already a built-in tax on investment income. If the tax rate were the same, the government would be double-dipping in the same pot of money.

The second reason it is not taxed at the same rate is that investment income is only derived from putting money you already have at risk and successfully earning a return on it. Like anyone knows, there is significant risk involved in investing. You have no guarantee that you will earn a penny. In fact, you could very well lose everything. That is not the case with earning money through work. When I go to work, I am not putting any of my existing money at risk, and I will get paid for my time spent at work. I have no chance of losing my savings because I showed up at work to earn money, much less not getting paid for my time. That risk needs to be considered when determining the tax rate for investment income. If it is taxed at too high a rate, people will determine that it is not worth the risk, and they will not invest at the same rate they would have. Investment drives our economy, and it needs to be encouraged, not discouraged. If the capital gains rate is raised, the stock market will crash.

So businesses shouldn't be taxed either? There are far more risks in starting a business than there are in capital investments. Most capital investment strategies are made with a combination of individual investments of varying risks to reduce the overall risk in investments.

Yes, businesses should be taxed, but I would say it might be a good idea to suspend taxes for a period of time for new businesses, while they get on their feet, especially, or maybe restricted to, small businesses being started by sole proprietors or small partnerships. I could see large corporations getting their lawyers to qualify them for this tax suspension by creating new shell corporations or other things like that.

But I don't know if making our tax code even more complicated and adding even more loopholes is a good idea, either.

Exactly! I would rather have a 0% ROI than make 10% less...

Nick says, "No it shouldn't, for two reasons."

Mularkey. I'd like to see that conversation when Sam Walton's daughters, Christy and Alice, meet a slaughterhouse worker: "Oh you see, Daddy already paid the taxes on OUR money - and besides you know, it's such a frightful risk for us to have $50 billion invested. If we had to pay 25% tax on our income like you do, I think we'd just get $500 million $100 bills and put them in Daddy's safe. And by the way, you smell quite strongly of pig poop."

That slaughterhouse worker wouldn't have a job if someone didn't raise capital and take on risk to start that company. Wal-Mart is hardly your typical employer, hence it does not make a good example when presenting argument.

I get that there needs to be a significant reward for risk. But Nick, why should our tax system reward risk more than actual work? That's my point.

Because there are always people willing to work. People need to work to live. There are not always people willing to risk everything to start a business, or to put up capital to help someone else start or grow a business. That is a much rarer thing, and when it happens, society benefits as a whole.

I have to wonder, if investment income were taxed at the same rate as earned income, would those holding that extra money be more apt to start new business ventures (or expand on those they already hold) instead of putting their money away?

@ Nick: Society benefits as a whole? The stock market has doubled the last four years. Can you please indicate where these investment earnings have been applied in a beneficial way to society?

So you think that a society full of failed businesses and a tanked stock market are beneficial? Or are successful, growing business that keep people gainfully employed beneficial?

Do you not have any investment accounts? No 401(k)'s or IRA's of any kind? If you personally don't, maybe you know someone who is close to retirement, and is glad to see their retirement savings has come back to some semblance of its previous value?

You wrote, "Can you please indicate where these investment earnings have been applied in a beneficial way to society?" Yeah, my parents can retire because the stocks in their retirement accounts are actually worth something.

Susan, where is "away"? Money is never really away. Yes, it can be held in cash essentially outside of the economy, and not invested, which is what I think you may be talking about. If the tax rate on capital gains were raised, that would only encourage people hold on to more money as cash. It would discourage investment. If people are nervous about tax rates, they will not invest, much less start businesses. We need people to put their money into the economy, and raising the capital gains rate would only discourage this.

Rather than being willing to fight anyone and anything, civilized societies choose their battles very selectively, but they can and will fight for what they believe in.

The third stage is decadence. This is where Western Europe is now. Their slide into decadence was caused caused by the self-doubt induced by World War 2. Decadent society does not believe in anything. To them, all morals are relative, and no worldview is particularly better or worse than another. If there is anyone a decadent person or society despises, it is someone who believes in some kind of absolute. Especially someone who is willing to fight for their beliefs. Decadent societies are unwilling to fight, even to defend themselves.

