For the first time, Mitt Romney looked like a President.

Obama should be asked if he has an understanding of basic economics, and what effect higher government spending and taxes have on economic forces. It seems that he believes that all economic activity is derived from the government, which would make everyone dependent upon the government.

The US government was established as a necessary tool to provide for a defense of the nation, and to provide a way to collect taxes to pay for that defense and establish basic laws to protect basic human rights to life and liberty.

President Obama appears to think of government as an economic creation tool, rather than an administrative tool.

It is specifically stated in many founding documents of our country, that our government was established to protect our liberties, not to tell the citizens what they can or should do. Our current President should step back and realize what government's role is, is to not hamper the activities of citizens.

The current President suffers from the delusion that "government knows best" when it comes to personal activities, income, and personal responsibility. America is based upon having power in the hands of the citizenry, rather than having power in the hands of government. Please keep in mind, politicians and government employees' duties are to work in the best interest of its citizens with as little interference as possible in our lives. It has morphed into a "control tool".

We all lose until a valid third party is established

Romney won, hands down. No contest. Obama is anti growth. He's proven it in the last 4 years. Without growth, there are no jobs.

It's been a pretty unanimous decision among both the at-home viewing audience and the political pundits, that our President was befuddled. Gov Romney presented his knowledge of issues, his plans to recover the economy, and the qualities of leadership that we have sorely missed. Well done, Governor.

Mitt Romney, hands down. President Obama, just like in the debates 4 years ago, avoids answering most of the questions. It makes you wonder why. Even the very first question about jobs - He didn't really talk about jobs at all. He used it as a platform to cram as much as he could into 2 minutes. He rarely held to his 2 minutes as well. The moderator was trying to stop him and President Obama just ignored him, over and over.

Also, when President Obama was speaking, Mitt Romney looked right at him and paid attention. When Mitt Romney was speaking, even when he was looking at and speaking directly to President Obama, President Obama was looking down and busily taking notes. It was rude and very unprofessional.

I thought Mitt Romney answered the questions professionally, he seemed extremely competent, and he flat out called the President out for trying to pass along misinformation about him. When President was called out, he looked uncomfortable and continued to look down. I guess without a teleprompter and speech writers, he has no idea what to say.

Of course Mitt denies that he will make $5 trillion in tax cuts, since that would sound ludicrous in today's economy. Yet the Tax Policy Center, a non-partisan group, analyzed his statements and found that the tax cuts he has promised will reduce government revenues by that amount over ten years. That analysis also found that the middle class would pay substantially more taxes in order to accomplish the Romney plan. The hope that tax cuts will stimulate the economy enough to increase revenues dramatically is a tenet of the Republican plans that got this country into such debt trouble. The thought that taxes can be cut while reducing the deficit and increasing defense spending is just a pretty dream.

Romney wants to shake his Etch-A-Sketch again to erase all that he has said in the past and all the history behind his approach. Let's hope American voters are smart enough to see through those tactics.

I won. I chose not listen to two candidates lie to the viewers for a couple of hours and instead read a book and went to bed.

America saw the emergence of a true leader last night, someone ready with bold ideas to get the country back on track. Mitt Romney is that man.

I flipped to MSNBC after the debate and saw the nightly marxists hosts sitting there stunned at what they just witnessed. That was priceless.......................................

The economy still sinking and there is not guaranteed neither of this two will make it improve. Though decision!!!!

There is no possible way a thinking person can believe one word that comes out of Romney's mouth. He has changed his "position" so many times that he is either a pathological liar or delusional. The message for No VA was that he will continue to overfund the military and bloated defense industry while dragging us into another "unwinnable" war. the way to put an end to this is to do away with the "volunteer" army and go back to the universal draft with no educational deferments. When the warmongers have to choose between lining their pockets and handing over their kids to be used as cannon fodder, then they'll find the moral gumption to do the right thing.

If it were a prize fight they would have called it...challenger was on point and aggressive while the incumbent looked annoyed and disinterested.

We all know the ultimate loser in that debate was poor Jim Lehrer, getting stomped on by two presidential types.

Obama looked lost and that makes me angry. Romney however looked like he did his homework and skirted those issues that matter to me as a middle class women. I would have liked to hear about those middle class tax cuts alone with what he is taking away. To me he avoided those issues way to easily. Hopefully Obama will wake up and let the public know. Giving my hard earned interest back to the feds with a tax increase while the uber rich get bigger cuts and keep their charitable deductions will not work for me.

To President Obama: Not very easy without pre-staffed remarks to read from a teleprompter, eh? I don't think the smooth-talking cool guy image is going to win votes anymore when you have to produce viable results after getting elected. The American people have smartened up since 2008. Romney, hands down!!

Not at all surprised by the outcome. Romney won. I'm glad Jim Lehrer did not choose to stop them from finishing their comments. Now people should have a clearer view of both candidates. I believe it was the first time this partiuclar POTUS has had to entertain and actually attempt to answer any real and/or hard questions about his policies. He couldn't.

I enoyed the head to head, Lehrer was smart to let it run.

Can't wait to see Paul Ryan send Obiden (LOL) back to Delaware!

Enjoy the day, Nov. 6 is coming!

Romney praised Obama at least 3 times. If it is not a myth that little is known about the President, how can Mitt be so sure that Obama is a good man? Romney did a great job but praising the president in future debates won't help him. My evaluation of President Obama is from Spanish:" Tell me who you hang around with and I'll tell you who you are." The people the President associates with are out to destroy my freedom, just as Fidel Castro did in my little Island of Cuba. They are no good men.

Romney 'wins' because the President underestimated how much Romney will obfuscate and out-and-out lie in order to win. It IS a $5T tax cut and either is adds greatly to the deficit or it is paid by eliminating middle-class deductions like mortgage interest and charitable donations. Those are just facts. Romney's health care plan covers pre-existing conditions ONLY if you already have health care or on COBRA. You will NOT be covered when you try to buy new insurance. There IS NO CUT to Medicare, period. Providers agreed--AGREED--to take less from Medicare and more from the influx of newly insured from the Affordable Care Act. Romney criticizes and attacks but offers not a single substantive policy measure. None. He says, wait and see, I'm telling you it's going to be great but only after I'm elected. No thanks.

The President understands the BIG picture. Education will help us in the long run - with jobs and eventually even downsizing the government. He has a balanced plan. I feel Romney is extreme - like the business man who says "Nothing personal, just business!" - with a total disregard for humanity. Our country is not a business, and we are all in this together. Repeating the trickle down philosophy is insulting to me (middle class). Besides....we have already tried that and that is why our economy tanked. Greed took over...it did not trickle down. Romney was a bully last night and disrespectful of Jim Lehrer's job and the rules of the debate. It plays well in a prize fight, perhaps, but makes me question his respect for other people (us). I trust President Obama and will be voting for him to take us forward.

From where I was sitting, Romney clear had the better presentation. It flowed out of him, perhaps a bit too well. Obama's, on the other hand, was halting and chocked full of pauses and "umms".

Still, as a voter in the Obama camp, Romney still didn't answer a bunch of questions, like precisely which tax deductions he would do away with. And I think we all know why he avoided spelling that out in detail. He knows as soon as he lists a single one of these, he's going to be beaten over the head with it from now until election day. That shows a decided lack of political courage, especially since so many voters want to know.

He did the same thing with Healthcare. He said that he's going to take out Obamacare. I doubt whether that will be legislatively possible but, great, good for him. He talked about "his plan" and how its going to encompass many of the same points that are already in Obamacare, like coverage for kids until age 26 and restore $716B to Medicare. What he didn't do was lay out the specifics of the entire plan. And he's not going to do that because, if he does, he's going to be beaten mercilessly with it until election day. Again, another act of political cowardice by Romney.

And did you catch the part about where anybody over 60 need not listen? That's supposedly because his plan only kicks in on the 55 or younger set. If his plan is so good, why not everybody? Yet another act of political cowardice.

Also, his positions didn't seem to add up

You should have watched the post debate shakedown by the (liberal) media which had it's Lie-ometer test. Obama was accused, tried and convicted. He made up so many lies that even the lame moderator had to call him on them during the debate a few times.

Let me be clear. Gov. Romney knocked it out of the park. Finally Obama has had to answer hard questions about his failed policies and his agenda, should he win another four years. That's something I am praying doesn't happen. He kept saying that Romney hasn't "exactly" outlined how he plans to do anything he's laid out, but I never heard any "exact" explanation from Obama about anything and I never have. I especially enjoyed the moment when Obama nearly knocked over his microphone.

Lehrer was the perfect moderator. It was clearly a Romney win!

Let's face it, folks . . . . all of these "Presidential promises" aren't going to mean a thing with the current Congressional situation. If Obama gets re-elected, the Republicans will continue to gridlock any of his plans to move forward; and if Romney wins, the Democratic Senate will do the same to his proposals. I believe we need to get back on the fundamental differences between Republicans and Democrats and not dwell so intently on the personal characteristics (or promises) of the candidates.

I thought Mitt sounded and looked good. Too bad I don't agree with his tax or health initiatives= at least given the small info he's let us have-Obama looked tired and worn out, which he probably is, given the state of affairs-I would be too!! Marty Mason

If you wanted theatre, Romney won. If you wanted truth, Obama hands down:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/10/03/162263539/romney-goes-on-offense-pays-for-it-in-first-wave-of-fact-checks

With respect to the Office of the President this President "tried" but simply has failed us econonomy wise, militarily, tax wise and internationally. Finally someone spoke for the common man and woman with the questions and facts that exposed the reality about Obama's record. Mitt Romney simply devestated the President of the United States with the facts. 90 billion dollars to failing green businesses by Obama? Romney won the debate hands down.

I agree that Romney did a good job at his presentation, but when it comes to substance I still agree with Obama’s policies. A key point of Obama’s was that if you think we can cut taxes more and bring down the deficit, then we are all living in a fantasy land. There has to be a balance approach of both cuts and revenue.