I fear that the United States is at a precipice, that we are on the verge of sliding into decadence. We are the very best example of a civilized society today, and I would hate to see that end.

Really Chris??? Please... this liberal argument is so bereft of credibility it's sickening. How about personal responsibility? 8 hours a day to bring home $60. Maybe she should have busted her ass a little more and got a different skillset then. You mention kids but no husband. Where's he? Overcrowded schools. Hey, let me ask you this. How did you vote on the last levy for STMA? I'll bet you voted yes like the other folks who volunteered more of their hard earned cash for a total lie. The people on the school board and Superintendent Behle should be ashamed. THEY took temporary federal funds to hire ten teachers, then the funding expires and they whine they'll have to lay off ten teachers because they don't have the money and they stick it to us by floating another levy vote 2 years before the other expired. In the meantime, have you been in the sparkling brand new Taj Mahal, err, high school? Give me a break. Money is there, it's how it's spent. And it's also about personal responsibility.

Chris, is this a hypothetical worker and hypothetical rich, greedy business owner or people you know?

Let me tell you about someone I know. He runs a printing press at a print shop. They do work for businesses, local governments, the MN Zoo, etc. He makes a decent living, supports his family, has health insurance. He also has cancer. He is going through chemotherapy treatments, and can't work after the treatments sometimes for 2 to 3 weeks. He's on salary at the print shop. The owner of the shop pays him his salary and benefits in full while he is sitting at home recovering from chemotherapy. He is not making him use his sick time or vacation time. Sure, the owner could cut him loose and hire someone else, but he doesn't. Why, because the owner of the print shop is a good and decent human being, just like most people, and he can afford it.

Business owners and "the rich" are not all greedy, evil people who just want more and more money. They are for the most part good and decent people who can and do take care of those that are in need. Demonizing them and claiming that they do not "pay their fair share" is wrong. Sure, some of them are not paying their fair share, but most are, and if they don't in taxes, they probably do in charitable giving. Mitt Romney gives 30% of his income away to charity. I would much rather he do that than pay 30% in taxes.

Nick, I don't think that I'd call a small business owner rich, nor would I lump him/her into the same category as big business.

Based on the fact that we freed the world from monarchy and tyranny. The only reason any other countries are free and just is because they follow our example. Most of the free world doesn't even need a military, and many countries do not have one, because if they were ever attacked, America would send its own men and women to fight and die to defend them.

The President of the United States is called "the leader of the free world" for good reason. Without the United States, there is no free world.

If you use the phrase, "the meaning of America", people know what you're talking about. If you say, "the meaning of Belgium", you're going to get nothing but a deer-in-the-headlights look in response. America defeated Hitler in WWII, then rebuilt Europe with the Marshall Plan. America ended the Soviet empire and freed Eastern Europe from Communism. What would the 20th century have looked like without America? Take away America, and you have no free world. Take away any other country, and the free world is just fine. You say "we're not the best". Someone has to be the best. If not America, then who? What other country does more for the world? Costa Rica? Norway? Who?

You, Chris, are obviously someone who doesn't get the concept of American Exceptionalism. Unfortunately, we have a President who also doesn't get it. That's why I'm voting for Mitt Romney.

And yes Chris, we are the best. Please tell me who's better? Canada? France? Australia? Sudan? Nigeria? North Korea? This country is the worlds beacon of freedom and hope for billions. Anyone can do anything they aspire to in this country. But keep heaping on the regulations and closing powerplants. Yep... that'll do wonders alright.

No, the whole world is not free. I said "the free world". Haven't you heard that phrase before? Even Neil Young acknowledges that the free world exists. It's the great portion of the world that is free. Mostly because of the United States.

And no I don't know that it wouldn't have been free without the US, but so what? That's a meaningless unknowable hypothetical. The indisputable fact is that right now, today, the world is much better off because of the US.

I voted for Obama in 2008. I thought he would be great. He isn't. He tried, but it isn't working. We need a change. I'm ready to give someone else a shot. The only arguments he seems to have for reelection are, "It could have been worse", "It's Bush's fault", and "Look, another Republican! Run!!" These are not convincing arguments for reelection.

"Based on the fact that we freed the world from monarchy and tyranny." Believe that's your quote, Nick. There's still some monarchy, btw, and also some tyranny. And sometimes, we back 'em.

Yes, we do. Like the House of Saud. But prior to America, tyranny and monarchy were the norm. Free nations did not exist. Now, because of America, much of the world is free. Not all of it, but much of it. And if those monarchies decided to become free, we would still back them, and even help them in the process. But, as illustrated by the conundrum in Iraq, they have to want it. We can't just create a vacuum and expect democracy to fill it. Democracy and freedom spread when the people want it, when it is their idea, and we just help them along if they need and want our help.

You just wait Michele and the rest of you thinking Obama is the cremedelacreme. Wait until this healthcare bill kicks in full force. I truly hope for it's 100% repeal, and then adopt the Republicans 242 page bill instead of this joke of a pice of legislation. But if it's not, liberals are going to have so much egg on their faces because they got behind this piece of trash, it's going to be comical. Sadly what won't be comical will be the tragic loss of life because of this garbage legislation. BTW, been in the grocery store lately? I hope you find a receipt from just one year ago and compare it to to today. On avergae it's 30% higher. But that's ok Michele. We can all go on food stamps, can't we? Since 1 in 8 Americans are now on food stamps, what's 25 million more people eh??? And lastly, wait until January 1st when your taxes skyrocket.

How sophmoric of a question. Obama, despite what Biden and Michele types would like us to believe, has done nothing to work across the aisle, which is fine. I don't vote for someone to be bipartisan. Need to work together to build a bridge, pave a road, fine. But Obama, despite parroting what every other liberal in sheeps clothing does, which is gravitate to the center right before an election (to wit, look at Jim Graves, a fraud if I've ever seen one) and claim to be running to "bring everyone together." Gee, that's why the Obama administration is running the country on continuing resolutions. That's why it took games up the wazoo to get his idiotic healthcare bill passed. I would be willing Nick has done what I've done. Write letters to a totally defunct local rag, aka the StarTribune (note how I did not call that thing a "newspaper"). Or call Franken and Klobuchars office. I wish I had recorded one of the calls to Frankens office where the aide essentially began cheswing my ass until I reminded him that his boss and himself work for ALL Minnesotans, not just the liberals. Klobuchar is a joke. Nothing but a puppet, as is McCollum who is more than likely one of the most intelligence lacking Representatives we have.

But, um, according to Romney he is going to keep all of the "goodies" from ObamaCare....

He just doesn't want the hassle of telling people "Here is the bill"...

So, what do you think is going to happen when, as is typical of Republicans since Reagan, Romney keeps the "goodies" from ObamaCare but works to scrap the ways to pay for it - do you think that all of that stuff will magically become free?

Sort of like when Ronald Reagan signed the act that forces ER's to provide care for anyone who shows up with any regard for their ability to pay - and of course when Republicans helped push this through - as typical - they never put in a funding mechanism so of course its a fiscal debacle - we now have a system where people who have no other way to get care can show up at the ER for treatment at a cost of thousands of dollars - instead of going to a private doctor for a hundred or two hundred bucks... And this is the Party of Fiscal Discipline?

Sort of like when Republicans were in charge and pushed through Medicare Part D (which Mr. Ryan voted for) - a massive, massive Medical Prescription Drug care program for old folks - with NO way to pay for it - oh and the kicker, compliments of the Party that "understands" how the Free Market works - they - by law - made it impossible for the government to negotiate the cost of the drugs with the drug companies - yes, and this was from the guys that are so well versed in the concept of the Free Market...

Michele, first I'll start with a quote from Obama in 2009.

"You know, a year from now, I think people are going to see that we're starting to make some progress but there is still going to be some pain out there. If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition."

I agree. A one-term proposition it is. The unemployment rate is back where it was when he took office. I would say that doesn't qualify as "this done."

And as far as what I've done? My wife and I started a business together in 2010. It keeps her busy about 55 hours a week, me about 10 hours (I have a day job), and we employ 2 other people full-time. I won't post details about our employees' lives, but both of their lives are significantly improved as a result of the opportunity we provided. They came from circumstances that were not good, but now they're on their way.