I agree with Patricia’s earlier remark that it is hard to believe whatever Romney says because he has changed his position on issues so many times. This video shows some of his classic ones:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8o-HWGk1Qjk

Romney also told a few fibs last night, such as how "put in place a board that can tell people ultimately what treatments they're going to receive." Really false. That board makes no heath care decisions.

He also keeps saying how Obama “cut $716 billion from the program," as if that money is taken away from recipients, which is false. That figure refers to Obama's reductions in Medicare spending over 10 years, primarily in what's paid to insurers and hospitals, which ends up reducing the costs to recipients.

He also said Obama shouldn't get credit for oil and gas production being generally up because production on public lands is down. But experts attribute much of that one year drop in public land oil production to hurricanes.

I loved comedian Dennis Miller's assessment, "Obama better hope a Kicked A** is covered under Obamacare."

Obama did it. He made Romney look warm, caring, human and very presidential. Looked like a younger clint eastwood talking to a empty podium!

Daniel, Really???? He has not worked with conservatives??? LOL That is so factually not true I spit my coffee on the screen. McConnell and Boehner have said their mission is only to see Obama not be re elected. So you are wrong and it blows me away when people mis-state facts...YOU HAVE

Anne, Go see 2016 - Obama's America. I am a mother of 5, and a small business owner, paying over 50% tax...and grateful for the opportunity. Although education is important..It is not more important than entrepreneurship and the American Dream. We have plenty of well-educated people out there unable to find positions. Focus must be on Small Business and Jobs, like Romney says, and knows how to create.

Obama doesn't represent me, or true American ideals. Obama lost last night because he has no good news and no good ideas and has done a terrible job. He is more concerned about his Legacy, having his name attached to the Albatross, Obamacare, than keeping our Diplomats overseas safe or creating Jobs.

Additionally, your comment about wife beaters was extremely inappropriate. It made me wonder what percentage of those in Prison are Democrat. The answer is not surprisingly, 73%... Thank God they cannot vote. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_prison_inmates_are_democrats

It just astonishes me that people suddenly see "real leadership" and a true Presidential candidate in Mitt Romney. His arguments were improved, yes, because he did a 180 from his previous statements. President Obama was "befuddled" for the same reason we all were taken off guard ~ because Obama came equipped to argue against Romney's previous claims. None of us could have predicted the dramatic denial of virtually everything he has said in the past, and his current contentions that were evidently formulated in the previous 24 hours for purposes of this debate. Have none of you who suddenly love Romney been paying attention at all over the last several months? He is a joke, which is unfortunate for us, because the joke will be on us once the massive numbers of people who are so proud of his "performance" vote. And make no mistake, it WAS just a performance.

I didn't think anything else could surprise me. But he did it. And you....you are the icing on his idiotic cake.

Romney won--and rightfully so.
Obama and his handlers believe their own "spin" and last night they got substance from Romney.
For those of you that want to raise taxes on the wealthy (or as you call it, "the balanced approach"--have you read the details on that? It would pay for almost nothing--and cost jobs. Even so, the problem with the so-called "balanced approach" is that in the past, when Republicans have agreed to it, the taxes are always first--and the cuts never come.

Romney made his case--he wants to increase the size of the economy pie with employment. The Dems seem to think that the pie is of a finite size, and we have to redistribute the pieces through taxes. If we do that, there will NEVER be enough.

As for the Green Jobs--have you checked that out? Tons of money to companies--perhaps as much as 90 Billion--many of them which have now gone bankrupt--and that is OUR money. Most of those funds were given to companies that were controlled and owned by Obama donors.....Have you heard of Solyndra? There's a lot more than just Solyndra and almost all of it is bad.

As far as money cut from Medicare providers--not enrollees--what is the difference? If they cut the money to providers, they simply won't provide. What is so hard to understand about that?

This political race just became very interesting! Both conservative and liberal media have declared Romney the clear winner of the debate last night. The next debate will be interesting to watch. I am sure both candidates will be refining their strategies and upping their game over the next 10 days. People commenting here probably already had their minds made up before last night based on what I am reading. I would be interested in hearing from any undecided voters who may have been swayed by the debate.

Romney of course. Obama is out of his depth even with fours years of being President.

After reading the first 20 or so comments I've decided that I'm voting for Big Bird!! I hear that he's looking for a new job!!

Carol, Bill Clinton and I believe Hillary Clinton did and would of worked with those who didn't agree. Again get real...this is about jobs. A man or a woman who knows about making money mades it by knowing about BUSINESS. In this election the facts support Romney as a job creator...not Obama Sadly and I say sadly as I come from a democratic family, Obama has squandered his opportunity. Now as far a changing to suit an audience....Did you see the entire Obama video just released from him talking to the college in Virginia Beach when he was Senator? I am so disapointed with his clear divisive language.....He lost a lot of our votes with his facts which sadly were not accurate. I want to support him...but just can't. This is not about a party...this is about our country, the one I gave blood for in Vietnam and we are on the wrong track.

Just out of curiosity - is there anyone you know of who voted for a candidate other than Obama in 2008 but is planning to vote for Obama in 2012?

I've found those who voted for him may or may not vote for him again, but none who voted for another have changed to support the current President.

T Ailshire...

The answer is Obama's aunt, the one who was (is) in the US illegally and threatened to be interviewed by the press, until the Immigration people suddenly made an "exception" and gave her a permit to stay. So she will now vote for Mr. Obama.

I think what we saw was the real Obama. He never steps up in public. As a state senantor he voted "present" 92% of the time. He did not off bill on health care, financial reform or the stimulus. Instead he sat back and told a Democrat controled congress to give him the bills and he would sign them. So he was never actively involved. He also has not closed the prison base in Cuba as he said he would. He has added to the war in Afgan...and wwe still have more than 100,000 Americans in Iraq. He appointed the Simpson - Bowles commission on debt reduction and when they met to give him their report the thanked them and handed it to a secretary to file. He never personally took an active role in any of this. And when his record is in question he cannot debate it or even discuss it within his staff.
He was absent last night...unfortunately.

Frankly I don't care who won. Like most voters, I made my mind up long ago and I have no intention of changing it based on a single debate performance.

WON!? I did not know that the election was held last night. What it was, was a refreshing way to see both candidates without smoke screens, teleprompters, speech writers and campaign ads. We all agree that there is a lot of high expectations for whomever ends up living at 1600 Pennsylvania. The question will be answered on November 6 as to whom we the people think is the best candidate to live up to these expectations.

Skip Endale basically you endorse a uniter right? If you look at the entire video kept from us that is now public of Senator Obama speaking to college students at Hampton University in Virginia Beach. His comments tragically promote racial division....Look at the video then tell me he is a uniter. He has insulted the Hispanic community by failing to live up to his PROMISE and fix the immigation problem when he controlled both houses of congress. His recent attempt to pander to Hispanics by giving a temporary pass to college children of illegals has infuriated the Hispanic community who obeyed the law and assimilated legally. Show compassion yes but stop circumventing the legislature and obey the laws on the books or change them. Let's get real Skip...this from a liberal leaning proud American of Hispanic decent who has had enough. The answer is obey the law and get America jobs....Sadly things Obama continues to fail at.

Don Joy, here is my question: Do YOU work? Because you seem to have an awful lot of time to post comments.

We gave obama his chance and it overwhelmed him as did the debate.Move over and give a better man a chance.

Obama Won! Just wait until you see the adds using Mitt's own words from the debate compared to Mitt's own words before the debate. Everyone will see that he shoots from the hip; misspeaks with faulty facts and data; and contradicts himself based on prior policy statements. I guess his campayne aid was correct when he said he wasn't worried about Mitt's stands and statements during the GOP debates..."We'll just remake him during the general election...you know....like etchascretch" I'm not ready for a do over with him.

I noticed several comments and also in the debate last night about how cutting taxes will cut federal revenues. I even saw it mentioned that the Tax Policy Center says Romney's ideas would "cost" 5 Trillion over 10 years. If that is the case, how come the same thing did NOT happen in the 1980's when tried?

When Reagan came to office in 1981, he set about cutting taxes and making them simpler. According to the Tax Policy Center itself, Federal Receipts were 599.3mil when he came into office in 1981 and when he left after 1988, they were 909.2 mil. Only 1 year did Federal Receipts slip from a prior year and that was 1983 when the US and the rest of the world was in the midst of one of the worst recessions since the Great Depression. In Dec 1982, the unemployment rate was 10.8%, which contributed to this decline in receipts.

The point of all this is that when you do lower rates, you free up more capital for small businesses to hire, thereby lowering the unemployment rate and contributing more to the Receipts as more people are paying taxes.

There is nothing worse then uncertainty and since small business are the ones who employee half of all the private sector and are responsible for the creation of ~2/3rds of all new jobs over the past couple decades, having them fearful that if they hire someone, they won't be able to afford to pay them if something changes 6 months down the road is bad policy.

In sum, I think Romney understands this and won last night...

Chris, an outstanding post.

Romney definitely won. Obama looked most feeble and disoriented when he repeated his canned "fair share," "everybody plays by same rules" quote toward the end of the debate.

@Jody, this is not about WHO WON the debate - this is about setting expectations. Assuming either candidate could win the election, what would you expect the new president to do? In terms of direction, on the domestic front, do you agree with Obama? Or do you agree with expectations set forth by Romaney? Aside from candidates looking feeble or disoriented or celebrating an anniversary... that is human, its normal and resonates in Obama's commitment "I am not the perfect man/president... but I will fight for you..." Ignoring the emotional elements of the debate - do you get an understanding of the bigger picture either candidate has laid out for the nation at large? I understand voters are emotional but don't forget to take a look beyond the obvious. For example what Romaney had to say about "this being much bigger than who will be president"... and so going back to setting expectations and which course you want the country to take after the debate is over. The clear winner should be YOU !

Carol,
Obama may have killed bin Laden (actually, I believe our brave Seals did), but al Queda is far from decimated. Do you follow the news in the Middle East and Africa? Do you know about the dead Ambassador in Libya? The death that for two weeks the White House blamed on a "spontaneous protest"? The attacks and riots that are going on throughout the Middle East--and even Europe?
Have you seen the news today abouty LIbya? What a mess.

As far as Lily Ledbetter Act, women already had the right to equal pay. The issue with that act was the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court had denied her petition because she waited too long.(It was not really her fault--she had not realized the men made more.)
Yes, I am glad we are out of Iraq (though you said Iran). However, since you brought up Iran, what a mess we have there. Obama passed up a great opportunity in his early months in office when there were protests in Iran, and now Iran is close to a nuclear weapon and Israel is nervous.
And, while I think we need to get out of Afghanistan, Obama should never have announced a timetable. It has put our young soldiers in jeopardy. This is a very personal issue to me.

If Romney was running for Liar-in-Chief, he won the debate hands down. Romney will say anything to close the deal. He is well qualified to be a Vulture capitalist or a used car salesmen. Leader of Free World is a big stretch for someone with his limited skill set.

Well said, GetReal!

Here's a little poem for your enjoyment:

OBAMA'S DEMISE
Wanting to make history and moved by good speeches
We elected Obama, he had support and good wishes

He first hired commies and socialists who believed in his creed
His minions pushed through health care no one could read

Then voters saw his true nature and felt much remorse
Regaining the House they stopped the socialist course

He was kept from creating a US of Europe
but executive orders kept flowing like syrup

What he hates about the US, a considerable list,
Is what we love, so please cease and desist

Don't be such a hater, the system worked for you
You could love us again if you really tried to

If enough people can rally and see the bright light
We can send him off speedily and out of our sight

Freedom and limited government will once again stand
And undo the divisive, destructive harm of this man

Will we miss his bold spouse and his teleprompter ease?
No, we'll rejoice and stand tall and fall to our knees

Our country is saved, our liberty defended
This sad detour in our history has finally ended.

I really am sick and tired of the racist comments. Romney should disavow the racist comments being made by Gingrich, Sununu, and others that are way out of line. If h does not, we have to assume he thinks it's OK to say the President is "lazy" and maybe "needs to play some basketball." This is outrageous and should not be tolerated by anyone, especially a presidential candidate.

Carol, he certainly seems to. He wants to fundamentally CHANGE just about everything. Why does he apologize for the US and kowtow to the UN? His own wife couldn't find any reason to be proud to be an American. I don't hate him, I just don't like him or his plans for America.

one and done

POTUS (president of the US) has proven he is lost without TOTUS (teleprompter of the US)

What makes people think a first-term senator who spent most of his first-term running for another office is qualified to oversee the world's largest economy?
Obama is in over his head.

Vote Romney/ Ryan if you want to get back unemployment under 5%.

that's funny! thanks

I find myself questioning the judgement of a candidate who in the middle of his first presidential debate threatened to fire the moderator and everyone else at PBS including the bird. But Romney did say he liked to fire people. He is not my choice for president. I don't like his politics and I was not impressed by his theatrics at the debate.

Kathy Kaplan

With years of a sycophantic press who dare not question His Royal Highness barack Obama, and avoiding press conferences (only 1 in many months, depending upon how you call addressing the press and not answering questions), avoiding world leaders in order to appear on "The View", spending his time on golf courses, vacations, fund-raising meetings, and parties with Hollywood celebrities, instead of reading his daily intelligence reports (only read 40% of them) and meeting with his Jobs Council (no meeting in 8 months), Obama was not prepared to debate...and is not qualified or prepared to be president. Now, back in front of a teleprompter (and not in front of Romney to address him to his face) this serial liar Mr. Obama dares to call Romney a liar. Now, having lost the debate, Obama and his Chicago thugs resort to their favorite weapon -- LIES. This started with his speech to naive students in Denver, and is now using distortions in the labor rate (calculating part-time workers as full-time employees). How did our country allow this man to get into office?

BREAKING NEWS: Jack Evans uses public funds for Nats games.

Some choose to prioritize style over substance. Others choose to prioritize substance over style. During the debate, Romney had great style but little substance. And he lied several times. For example:

 Obama cut $716B from Medicare program? False.
 Obama set up a board that can tell people ultimately what treatments they're going to receive? False.
 Obama spent $90B in one year on failed green investments? Mostly False.
 Five independent tax studies back Romney’s tax plan? False.
 20 million people will lose their insurance as Obamacare goes into effect next year? False

Romney won hands down. Now Obama's on the campaign trail with his same false stories. If he could rebut Romney's positions, why didn't he speak up when he was eye to eye. He couldn't because he knew his whole campaign was not truth-based.
Obama is a giant disappointment & not at all good for our country.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpKcyTsq4hE

Romney bounded off the stage on Wednesday night with a wide grin from cheek to cheek, proud of himself for delivering all the ‘zingers’ his staff wrote up for him.

But here’s the problem: he just made stuff up. By one count, he lied 27 times in 38 minutes! On Medicare, on Obamacare, on taxes, on Wall Street Reform, on you name it... Mitt said whatever came to his mind just to to score political points.

Without the folks from Fact Check at your side...you can't trust what Romney says. That's not the kind of President I want. Bush was like that and then he got his ass kicked on foreign policy and again on the domestic economy. Two wars and the worst recession since the Great Depression.

We can't afford Bush and we can't afford Romney either. Worst of all; neither can be trusted again.

Obama won my vote again.

LOL - I thought it was great that the next day the Romney campaign was so excited they even shot off fireworks after the one rally they had with Mitt. Can you imagine the blowback from the GOP had Obama won the debate and did the whole fireworks thing? OMG, the horror they would wrought upon the dems!

I fear not. Of the last 5 presidential debates, the incumbent lost the first debate 4 times and still went on to win the election. After such a horrible 2 months for Mitt, good for the one night. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Three points:
1) Romney won
2) Obama's America is full of empty promises and broken dreams
3) Obama can't defend himself on stage for his life without a teleprompter

And, Romney can't win unless he has "months" of practice as his campaign has stated, practicing zingers - because the Mitt can't speak on his feet - and when he does, it's a lollapalooza! So, cut me a break. LOL. Come Nov 6 I do hope you'll grant a bit of fireworks on the country's side for the celebration of the re-election of Obama. See, Romney can't win. He's got to win 7 of the 9 swing states. if I were a bettin' man, I'd be happy to take your money!

Locally Involved...really? That's the best you can do? Clearly you did not watch the debate or follow Romney's ideas as compared to Obama's. The bottom line is that Obama and his liberal friends have truly been "burying" the middle class as stated so eloquently by Joe Biden (the VP who just keeps giving).

Hey Locally Involved...Actually you are trying to perpetuate the lies that Obama and his clan have tried to make stick as Romney pointed out so well. The dems don't want to acknowledge the facts.

Please try and objectively look at what Obama promised in 2008 and what he has delivered. For example, he promised unemployment below 6%. Not even close. He promised no taxes increases on the middle class. Look at what's happened to health care costs so far as well as the projected costs of Obamacare which is a real tax increase:
http://manassas.patch.com/articles/speak-out-who-won-the-debate#comments

He promised to cut the debt in half and instead he's increased by $6 trillion. I truly fear for future generations if this man and his failed policies continue.

His policies have failed miserably. It's time for a proven leader who can bring people back together instead of trying to continually divide people among socio-economic or race lines. Enough.

Just when Romney thought that he could hit the gas, guess what...oil slick on the Mitt Romney highway... unemployment is improving without Romney, under Obama...

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/jobs-news-makes-obamas-case-easier/#more-35589

Finally goes below the make it or break it threshold of 8%.

Yep – we’re now at 7.8!

When Obama took office in 2009 the unemployment rate was 9.3%.
It’s been coming down, albeit slowly. By the end of 2011 it was 8.5.

Here are the 2012 unemployment figures:

Jan. – 8.3%
Feb. – 8.3%
March – 8.2%
April – 8.1%
May – 8.2%
June – 8.2%
July – 8.3%
Aug. - 8.1%
Sept. – 7.8%

The winner of the debate is open to interpretation. The loser, not so much. Who lost the presidential debate? The poor...and Big Bird.

If you are looking for a CEO to present a PowerPoint presentation on how to make money by firing 1,000 American employees and moving their jobs to China, Romney is your man. If you want someone with a ego so BIG he thinks he can get away with serial lying, Romney is your man.

Looks like Mr. Obama wants to go forward from 2008: http://thehayride.com/2012/09/maybe-the-best-ad-of-the-political-season-so-far/?utm_source=Nooner%2C+9-5-12&utm_campaign=Nooner+1-25-12&utm_medium=email

Yes, it's a RNC ad -- blatantly partisan. It DOES, however, illustrate what "change" brought us.

For the record, I'm not voting for either man; my vote is going to someone who more closely represents American ideals.

Romney was correct when he said that the best way to raise revenue is to get more people working and paying taxes with lowering overall rates - the problem is that our baby boomers are all leaving the labor force and our manufacturing base is gone. The hard truth is that the next generation will be economically worse than our parents generation. It's simple math. Fewer workers supporting the largest retired populous in our history equals higher taxes. Either we strip our safety nets to arrive at a government we can actually afford (but travel back to 1900's poverty and labor conditions and three generations living under the same roof), or continue with our comfortable lifestyles and safety nets but raise the national debt in the process and risk collapsing the entire economy. Either way, neither candidate is giving us a realistic plan forward that addresses the hard truths we are facing.

Which is exactly why immigration has always been part of the economic engine of America. More immigrants coming through the 'ranks', more babies, more people paying into the 'safety nets'. It's exactly why The Economist has urged Europe to be more like America and stop their restrictive immigration policies. By finding a path to naturalization, America preserves its economic dominance. Otherwise, for those that are anti-immigration - your forecast doom.

Read about all of the more than 20 false statements and lies that Romney told at the debate.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/04/958801/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-27-myths-in-38-minutes/?mobile=nc

How can anyone trust this extremist who will say ANYTHING to get elected!