I'm sorry, Rick, did you just call me a "Michele type?" What is a "Michele type" exactly? I'm dying to know, because I've yet to figure it out.

Very well said, Amy Paddock.

I agree Amy. However, I will say this about Romney. It is not just that he has run a business. It is that he has run a business and has also shown himself to be a man of outstanding character. He gives away 30% of his income to charity, he has personally saved the lives of a family from drowning while he was Governor of MA, and there are other examples.

And about businesses who treat their employees poorly; there employees just are not as productive as they could be. They develop bad attitudes. Turnover is high. There is a very real financial value to treating your employees well, and if businesses do not recognize that, they will suffer. Treating employees well is part of good business. It pays off well in the long run. The problem now seems to be that too many CEO's are only looking at the short term, where treating employees poorly may make financial sense. If they were looking at the long term, they would see that that is not a healthy policy.

Michele, I'm not arguing both sides against the middle in my situation. To start our business, I had no regulations to deal with, like the financial and energy sectors do, I didn't need to raise any capital, which is now harder with new financial regulations. Our start-up was self-financed. Starting a new bank or a new health insurance company right now would be almost, if not entirely, impossible.

Our business had only 2 employees. No business with only 2 employees would be able to afford to provide health insurance for its employees, ACA or no ACA. Companies can afford to buy health insurance because they buy it in bulk, and spread the risk pool. With 2 employees, there is no risk pool, so it would cost well over $1000/month per employee. That is a fiscal impossibility. My wife would be working for about $6 per hour or less if we had to do that. In the industry we are in, it is almost entirely small businesses who can't provide health insurance, so it is not a factor when competing for employees. We pay them as much as we can afford to, and try to provide other perks or benefits if we can.

Nick, thank you for answering. I really do hope the best for your business. I think new financial regulations were necessary, but I don't know enough about economics to say any more on the subject. I was curious about the healthcare plan for your business because I have served on a board reviewing health care plans, and the prices were outlandish. People need health care, but I agree that small businesses cannot afford the expense, any more than employees can afford the premiums.

There are a ton of reasons to dislike Klobuchar. For one, this partisan vote on the ACA/Obamacare, that admittedly, none of the liberal Senators read through (who would, I read through it in bits and pieces. It flat out is horrible legislation). There is a medical device tax in the bill that will saddle medical device companies with a huge tax on their products, so guess what? They're moving some of their business overseas. Boston Scientific announced a huge layoff 1 1/2 months ago because of this. Yep. So keep blaming Repubs for jobs going overseas. It's YOUR Democratic legislators pulling this crap.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/06/02/device-tax/

Klobuchar is trying to repeal the medical device tax. The New Republic has a piece about it, and it seems that this tax (per the medical device makers, interviewed in the article) has ZERO impact on their hiring (or sending jobs overseas). Go figure this out!

http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/107878/um-about-medical-device-tax#

A great quote from one of the CEOs of a medical device company: “However, it really infuriates me when politicians say that people won't hire because they have to pay a tax. If your business is growing and you need people to help sustain the growth you’re going to hire. It’s nothing but political sloganeering to say that a tax like this is a job killer. It’s not a job killer. It would never stop a responsible manager from hiring people when it’s time to grow the business.” He went on: “You bring in millions more people into the health care market and these people are going to use goods and services. My company and every other company, if we operate our business responsibly we are going to share in that. We’re going to give you 10 more in business and take a dollar in taxes, and you mean you won’t hire more people because we’re going to take that one dollar? It makes no sense. It’s nothing but political pandering.”

Meanwhile, Romney is saying he'd keep all the "good parts" of the ACA, which is most of it. Even he knows good legislation when he sees it. It was modeled after Romneycare!

Klobuchar is also the one that we can thank for the wolf hunting/trapping season, as she relentlessly saw to it that all of the federal protections were removed. Klobuchar is worthless. Paul Ryan is a twit, and needs a good deal more seasoning before being capable of leading our nation. Crazy Uncle Joe won the debate.