For all - a site with some great studies of how liberals and conservatives perceive and process information - just look at the titles of these studies...how many fit you? Perhaps it'll provide something to think (sorry, I know that's a bad word for some of you) about.

http://2012election.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004818

The arrogant smirk on Romney's face when he said he was going to fire Big Bird and Jim Lehrer will be the same smirk Romney will have when he cuts your Social Security, Medicare, health benefits and your mama's Medicaid. Don't let it happen. Make sure Virginia stays Blue.

The magazine's Oct. 15 cover features Mitt Romney debating an empty chair instead of President Barack Obama, just as Clint Eastwood did at the Republican National Convention.

“This image seemed like a proper response to the first Presidential debate, but I’m not sure I realized how hard it is to caricature furniture," Barry Blitt told The New Yorker about his cover, “One on One."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/the-new-yorker-eastwooding-137676.html?hp=r1

I know, I know 1.5% in the unemployment rate is essentially just a situational fact mistake. The question was who won the debate between the alpha and the cur. Well even Chris Mathews needed meds after that debacle by Obama. Maybe a few more rounds of golf will help clear his mind for the next debate. My best calculation is that 22 states were over 7.8% unemployment not bad for Obama and his record, yahooo!

Jay Leno goes after the President again.

Early in his opening monologue, the NBC Tonight Show host said of the stellar television ratings for Wednesday night's debate, "The only person who didn't tune in, I think, was President Obama"

What a crowd! Man! Yeah! You sound like Republicans watching last night's debate. Oh, my gosh. Well, the consensus is Mitt Romney won the presidential debate last night. The only people that thought Obama won - the replacement refs. Those are the only ones.

They're saying close to 60 million people may have watched the debate. In fact, the only person who didn't tune in, I think, was President Obama. What happened? [Laughter] Even Tony Romo was going, “What happened?”

Response to Barbara on Bureau of Labor Statistics:

You do realize that this unemployment statistic is confusing don't you? Most economists agree that this is not the true unemployment. It is based mostly on a TELEPHONE survey by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It does not discriminate the workers based on part-time or the underemployed. It also does not reflect the number of people who have "dropped out" of the work force and quit looking for work. Yes, it is a statistic (and, no, I don't think it is dishonest) but it is based on very narrow and limited information. It is certainly better than going in the opposite direction.
The FACT is that fewer people are working today than in January 2009. GDP went down--especially in manufacturing.
And, yes, I do look for the business reporters to inform me on what the numbers mean. I am not an economist. And, please remember, that all the media --even the network news last night-reported on the caveats of this statistic. The exception was WAPO which only gave the "good news" for Obama--unless you read very deep into the paper.
Also, in your response to Jody about details. Go to Romney's campaign website and read his plan. It is quite detailed.

BLS statistics are constantly revised - even revising up a year's data. However, as in all metrics, a baseline and methodology has been constructed and accepted by all economists and statisticians. Just like last month's numbers were upwardly revised to show more jobs than initially reported (contributing to this month's decline in the unemployment rate). Next month's unemployment percent will be revised as is the norm..

None of this, however, takes away from the fact that this is good news for the Obama campaign - irrelevant of the constant monthly revisions. The trend has been consistent, albeit, anemic, growth since taking office. Not surprising given such a deep and global recession. We were losing 800,000 jobs a month when Obama took office so I'll take a 114,000 gain. And, yes, all job numbers, under every presidency, includes PT, and now is PT hiring season. Additionally, 1Q and 3Q are big company hiring seasons.

There are always caveats in the statistics - I know since I have worked with stats for 30 years. The media stated this as a reminder to the vast population who may not know this.

Lastly, As to those that have dropped out of the workforce, and I know a few, it's simply because they are older and can afford to live on their spouse's salary. People dropping out with no financial assets - well, guess they're homeless because they could not live on welfare or unemployment (which in VA is a whopping $378 a week, not a livable base at all, just a safety net). If anyone knows of anyone who has dropped out of the workforce and had no other financial resources, I welcome your experience.

I welcome a steady job increase even if anemic. No more bubbles, please! When it busts, it sucks.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151105152138581&set=a.10150593262498581.387606.100596418580&type=1&theater

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=469638409734385&set=a.359617517403142.85729.359553784076182&type=1&theater

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=3876258353865&set=a.1149765873257.2022930.1500922734&type=1&theater

(From the Boston Business Journal)

Key pts:
1. Real number of unemployed down 456,000
2. July's employment numbers revised upward by 40,000
3. August's employment numbers revised upward by 46,000
4. ADP showed 162,000 new jobs in Sept. ADP numbers cover 400,000+ firms, covering roughly 23 million employees in all major private industries and regions.

Undoubtedly, these upward revision in numbers contribute to this month's current unemployment rate of 7.8%.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) monthly employment situation summary, released minutes ago this morning, showed the U.S. unemployment rate dropped in September to 7.8 percent, from 8.1 percent in August. The real number of unemployed persons was 12.1 million, down by 456,000. Economists had expected a monthly gain of 110,000 jobs, and an upward tick in unemployment, to 8.2 percent, according to MarketWatch.

Additionally, the BLS revised previous monthly estimates. BLS now estimates July's nonfarm jobs gain at 181,000, up from 141,000 previously. The change for August was revised upward to 142,000, from 96,000.

The ADP National Employment Report, published Thursday, showed a gain of 162,000 private-sector jobs in September, slightly more than expected, according to BNO News. ADP #s have a 93% simple correlation with BLS data - which means they have a high degree of relationship.

http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/pdf/FINAL_Report_September_12.pdf

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=428906940499911&set=a.403851276338811.98094.396523657071573&type=1&theater

Even the leftist media are saying that the jobs report is highly suspicious and probably faked, based on the agenda-driven use of cherry-picked statistics. The timing alone indicates behind-the-scenes Chicago-style chicanery, and Americans are tired of this kind of b.s. while Obama divides us endlessly.

Regardless, Romney's debate performance and Obama's non-performance are what the undecideds and vote-switching independents have been waiting to see: evidence by which to make the call for new leadership. The polls are now trending for Romney, especially in the key battleground states. Romney's salesmanship is compelling and convincing, especially in terms of his explaining how free markets work to create prosperity, and when he described how he was able to solve problems in Massachusetts with his appeal to both sides of the aisle to come together--unlike Obama's underhanded and partisan ramming through of his leftist agenda, based largely on getting Al Franken seated in the senate through obvious election fraud in Minnesota. Bring on the new era of recovery, bring on Romney and Ryan!

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=422590974456985&set=a.101843656531720.1020.100001182577207&type=1&theater

It's all a conspiracy. ADP, BLS, the world's greatest intelligence agencies, polling firms (including the right leaning Rasmussen, Gallup and Fox), and the media. All in cahoots. Dems are behind "Strategic Alliance" in voter fraud implicating the virginal and pious RNC.

Oh, the horror! The GOP had no chance with such a left wing conspiracy.

Well, if the left is that dang good and all powerful, guess they should have the election, eh? You have no choice. So don't bother with the vote - the dems have already gained control of the world, Resistance is futile.

Romney whipped Obama!
Labor force participation rate for the month was 63.6% For just men, the September 2012 rate was 69.8 -- THE LOWEST POINT ON RECORD.

The 7.8% number is very, very high, no matter what the spin the Obama administration tries to put on this number (which can actually drop whether people get work or people just drop off the rolls without a job -- how convenient is THAT?). That Democrats actually crow about a number they don't really understand is sad.

Of course, 7.8% sounds better than 8%, that's the same number as the month Bush left office -- and he was being excoriated for it -- yet the labor force participation rate that month was 65.7% -- more than 2% higher than Obama's dismal showing this month...just sad.

Oh, DJ. there's just no satisfying you whether we agree with you or against you. I'm with you. It's all corruption. We surrender to your omnipotent knowledge. You need to go immediately to the NSA, CIA, FBI, and every armed forces office and let them know how incredibly naive they are. This is a national security issue. To not do so, would be unpatriotic.

Republicans have been wishing for high unemployment rates since Obama took office. They can't handle positive economic news without reverting to their CrAzY conspiracy theory machine. Oh, the stock market is up 100% since Obama took office. Must be them political hacks at Dow Jones manipulating the numbers. No proof of course, but it is suspicious the market is up so much under the Obama administration. LOL

Welcome back, GetReal! Don Joy was having another episode. Apparently out of meds.

The fact checking for the truth behind Romney's wildly running mout in the debate:

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/romneys-clean-energy-whoppers/

I agree with Get Real. Some Republicans have always accepted, without question, the high unemployment rates as being factual and held them against Obama. But now that the unemployment rates are getting lower, those same people are suddenly considering the rates to be fixed or inaccurate. You can’t have it both ways. No one can dispute that the unemployment rates have been slowly creeping downward for quite a while now.

Below is a short video called “Why Obama Now” which explains different economic theories of past and present.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9G8XREyG0Q&feature=player_embedded

It isn't even just what the number is, but the direction that it has been going in, which is that things are improving. It doesn't matter if it is the unemployment rate, the stock market or any indicator out there; they all show the economic situation in America is improving.

I can't imagine what it must be like to be on a team that is cheering against economic improvement, simply to further a political agenda.

We've had a bail out, a stimulus, and two rounds of quantitative easing with another round on the way to get the stock market back up.Mortgage interest rates are rock bottom. And still our economy is stagnant and the unemployment rate for those without a college degree is very high. People are living and spending cautiously because they were shaken by the '08 collapse. Companies are not only feeling that sense of caution but are faced with a president who is openly pro-union, a new health care act that will force employers with 50+ employees to provide health insurance or pay $2K per employee, increased and proposed tax increases including the death tax that will make it even harder to pass on what you've earned to your family, and because our debt is at the ceiling we know more govt. spending can't be the answer. It's as if we're still holding our breaths and waiting for the crisis to end. Obama's dogma and ineffective actions have deadened the economy, not helped it. A president primarily interested in "social justice" and redistribution of wealth isn't what we need an economic crisis. Just having Obama out of office will be a good thing for our economy and country.