And ABC did another that showed more support for Biden. "Snapshots" of just the same thing we have here, I think. LOL

A quick note to Nick, Amy, Donald, Joyce etc. There are now two Susan's on this thread. The CNN comment was not mine. You can tell us apart if you click on our names. :)

I agree 100%. You can compare Joe Biden to all of the ranters on here that make fools of themselves and do nothing but insult people. They will never convince anyone who doesn't already agree with them. Biden was damn rude, interrupting Romney over 80 times and talking like a drunk loudmouth closing down a bar. Conduct like that is unprecedented in Vice-Presidential and Presidential debates and he should be ashamed of himself.

Not everyone who may disagree with you would be under your "Obamamaniacs". People do happen to respond better when more respect is used as well.

Amy Farland...you are so misinformed. Harry Reid has MANY, MANY job bills on his democratically controlled senate desk that he has done NOTHING about. Get the facts on this stuff before you embarrass yourself. Speaking of Treason...what the Obama administration has done(NOT DONE) as far as foreign policy (i.e. Libya) is beyond treasonous....I thought his job was to protect American soil? You do realize, a foreign embassy is on American soil?

Sad so many of you are informed by the likes of Ed Schultz.

I love how some of the people on here use initials and nick names, such as ABSG and Central Scrutinizer. What are you hiding from? I find it a bit odd! If you truly believe in what you are saying then you should be proud to say who you really are. Although if I were saying some of those things, I might use a fake name too!

Amy, my wife and I have a small business that serves a very liberal part of the city. We are conservatives. If her clients found out, there is a very real chance they would boycott and our business would be ruined. Every person I know who is highly liberal actively boycotts businesses when they find out that the people in charge of the business hold conservative views. I even know someone who is boycotting the whole state of WI because of Scott Walker. He took his family on a road trip out east this summer, and drove around WI. He said he wouldn't give them a dime, not even for fuel for the RV.

I simply can't risk people finding out who I am. This culture of boycotting and protesting businesses over political views is very damaging and it is a spectacular assault on freedom of speech.

Sorry, I wrote Amy. I meant Jennifer.

Nick - An interesting point you made about boycotting business for political purposes. I've observed that it just tends to made people on the other side of the issue more defensive and less inclined to listen. I think it happens because some people lack any critical thinking skills, or are joiners, or just plain can't accept that there are other points of view. I suspect it's not just a "liberal" attitude. And I think it's a darned shame when we let our politics affect how we treat each other.

Yes, I agree. I've written this before, but on another thread: I think it would have made a grand statement for freedom if after the Chick-fil-A controversy, both Presidential candidates would have made an appearance, with a Chick-fil-A sandwich in one hand and a Ben and Jerry's ice cream in the other.

The day that most people decide where they do business based on political opinions will be a very sad day in this country.

Well said, Nick. It's one reason that I wish the amendment issues hadn't come up: they push emotional buttons and I think this country and state could do without that right now. It tangles up people's thinking. And I just plain don't like bullying tactics. (Don't get me wrong; I'm a big believer in Fair Trade. But I'm also a huge believer in freedom of expression.)

Okay Ed Schultz. Thanks for the thoughtful insight.

I just noticed someone above my comment also mentioned Ed Schultz. Funny coincidence. Well, liberals always mention Rush Limbaugh.

"Pumping more money into the economy DEVALUES THE DOLLAR, thus, perhaps causing inflation."

Hasn't happened, and won't happen, because we are in a huge deflationary period.

In fact in many sectors we've seen deflation, not inflation, even after the two QE's. Even after the Recovery Act (stimulus). Even after the bailout of the auto industry. Each time the right screamed that we'd see inflation running out of control.

It. Didn't. Happen.

As long as unemployment is high we won't see inflation. Come back and talk about inflation when unemployment gets down to 5% and businesses finally begin to leverage up again. Come back and talk about inflation when banks are lending and people are slap-happily using their credit cards again.

Bottom line: We simply don't have the spending to fuel inflation right now (maybe you noticed that people have less money to spend these days?). The greater threat is still economic contraction (another recession, especially if we follow Europe), NOT an overheated economy that leads to inflation.