Why do so many think a first-term senator who spent most of that first-term running for another office, is capable of overseeing the world's largest economy? EPIC FAILURE!
Time for somone new.

There are posters on this discussion thread, and many others, that appear to be informed. After all, these posters identify every error or perceived error in our current President (while conveniently omitting any success).

Because these posters appear to be informed in some way on our current President's policies, one can assume that these posters have also a fundamental understanding of the economic crises called The Great Recession. And, since they understand the difference between a normal recession and one caused by 2 bubbles - of the worst kind - a credit and housing bubble. Since this was not a normal recession, and they understand a global deep recession, these posters would therefore understand it takes more than 4 years to recover. After all, it took almost 20 years to get out of the Great Depression, so allowing that this was a Great Recession, one could modestly assume at least 10 yrs for a recovery - which would mean not until 2017.

Therefore, one can only conclude that these anti-Obama haters/posters:
1. Just don't like liberals/dems/progressives.
2. Don't like a black president (tho', since none of us like to acknowledge any racist tendency, this of course, will be summarily dismissed)
3. Are simply idiots. (using terms such as marxist/socialist/muslim/terrorist, etc)

So pick one. But don't continue your rants that the policies and numbers are all a conspiracy and rigged. They're not. Period. Deal with it.

582 thousand part time jobs is much better then nothing to be sure. 7.8 should get you excoriated just like it was for Bush when unemployment hit 7.8, what good for you is good for me! A smaller work force, people no longer counted because their benefits have run out others taking early retirement should lower the unemployment rate also but don't include those stats on your resume which you will need come November Mr. Obama. I thought it was the white half of the President that was screwing things up but now that you mention it I'll have to look closer!

@Locally Involved - I love how easily you throw the race card in when you have not idea who you are speaking to. Isn't that a convenient argument. Additionally, the unemployment numbers do not include those who have fallen off the roles. By the way, why don't you tell us Obama's successes. I really do not see anything except the 26 and staying on your parents insurance and preexisting medical issues. In almost four years that is all I can see.

Joe, are you equally harsh on the previous admin's policies re: employment and policies? A few hard and fast facts on economic performance from 2000-2008:

1. Household debt was 142% to discretionary income (income after taxes)
2. 23% of all manufacturing jobs lost by Jan 2008 (americanmanufacturing.org)
3. Home foreclosures actually ROSE the entire Bush 44 admin (http://www.realtytrac.com/content/foreclosure-market-report/us-foreclosure-market-report-august-2012-7381) and BEGUN declining in April, 2009 when Obama took office
4. Unemployment began RISING in January, 2006 and has consistently improved under the Obama administration (http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/pdf/FINAL_Report_September_12.pdf)
5. Stock market bottomed out at 6500 under the previous admin - in fact, NEVER improved and has since DOUBLED under the Obama admin
6. Total car sales in the US DECLINED the ENTIRE bush 44 admin - while consistently INCREASING under the Obama admin (http://www2.briefing.com/Marketing/includes/state-of-the-us-motor-vehicle-industry-2012.pdf)

Apparently given the research cited above - none of which was from any partisan cite, but from industry sources - lower taxes DO NOT stimulate the economy or job creation. So, given you see yourself as informed - it is baffling that you deny the economy, employment, and business has benefited under the current admin. Therefore, you are choosing Option #3 as noted in my previous post.

PS: Regarding manufacturing in the 2000's: http://www2.itif.org/2012-american-manufacturing-decline.pdf

In the 2000s, U.S. manufacturing suffered its worst performance in
American history in terms of jobs. Not only did America lose 5.7 million
manufacturing jobs, but the decline as a share of total manufacturing jobs
(33 percent) exceeded the rate of loss in the Great Depression.

Again - no partisan data here - direct industry research. Of course, those in #3 category will posit that apparently industry is no in on the conspiracy to fool America. But enough with the data. Facts don't matter to those blinded by their own ignorance.

@CD - the ACA will not be fully implemented until after 2014 - so the easy stuff to execute now such as staying on parents healthcare and elimination of pre-existing conditions have occurred per agreement with the healthcare industry (they negotiated time to implement along with the states - which is perfectly reasonable).

As to Obama's successes - let me help dissect the above data I posted above:

1. Manufacturing has stabilized and employment has grown
2. Stock market is double under the low of the previous admin
3. Car production is the best it's been and has grown since the previous admin
4. Household debt is down and finally savings has increased since the past admin
5. Home foreclosures have declined
6. Positive job growth under the current admin

And, I didn't throw the race card in there - it's always been there as has been well documented by simply looking at any far right rally and rise of race groups since obama took office. And, let's face it - no one likes to admit they're racist. I also provided 2 other options. I assume you just are opposed to anything in the democratic party or you're an idiot. You have 2 other options. Admitting you have a problem is the first step towards recovery. Pick one. Your choice.

Increased taxes stimulate the economy and create jobs? I know, I know it's all Bushes fault. How many manufacturing jobs were lost last month. 7.8 seems great but thats the unemployment rate when Bush left office and never went up according to you? We own 500 million share of GM valued at 40% of what we paid for them nice bailout for the big corporation huh? From which orifice are you talking smelly breath?

Joe - really? Your reading comprehension is sad. The facts that you so adamantly deny is that every economic indicator is improving, that it takes more than 4 years to get out of the worst economic crises since 1929.

The other fact is that lower taxes have been the cornerstone of that last admin and current GOP candidate as being necessary for job growth. Yet, we had lower taxes under the last admin and NO job or economic growth was created! YET, under Clinton, and slightly higher taxes, we HAD economic growth.

But the fact of the matter is taxes have no impact on job growth and taxes have little to no impact on job creation, but solely on deficit reduction. Under Ike (a republican president) the eff. tax rate on the top tier was 92%. The economy did fine in the 50's.

And, yes. The Bush 44 policies of not funding 2 wars, not funding the medicare donut hole, lowering taxes, reducing credit regs ALL contributed to the current crises - Heck, the crises STARTED under Bush 44! You're laughable.

Okay, so I'm thinking you chose option #3 since you went to derogatory comments, blinded by your own refusal of the facts above given your avoidance of accepting the 6 basic facts clearly outlined and documented exist. No intelligent discussion can happen until you accept that under the current admin, these 6 pts are fact.

buh buh.

@Locally Involved - Name calling or insulting people does not help any argument you have.
1) We have less jobs now then when Obama took office.
2) Stock market but be up but I do not see how Obama helped that.
3) Car production might be up but we are losing money on each Volt sold. We own GM.
4) You talk about household debt is down but so is household income. There is more saving because people are afraid to spend.
5) The Democrats are the ones who wanted to make loans in the first place that people could not pay for.
6) There is still less jobs then there was when Obama started and the unemployment numbers do not include everyone who is unemployed.

You have no problem using the race card and saying others hate each other, but name calling in the end does not make your point it. I tell my 5 year old to make a point talk to people with respect and they are more willing to listen.

Again, to my point made earlier - you clearly articulate the downside of everything (again, I have not used the race card - it exists and it is a reason some do not like Obama).

What you fail to acknowledge is that, again, despite the outliers, ie: Volt, every indicator is better under Obama and was worse under Bush.

1. We have more job creation under Obama than Bush. We have less employed because of the crises created by the previous admin's policies.
2. It takes at least 10 years to get out of an economic crises as we experienced. Are you expectations that off?
3. Given the global economic crises - America's doing well.
4. Stock market is up because of the investments we are receiving globally because our economy is a best bet compared to every other economy globally.
5. People are saving money because they realize you can't live off debt! And, given your logic, If HH debt has declined, then HH debt should be at a higher %. It isn't because people are weening themselves off excessive credit while currently building their cash reserves.
5. How the heck are the dems the one who wanted to make loans? Were only dem owned businesses and banks making the loans? you fail to address the Bush credit policies.

Not wanting to repeat the bad policies of the past, which are the present GOP candidates' policies, staying the course is advised. But pls vote for Romney - he's still going to lose. Look at any electoral map. Facts don't matter when blinded by ignorance.

Locally Involved....I see you are still creating your own facts and repeating the liberal talking points. Very sad indeed. The fact is Obama promised to cut the debt in half and instead radically increased it to 16 trillion. That's a bill our great grandchildren will be paying (if our country survives). The worse part is that the debt was used for failed policies (e.g. Solyndra). Obama will no doubt go down as the worse president in US history.

And then there's wacky Joe Biden. I can't wait for his debate with Paul Ryan.

Anyway, it's time for a true leader such as Romney. He's demonstrated he can make tough decisions while truly working with both Dems and Republicans, as opposed to Obama whose demonstrated style is to ram his policies down everyone's throats whether they want them or not.

Obama was one of the key ringleaders who caused the bubble/crisis because he sued CITIBank back in 1994 as ACORN's lawyer, forcing major banks to abandon their prudent lending standards in the name of "social justice."

We saw full employment for most of Bush's two terms, and then democrats took control of both houses of congress and things began to go to hell.

Any racial aspects to all of this can be fairly blamed on Obama himself, who for 20 years was ensconced in a vile, hateful, anti-American, anti-white Marxist Black Liberation Theology church and who snuggled up close and cozy with Jeremiah Wright, not to mention the recently released videos of Obama spewing the same kind of venomous racial hate rhetoric with which Wright and Obama's real father, Soviet agent and pornographer Frank Marshall Davis, indoctrinated him.

Face it, Obama despises America and the American way, and anything he says or does that might indicate that he appears otherwise is merely subterfuge and cover for his real agenda--transforming our country, from within, into a socialist bureaucracy.

Good for you, Brad. Call industry data liberal talking points is funny. I see you've self-identified and classified yourself as choice #3.

No matter your view, Obama still wins in November. I suggest going on to JetBlue's website where you can participate in their sweepstakes for anyone whose candidate loses can win a free trip out of the country.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2012/10/03/jetblue-offers-free-flight-if-your-presidential-candidate-loses/

And, yes, I intentionally chose Fox Business News for you since it's the only true, reliable, objective news site. Please, self-deport. LOL!

Welcome back, DJ - please see the link above and enjoy your free flight.

Glacka I keep telling unemployment was 7.8 when Obama too office. You keep repeating your mistakes and you will start to believe them. Maybe you should read some of the Don Joy comments that should help you geet up to speed here.

Yes, Joe. Unemployment rate was 7.6% (and, i know you're gonna hate this, because the numbers are probably a conspiracy) from the BLS data (tho' you can ck sites like http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/06/news/economy/jobs_january/ and http://money.usnews.com/money/careers/articles/2009/02/06/january-unemployment-rate-hits-76-percent-what-you-need-to-know

Job losses when Obama took office were the WORST in 34 years. Please note - when Obama took office. He wasn't responsible for those losses. They began before he did.

Also, keen to note, job losses (as I've continually cited), job losses actually started in 2006, with a notable, steep rise effective in 2007. 3.6 million jobs thhad been lost since the beginning of 2008.

Again, pls note - not while Obama was president. 'Employers are actually accelerating job cutting this month, according to Morgan Stanley economists David Greenlaw and Ted Wieseman. "We look for the unemployment rate to continue to rise to about 9.75% by the end of 2009," they said in a morning note.; - we actually topped out at 10% in 2009. But not due to Obama policies. TARP started with Bush.

Am I saying it's the previous admin's problem. YES. Emphatically. All the data shows that. It'll take until 2017 to begin to 'feel' the recovery - by then, because of the policies put forth today.

So, yes Joe you are right - I'm just providing context to your point.

Mort Zuckerman writes in USA Today, on "Why the Country Is Unhappy Under Obama":

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/10/05/mort-zuckerman-why-the-country-is-unhappy-under-obama

Melinda Henneberger at The Washington Post, on "Does Barack Obama really want to be president?":

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2012/10/05/obama/?wprss=rss_politics

Steve Huntley at The Chicago Sun-Times, on "Romney carves up Obama’s record":

http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/15560295-452/romney-carves-up-obamas-record.html

'“You’ve been president four years,” said Romney as he rattled off the sorry record of 23 million people unemployed or underemployed, the trillion dollars in red ink from a president who had promised to cut the deficit in half, the huge jump to 47 million Americans on food stamps, two years of steadily shrinking economic growth, and small business startups at a 30-year low.

'Romney had an answer for the Democrats’ excuse that the recession was such a calamity that no president could fix it in one term. Obama, Romney pointed out, spent his first two years in the White House getting the Affordable Care Act enacted instead of turning a laser focus on the economy. Obama fiddled on the cherished liberal goal of universal health care as the economy burned.'

'Much has been made, especially by his Democratic cheerleaders, of Obama’s subdued, unenthusiastic, hardly engaged presence in Denver. Anyone searching for clues to why that happened should look no further than Vice President Joe Biden’s fawning, sycophantic speech at the Democratic convention. Or flattery heaped on Obama by the women of “The View” or “Late Night’s” David Letterman. Or the worship he receives from the Hollywood crowd. The president lives in a world where he can do no wrong. He’s not used to being challenged.'

Obama is Jayson Blair on a much larger scale.

Jody - you don't have to be an idiot and a republican. You're just conservative by nature therefore would naturally choose the republican party. But you're bordering idiocy if you think this president is a socialist reformer. By no stretch of the imagination. Building the middle class is not a socialist policy - it's been a bi-partisan point for decades.

And, taking the point made earlier that unemployment in Jan 2009 was 7.6%, losing up to 600k jobs a molnth and it is now 7.8% adding 114k jobs a month - seems to me, we are better off than we were 4 years ago.

Just sayin', somethings working!

From Zuckerman's excellent article:

'Still, roughly 60 percent of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track. The negatives remain grim and glaringly so on jobs, jobs, jobs and income. As for jobs, some 25 million Americans are without full-time work. Over 5 million have been out of work for 27 weeks or more. The share of the unemployed who have been out of work for a year or more has soared from 12 percent three years ago to over 30 percent today. The share of the population actually in the labor force has shrunk to a post-World War II low. Almost 8.5 million people have given up looking for a job, so they are not counted in the unemployment rate because they have not searched for work in the prior month.

'The real unemployment rate is 15 percent, measured by what is called U-6, which includes people who are working part-time on an involuntary basis. We have 4.7 million fewer jobs than the peak reached at the end of 2007. And indeed much of the improvement in jobs has been through dubious "seasonal" adjustments, such as the July seasonal bump of 377,000 jobs—the largest such adjustment for July in the past 10 years. The labor participation rate has dropped to a 30-year low, and if not for that development, the unemployment rate would be much higher.'

Face it, democrats, Romney is on his way to victory. He made people feel excited and optimistic about the future when he took command of the room and of the nation's televisions last Wednesday night. He amazed even former Romney-as-default-favorite/nominee boosters such as ME with his ability to methodically and heartily debunk every single ploy in Obama's tired old playbook, and his reassuring, urgent yet gentle approach was neither overly aggressive nor angry at all--he even seemed empathically fatherly to the errant Obama in his corrective tone.

Help is on the way, America!

Zuckerman's entire article is so well-written and thoroughly good in explaining the Obama malaise that I insist everyone read it.

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-romney-polls-debate-election-gallup-rasmussen-ppp-2012-10

It is great that the perception is that the race is tightening up. I was worried about complacency among those voting for Obama. Voters will now turn out in masses, and we all know how nervous the Republicans become when voters express themselves in large numbers.

Jody - and, from another perspective, plutocratic (the rule or power of wealth or of the wealthy). I'll trust Obama as I have yet to see how the the plutocratic have done much to help build the middle class. There was JFK and FDR (surely both socialists, albeit, plutocratic socialists if there were such a thing) and Johnson (tho' hardly a plutocrat) - but to the conservative chagrin, placed safety nets and enacted social welfare programs.

Which, not so surprisingly, laid the groundwork for a stronger middle class (head start, education, Great Society, and FDRs WPA and numerous other socialist programs), which provided infrastructure as well as the impetus for consumer demand which drives the economy.

I suppose Lincoln, a republican, would be considered a socialist today as the South's contention that freeing the slaves was anti-business (and really, the war started over whether or not the president was 'business friendly' with the rallying cry of freedom which actually won the war).

So, yeah. I'll take a socialist reformer, to use your words, over a plutocracy any day. And, it seems so will the nation, unless of course one believes, as part of the whole conspiracy theory of late, that the electorate numbers that have been consistently in favor of Obama are rigged, too.

You cannot dispute Mort, LI. Is glackas and li the same person, think so.

As Margaret Thatcher once said about socialism, "The biggest problem of socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

The great Victor Davis Hanson on the mythology and reality of Obama:

http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/anatomy-of-a-disastrous-debate-performance/?singlepage=true

'While losing debaters often can postfacto snipe about the slickness of their successful opponent, I can’t remember a disappointed loser replaying and reconfiguring the debate over the next few days on the campaign trail, in the weird fashion Obama has been offering teleprompted counter-arguments that he could never muster on his own during the actual faceoff. The classic blowhard, after all, is the loud blusterer, who always retells his own arguments and run-ins from the perspective of his own genius, thereby offering the embarrassing proof that he regrets just how poorly he was outfoxed and outargued without a script.'

Big Bird is richer than Mitt Romney:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=326592147439963&set=a.109576829141497.13709.101173139981866&type=1&theater

'In 2011, the House of Representatives passed the Ryan Plan to cut the deficit by $6.2 trillion. They voted to eliminate federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which was allocated $432 million from the government in the previous year. They also passed a bill to cut off all federal funding for National Public Radio.
These votes were mostly along party lines. All three measures were later stopped in the Democratic Senate.
Republicans said it was time for the government to get out of the TV and radio business. The final vote came a week after conservative activists secretly recorded an NPR executive making derogatory comments about Tea Party supporters.
The ensuing controversy led to the resignation of NPR CEO Vivian Schiller. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said taxpayers no longer wanted to spend money on the content CPB and NPR provides.
"The problem is, we've seen programming for NPR and CPB often veer far from what most Americans would like to see as far as the expenditure of their taxpayer dollars. That's the bottom line."'

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/10/04/Big-Bird-Richer-Than-Romney

'According to Senator Jim DeMint:

'Shows like Sesame Street are multi-million dollar enterprises capable of thriving in the private market. According to the 990 tax form all nonprofits are required to file, Sesame Workshop President and CEO Gary Knell received $956,513 -- nearly a million dollars -- in compensation in 2008. And, from 2003 to 2006, "Sesame Street" made more than $211 million from toy and consumer product sales.

'If you break that down, it works out to over $50 million a year "Sesame Street" is taking in from all that merchandising.

'Yep, that one-percenter Big Bird makes about four times what Mitt Romney does annually and yet Barack Obama still wants you and I to still carry his freight

'I guess that's Obama's idea of "economic patriotism."'

Actually, Romney hides his true wealth like he hides his taxes. We simply don't know how rich he is. Big Bird is symbolic of how Romney will treat those not fortunate enough to have their careers bank-rolled by a millionaire daddy.

About 60% of the federal expenditures are on Health Care/Medicare, Defense and Social Security. And Romney is talking about cutting the subsidy to PBS? Let’s get real. That’s a half a drop in the bucket and is just an emotional anti-arts ploy that will do next to nothing for the deficit.

And about all that toy and consumer product sales that Don says Big Bird brings in? Not that I take Don’s numbers at face value, but so what? Should the Big Bird brand not make money? What happened to good old capitalism? Or should they be giving their profits to the government? That would sound a little “socialist” to me. :-)

Even though he has given us very scant information or details, it is clear that the numbers do not add up: by simple arithmetic Romney simply cannot do all the things he claims in his economic and tax plan. So Romney can bully and spout zingers and reverse his previous position and misstate all he wants. 2+2 does not equal 5. Quick polls seem to indicate that while Obama didn't wow anyone, he did fine with independents and women. Most of the audience are unlikely to change their votes based on the debates, frankly. Romney did about as well as he could have so he's set the bar high for the next one. Not so with Obama, lots of room to improve.