"Pumping more money into the economy DEVALUES THE DOLLAR, thus, perhaps causing inflation."

Hasn't happened, and won't happen, because we are in a huge deflationary period.

In fact in many sectors we've seen deflation, not inflation, even after the two QE's. Even after the Recovery Act (stimulus). Even after the bailout of the auto industry. Each time the right screamed that we'd see inflation running out of control.

It. Didn't. Happen.

As long as unemployment is high we won't see inflation. Come back and talk about inflation when unemployment gets down to 5% and businesses finally begin to leverage up again. Come back and talk about inflation when banks are lending and people are slap-happily using their credit cards again.

Bottom line: We simply don't have the spending to fuel inflation right now (maybe you noticed that people have LESS money to spend these days?). The greater threat is still economic contraction (another recession, especially if we follow Europe), NOT an overheated economy that leads to inflation.

Banks and the FED are not the enemy. You want to get rid of the banking system? What will you replace it with? Trading colored beads?

Edward, the inflation happens after the recovery, not before it, and for the exact reasons you cite for us not seeing it yet. That inflation will happen. It has happened after all previous economic downturns, and it will happen after this one, too. QE3 will not help to make the coming inflation better, it will make it worse. The Fed is just pouring more gas on the pile of wood that hasn't been lit yet. But lit it will be.

Nick, you can continue your Chicken Little posturing but it just isn't gonna happen. Not now, not 3 years from now. We are in such a deep hole that FED has PREANNOUNCED that interests rates will be kept near ZERO until well into 2015! This type of announcement is unprecedented, and it means they expect a slow economy for at least 3 more years. Come back and worry us all about inflation sometime late in 2015.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/federal-reserve-interest-rates-low-mid-2015/story?id=17226149#.UHzi_7TB5UQ

2015 is a long way from never. I didn't say what year the inflation would happen; just that it will happen after the recovery. If that's 2015, then it's 2015. But the more the can gets kicked down the road by monetary games, the heavier that can gets, and the worse the inflation will be. If you let history be your guide rather then ideology, you'll be much better off.

" But the more the can gets kicked down the road by monetary games, the heavier that can gets, and the worse the inflation will be."

Show proof of this. I've never seen any evidence or studies that show this to be true, and historically it doesn't hold up.

" There's definitely a strong anti-development influence that chokes off the economy"

It's not anti-development. It's a difference in vision -- it's sustainable development. The fossil fuel era is over if we want to survive as a species (global warming). Look up ARPA-E.

Even the Republican leadership knows this to be true. 99% of scientists the world over are on board. The evidence for human induced global warming is now overwhelming.

ARPA-E was created with Recovery Act funding (.05 percent of the Recovery Act money). It has been called the "new Manhattan Project", and has the potential to ultimately create millions of jobs. It is a longer term project, so will not bear fruit for 5-10 years, well after Obama is out of office, even though he had the vision to initiate it.

Edward, your comments on human-induced global warming are fraudulent at best. Yes, universities are rampant with global-warming enthusiasts, and anyone with a dissenting view is ostracized, which is why all of the younger scientists tow the line if they want research grants, tenure, or any career advancement at all. There are tens of thousands of very high ranking scientists around the world who agree that man-made global warming is a sham. These are almost always older scientists with established careers and reputations, who are no longer dependent on universities and other scientists for their livelihoods and can speak freely. They don't need to tow the line any longer.

Read this article. I know it's an opinion piece, but what gives it credibility is the names and titles of the signatories of the article given at the end.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html

Chris, I really don't understand you. Many of the things you say here, I disagree with more vehemently than anyone else, but half the time I agree with you whole-heartedly. Your worldview is very scattered. I agree with Susan sometimes, but with her there is a distinct pattern. Your opinions are very unpredictable. I just don't get it. You must be independent-minded to the point of chaos.

"Edward, your comments on human-induced global warming are fraudulent at best."

Are you willing to bet your grandkid's lives on that?

Take a look:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Regarding Climate Change I would recommend reading "Energy for Future Presidents" by Richard Muller.