Romney spent much his time - curiously - pandering to his base. Curious, since one would think by now he would have convinced. The answer of "Sesame Street", which represents one-one hundredth of a percent (0.012%) when asked what he would cut was an obvious pander. Didn't even cross his mind to say billions in subsidies the world's richest companies such as big oil. If he's not up for borrowing money from China - well, let's start with the billions and not the minutia.

Now, had Romney targeted billions in corporate welfare he would have appealed to indep/swing voters. But, then turned off his billionaire corporate donors who have come to expect the entitlement.

On other issues, well, Romney simply pulled an etch-a-sketch. Trying to re-write his own stances with new ones as has been shown over and over again through many reports.

Obama's problem was that he had not prepared for multiple choice Mitt. Have a feeling that Obama will be prepared for whichever Mitt that show up. Mitt pulled this in MA. Which is why he left office at approval ratings in the 30's. Just shows not every one that 'hired' Mitt was happy with him. They could not trust Mitt's word.

The American people need to look at the real facts and not sound bite ads or two-minute response debates. Look at the policies. The Republicans are for tax breaks to the richest, eradicate Medicare,eliminate student loans, cut Social Security, cut worker safety, send more jobs overseas, cut environmental and health protection laws including food and drug inspection cutbacks, eliminate all pensions, eliminate minimum wage, cut back oversight of Wall Street. The Democrats just the opposite.

Obama blew off 62% of intelligence briefings critical to national security (his primary duty as president), yet didn't miss a single fundraiser or jive-ass hip-hop rap radio interview or comedy show appearance. Despite numerous security incidents, threats, and even overt attacks in the months leading up to the 9/11/12 massacre of our diplomats, we now know that security for our consulate in Benghazi was not only willfully inadequate, but that there has been a deliberate cover-up by the entire Obama administration in the aftermath.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/07/state-department-withdrew-16-member-special-forces-team-from-benghazi-one-month-before-91112-terrorist-attack/

Republican Leaders Agree that Mitt Romney Cannot Be Trusted

“We are going to cut taxes on everyone across the country by 20 percent, including the top 1 percent. “ (This is contrary to what Romney said in his first debate.)
– Mitt Romney, Republican politician and presidential candidate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJzUQwJFW7k

“This is someone (Romney) who doesn’t have a core. He has been on both sides of almost every single issue in the past 10 years. “
–Rick Santorum, Republican leader and former Republican Senator
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av3q7-a-ayc&feature=player_embedded#!

“He’s certainly beings dishonest about his own record? When he says that he had the endorsement of the NRA, he did not. When he says he didn’t raise taxes, and in fact, there were $500 million in fees raised during this time. When he talks about my record or John McCain’s. “He’s making up stuff, it’s just incredible. In Arkansas, we call it DISHONESTY.”
- Mike Huckabee, Fox News commentator and former Governor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av3q7-a-ayc&feature=player_embedded#!
(P.S - Sound familiar with Romney’s dishonest tactics in his first debate?)

“This is someone (Romney) who will say anything to get elected.”- Rick Santorum
–Rick Santorum, Republican leader and former Republican Senator
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av3q7-a-ayc&feature=player_embedded#!

Republican leaders agree – Romney Can't Be Trusted! Most voters agree!

@Joseph Robert - this is exactly what we found when I lived in Boston. Even WaPo has an editorial article today on Moderate Mitt is back - this is a man who says anything to get elected and stands for nothing. In Boston we elected 4 repub governors in a row - Mitt was the only one to leave office with an approval rating in the 30.s. He had decided to go "Tea Party", filing his presidential running papers the day before he left office, mainly because there was no way he could get elected.

He made the same promises, tax cuts, etc. He ended up raising taxes (because he found he couldn't slash taxes and balance the budget) and then raised fees and fines on everything. The cost of a driver's license, permits, everything. It was taxes by a thousand fee increases.

He was not transparent then, he switched positions (not hard when you add no clarity to statements), I think destroying all the hard drives in the governors office said it all. Evades taxes, albeit legally, in this country, hides and destroys data. There is no reason to believe that he will be any different. Heck, he's even been campaigning that way. Mitt has not changed his spots.

a tax is a involuntary contribution enforced by the government. a fee is for services rendered so I have no problem with increased fees.

Past is prologue. The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior. What you think he stands for, isn't what he will stand for.

Sigh, but then, I am dealing with a birther, tea partier, a man in search of tinfoil. I have to keep reminding myself, you're born that way, there's nothing you can do about it. Patience and tolerance of those less fortunate is what I need to keep saying to myself...

Have a good day DJ.

@Joe - technically you're correct. And, that is the stance taken by Gov Romney. But as a citizen in that state, it just was increased burden, which felt like a million taxes in increments. MA is already horribly expensive, and it just made the financial burden heavier to do just everyday things required as a citizen. Probably wouldn't have minded if Romney had addressed the red tape and inefficiencies in the state. Wouldn't have minded if that had happened. But he didn't address any of that. He just raised fees and fines instead of fixing the problem. Sorta like putting a bandage on a hemmorage (sp?). All that meant was future fee and fine increases. I'd rather fix the source of the problem than keep buying band-aids. He wasn't a problem solver, I guess that's what it came down to. Very tactical in his approach to issues.

Results from Obama/ Romney Debate 2012
Romney=Mensa
Obams=Densa

Look's like Romney's debate bump was smaller than most people thought and not a game changer:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/oct-7-national-polls-show-signs-of-settling/

For those reading this board - just go to http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

for all the polls - a years+ worth of polls from every pollster around the country. DJ is so far right he's in another universe. If you are looking for a site that is objective, both sides of the debate, and provides nothing but data - RCP is your site. You can even ck the individual state polls, which clearly shows a 3pt edge to Obama, still, even after the tightening the polls indicated. To close that 3pt will take a strong ground game for Romney.

Mr. Joy, if Romney is doing so well, why are Tea Partiers challenging 750,000 voter registrations in Ohio?

BREAKING: New post-debate Pew poll shows Romney 49, Obama 45. Pre-debate Pew polling had Obama up by 8 points, lol

We live in a technical world don't we? If you cannot afford to pay the fees for your marriage, motorcycle ... then aren't you living beyond your means. Why should other peoples taxes support your boat, rv and recreational vehicle permits. What problem and red tape are you speaking of. There is overhead costs for the dmv, clerk of the court, police, fire and rescue are you suggesting we cut their pay so your fees are lower? Tactical is the right track instead of throwing money at a problem think it through first. This way your taxes are lower thanks to a thinking man resolving the problems associated with a budget.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/why_obama_will_lose_all_3_debates.html

To readers of this board - pls note that Don Joy only cites references of the far right. He'll use a nonpartisan site such as RCP only when it feeds his bias. When a site cannot confirm his bias, then its all a conspiracy. Just for fun, pls do ck out his profile center and all his comments.

I had to point out the below article just like this board if you disagree you are called racist or other hateful/ mean names. This is ridiculous that you can not have another point of view or you will be called hateful names. As I indicated in an earlier post you can try and make your point without using names or being rude to one another. Where is this Country coming to when we can not have a civil debate of issues. I can tell you for one that I feel strongly that Obama is not right for this Amazing Country and Romney will be great but I have never resorted to name calling.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/10/08/actress-stacey-dash-hit-with-racially-charged-attacks-after-endorsing-romney/

was dj saying the polls were fixed. We know most of them lean left or was he saying the unemployment numbers are skewed like the deportation numbers. If you keep changing the criterea then you should have numbers in your favor in less you be a dullard as evidenced by the empty podium Wednesday. Looks like you only go to sites that are leftest
/

sorry for the spelling, too many pre-Romney victory whiskeys!

After the Romney debate win Dems are worried that voters are starting to focus on the facts and taking a 2nd look at Romney. After seeing Obama and Romney debating together, unscripted and not thru the lens of the popular main stream media, the "cult of Obama" is wearing off. American is beginning to see that Obama does not have the answers and are questioning.., do we want another 4 years of big govt. policies that are clearly not working and never have worked, no matter how much "hope" there is. The polls reflect a shift in attitude to electing a Pres. who is detailed in his approach, well versed in real world business and economics, has a track record of success, hard work and achievement is preferable to a populist figurehead who's background is weak in business and economics and spent most of his working life, well.., as a radical community organizer in Chicago. Obama likes being "The President", but is shown to be rather "thin skinned" when faced with adversity or opposition, and unable to explain how the next 4 years will be any better, if not worse, than the last four. Instead their campaign has to rely on massive spending on negative derogatory ads, targeted fear mongering and the old liberal standby demagoguing. That's what you do when you can't run on your record and you don't have any new ideas.

Too bad so many people are putting so much weight on one debate. Romney had a great performance and Obama did not. But we have several year’s worth of history on both of them, on their governing, on their other public statements (scripted and not), and on what their stances are on public polices and other issues. It seems to me that people should consider the totality of their whole history, not just one night’s “performance” at a debate. But that’s just me.

One debate. Good for Romney after 2 bad months and a year of gaffes. As Barbara states, one debate. A bump he finally got after nada from his own convention. Polls are a snapshot in time. It's trends that count - in each electorate state.

For those that missed the debates, here's Romney ...

http://gawker.com/5949818/mitt-romney-debates-himself-loses

More than a bump.. Debate fallout even worse than thought...
Mitt Romney won the first presidential debate by a whopping 52-point margin according to Gallup - the most resounding margin since the polling giant began tracking debates 20 years ago... In Gallup debate results published today, three times more people thought Romney did a better job than Obama.
..the respected Pew Research Center reported the most dramatic shift in a national poll during the entire general election campaign, with Romney’s fortunes improving in almost every respect.
The stunning judgement on the debate came as a bombshell Pew national poll put Romney four points ahead of President Barack Obama by 49 to 45 points - a huge swing of 12 points from mid-September, when Pew found Obama leading by 51 to 43 points.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2214753/Mitt-Romneys-52-point-debate-victory-Obama-biggest-Gallup-poll-history.html

Yes, there was debate fall out. But bump or not, polls are up and down any given week.