Regardless of which side you are on you will have things to both "like" and "dislike" about what the science says and what can realistically be done about what is occurring...

That graph only goes back 400,000 years; a geological blip in time. It is meaningless when put in perspective. CO2 levels are not significantly higher than before the industrial revolution, not when you consider that they have been many times higher in the past when life on earth as a whole was doing much better; when there was much more biodiversity. CO2 is the lifeblood of biodiversity. When CO2 levels are higher, plants do better. The planet is much more lush. Animal life in turn does better, because the food web generally has its basis in plants. The Hollywood images of a choked-out, dead planet as a result of CO2 is highly anti-scientific. It is Hollywood. Not reality. In reality, high CO2 = high biodiversity. What do greenhouse operators do to get plants to grow better? They pump in CO2. If you have an aquarium at home and you want more lush plants, you pump in CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is much more necessary than even oxygen. Without high oxygen levels, life on earth continues. Without high CO2 levels, it does not.

Rob, that book is on my to-read list. Thanks for the recommendation.

In addition: The "there are many job bills" sitting on Senate desk has been often touted by the House GOP. Looking through them, I don't see a real "jobs" bill, however. Some of these bills only target "regulations" have been in effect for sometime, and has no bearing on jobs at all, and some of them were voted down already on both sides. Two of those were bills that were written by Ryan. Did some of bills get passed? Yes, they did. 11 bills had bipartisan support and are already in the works.

Klobuchar is trying to repeal the medical device tax. The New Republic has a piece about it, and it seems that this tax (per the medical device makers, interviewed in the article) has ZERO impact on their hiring (or sending jobs overseas). Go figure this out!

http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/107878/um-about-medical-device-tax#

A great quote from one of the CEOs of a medical device company: “However, it really infuriates me when politicians say that people won't hire because they have to pay a tax. If your business is growing and you need people to help sustain the growth you’re going to hire. It’s nothing but political sloganeering to say that a tax like this is a job killer. It’s not a job killer. It would never stop a responsible manager from hiring people when it’s time to grow the business.” He went on: “You bring in millions more people into the health care market and these people are going to use goods and services. My company and every other company, if we operate our business responsibly we are going to share in that. We’re going to give you 10 more in business and take a dollar in taxes, and you mean you won’t hire more people because we’re going to take that one dollar? It makes no sense. It’s nothing but political pandering.”

Meanwhile, Romney is saying he'd keep all the "good parts" of the ACA, which is most of it. Even he knows good legislation when he sees it. It was modeled after Romneycare!

Rick: The ACA law has actually made changes, and even throughout this summer was asking for medical device industry for input and so there has been even more adjustments. It does happen that a bill will change as it get's hammered out in congress. One of the items worked on within the last year, was clarifying what was an exempt medical device and what wasn't.

Another reason for Klobuchar to be shown the door? New evidence of impropriety in dealing with convicted Ponzi scam artist and swindler Tom Petters. http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/19/documents-sen-klobuchar-took-ponzi-schemers-campaign-contributions-didnt-prosecute/

Actually, the nation was built and sustained on new ideas, some not so good (slavery) and some improving the quality of life (unions). As this nation grows, we need to adapt and change to meet the needs of its citizens.

Michelle, slavery wasn't a new idea, and had existed for thousands of years before the founding of the United States.

Walker's "new" ideas aren't working. 80,000 job deficit in Wisconsin, and they continue to hemorrage jobs after Walker promised he'd create 250,000 new jobs.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/24/1134424/-Walker-s-80-000-job-deficit

Interesting read and graphs. Wisconsin is waaay behind Minnesota in job creation.

Carbon bigfut, you certainly have me there, and slavery also continues to exist in this country, but it didn't really "catch on" (ick) until the cotton boom, from what I understand. I've been reading an article in The Smithsonian on Thomas Jefferson's use of slaves, and it just chills me. I would not consider prospering off the sweat and blood as others as "personal responsibility." But then, I'm sure (hope) everybody here agrees with that, regardless of political affiliation. Never meant to imply otherwise.

Correct. Some amount of inflation -- generally seen in the 2-3% range -- is considered healthy.