To me it is the issues that matter. Obama supports women’s issues, is pro-environment, took care of Osama Bin Laden, got us out of Iraq, saved us from a depression, passed Health Care reform, lowered unemployment from 9.3% to 7.8%, saved the auto industry, and has a reasonable plan to lower the deficit more than his challenger.

Romney can say what he wants. He had a great performance at the Denver debate, but he has changed his stance on almost every major issue there is, including taxes, stimulus, abortion, health care, immigration, global warming, unions, weapons bans, TARP, you name it. I see him as a man of political convenience, and I also find his secretly recorded “47%” remarks to be very telling.

Obama's advantages according to Barbara:
1. Women's issues--I am a woman. There are many things more important to me than free birth control and free abortion on demand. Things like jobs, financial security, and the economy in general.
2. Pro -environment---Yes, let's save the endangered spiders at the expense of jobs. Let's close the coal mines and puts thousands of people out of work. Let's subsidize the Chevy Volt at the expense to the taxpayers of $49,000 per car. Let's stop the Keystone pipeline and keep us dependent on the Middle East and let Canada send its oil to China. Let's stop drilling in the gulf and further damage the economy of the gulf coast.
3. The SOFA negotiated in 2008 got us out of Iraq. And, remember, the surge which completed the task there was not supported by Senator Obama.
Yes, Osama is dead. That is good news. However, he was found with intelligence that was opposed by Obama and our Heroic Seals were the ones at most risk. Obama also "spiked the football" after the operation and caused risk to our Seals and all of our intelligence operations. Not to mention a Pakistani doctor.
4.Passing a Health care reform that most Americans were strongly against is not a plus in my book. It is costly, cumbersome, and unmangeable.
5.The unemployment "rate" may be down, but there are fewer people working today than when Obama took office.
6. It is unclear that the auto industry is saved. GM stock is way down--and it still owes lots of money.

CD and Kathy Keith, God bless both of you.

Btw, the recent nationwide Pew poll conducted after the debate (which has Romney ahead overall by 4 points) shows Romney and Obama dead even among women, 47% to 47%. This is an earth-shaking turn of events; Romney has completely erased Obama's previous 18-point lead among women from the last pre-debate Pew Research findings.

@Barbara - Allow CD, RK, Kathy, and DoJo to enjoy their win in the debate.

What has not been mentioned is that it's rather amusing that the 2 times that Romney was up in the polls was:
1. Primaries - when Obama wasn't actively campaigning
2. 1st Presidential Debate - when Obama, figuratively, didn't show up.

So, when Romney is campaigning against an 'empty chair' or 'empty podium' - he does well. So the question in my mind - how good is your quarterback if the team can only score when the other team fumbles?

Like any good Sunday football game, dems fumbled and the repubs ran with the ball. The real test is how well can the dem team recover, how resilient is the campaign.

Of course, now all our conservative neighbors are believers in polls - which is really funny. Let's see how much they believe in polls when the tables once again turn.

During the debate, Romney told many lies, one of the worst being that people with pre-existing conditions will be covered under his plan. After the debate, Romney's campaign issued a statement that Romney's plan would only cover those folks who had a 90-day break in coverage or less. This is not the first time he "misspoke."

Democrats are squealing and whining that "Romney lied" as if poor little Barry could never be expected, as president, to have to cope with anything like audacious cunning on the part of a political opponent. But the incomparable Thomas Sowell explains that it is Obama himself who is the world-class fake:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/09/phony_in_chief_115715.html

Romney will LIE and say anything to get elected! Watch this video as Romney debates Romney! 1 million views already!

Bottomline, Romney cannot be trusted to lead our GREAT NATION!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPgfzknYd20

@Cheryl - it was that same interview that Romney stated that continuous coverage was required under his plan since if you're not paying into the plan then it's not fair for you to receive coverage. He has also stated previously that currently care is available for the uninsured and it is in the emergency room.

Both statements taken in combination with tthe premium support aka 'vouchers' provided by the GOP healthcare plan offers does absolutely NOTHING to reduce the cost of healthcare or promote competition to lower healthcare costs.

The ACA, through the national exchange, DOES promote competition for insurance, therefore, using capitalism, pushes costs down for insurance. Every insurer depends upon a large risk pool. In order to offset the adverse selection, insurers need to acquire as many customers as possible to reduce risk.

The Romney Ryan plan is nothing different than what is available today. Oh, except for the fact that Romney says he would keep two parts of the ACA - keeping young adults on parental plans and eliminating pre-existing conditions. Both of which will further push up cost of insurance because again - no competition.

Again, Romney said that, under his plan, you can get insurance if you have a pre-existing condition. This is true only if you had coverage within 90 days of seeking new coverage. If, for example, you had bern unemployed and unable to afford health insurance and have a pr-existing condition, you are out of luck. On Romney's own website, he refers to this as "gaming" the system.

Check out http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-first-debate-mitt-romneys-five-biggest-lies-20121004. Then go to Romney's website and find where any of these items is addressed.

Wow.. A new low is reached, having to defame (and lie about) a candidate's religion to support your choice shows the stunning weakness of the liberal argument...

7:19 pm on Tuesday, October 9, 2012
"Romney lied throughout the debate. Now, he's out on the campaign trail breaking his arm by patting himself on the back, telling us what a swell guy he is. How about the Mormon women who have come forward to tell how he threatened them with excommunication if they, all single mothers, didn't give up their babies for adoption. Oh, please! This guy is the worst iind of liar."

Cheryl, Wherever you got your information...it is coming from LIARS. I am a Mormon Woman. I know Romney. First off, I know he could not excom anyone by himself. Any who one infers that is lying.

It is laughable that you have done NO research on this man and his morals, values, principals and family. Romney is above reproach. Someone changes their mind or is quoted out of context and that makes them a Liar? YOU,... PLEASE..

You know NOTHING about anything about Romney because if you did, you would drop Obama like a hot rock and RUN towards supporting Romney. He is putting himself out there to serve you and me and every other American; not for the fame. He has that. Not for the power; he doesn't need it with the core beliefs he has. Not for the Money; he has that too.

I know who Romney's mentors and heroes are; and they are good men and women. Romney has the right heart and work ethic. The heart of a servant leader. You will see. He will work day and night to get this country back on track. I suggest you start supporting him NOW.

Laurett You are my sunshine! Thank you for telling the truth about this good man.

Cheryl you need to show some proof of what you say about babies or you need to apologize to everyone here. You crossed the line!

@Joe - http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2012-03-28/mitt-romney-mormon-bishop/53836844/1 as well as numerous other outlets picked up the story and was brought up when Romney was gov of MA when I was there.

So, Cheryl's not out of line. It happened,

This assertion, from a woman named Peggy Hayes (who had been a Romney family friend and teenage babysitter) was while Romney was bishop of Mormon church in Boston. She had become pregnant with a second child out of wedlock and did not wish to give up the child to adoption through the church's services.

Romney may well have been incorrect in his counsel (referencing the above comment that excommunication for a child out of wedlock is not subject to that penalty) - but it is what he did. There is no reason why this woman, who again, was a family friend and teenage babysitter for the Romney's would have a reason to lie - what's her axe to grind? What's her grind? No one has uncovered any alterer motives.

Now, I know Romney believers won't believe. But then, it's a fact thing. Facts don't matter as the Romney campaign as repeatedly stated.

It would not be the first time a person in a religious position of power would 'twist' or infer something against the tenets of their religion. And, given Romney has a way of not saying what he's saying and saying he stands by whatever he said - I dunno, he's not an icon of transparency.

Other stories, citing the same incident:
The Dark Side of Mitt Romney | Vanity Fair
After Harvard, young Mitt Romney rose rapidly in the Mormon Church and made
a fortune at Bain Capital. Michael Kranish and Scott Helman report on the ...
www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/02/mitt-romney-201202 became pregnant. She alleges that Romney threatened her with ...
'Counseled' by Mitt Romney
Oct 30, 2010 ... Yet Peggie Hayes, 34, said Romney, then a lay counselor for the local church,
came to her home in 1984 shortly after she gave birth to her son, ...
mittromneycounsel.blogspot.com/
How Mitt Romney 'pressured Mormon follower to put her baby up for ...
Jan 12, 2012 ... Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney allegedly pressured Peggie
Hayes, an unmarried woman, to give her baby up for adoption ...
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2085760/How-Mitt-Romney-pre
'Fresh Air' Interview: 'The Real Romney' By Michael Kranish And ...
Jan 19, 2012 ... There was a woman named Peggie Hayes who had known Romney when she was in his ward. She had come from a family which had had ...
www.npr.org/2012/01/19/145449506/who-exactly-is-the-real-rom
Compassionate Mitt Romney Told Unmarried Woman She'd Go to ...
Mitt Romney Pressured Single Mother To Give Up Baby For ...
Jan 12, 2012 ... An upcoming book about Mitt Romney claims that the GOP presidential ... The Peggie Hayes story adds to the GOP contender's already ...
www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/12/mitt-romney-pressure-adopt

Locally has cited various sources for the claim I made earlier. At least three women have come forward. I saw interviews on a PBS documentary and one on Rock Center. Why in the world would all of these women lie? You can't possibly believe Romney may have done anything wrong ever, and yet you're willing to believe the very worst of Obama with no proof at all. It is just astounding to me.

Laurett, Thank you for your civil comments. I get a sense of PANIC from those who want us to support Obama in spite of his shortcomings. As a military retired gentleman I am shocked as how this President has turned his back on Israel and enboldened our enemies. God Bless the military who took out Osama....Shame on the President for the false narrative he paints. I totally respect the office of the President...I just can't vote for him this time....We need BUSINESS in America and Romney is a businessman...Period the end! I am voting with my wallet. How about you?

@Cheryl - I feel your exasperation. Again, facts don't matter. It's all a conspiracy. There is simply a portion of our citizenry that will only accept facts - or twist facts, make up 'facts' - that support their own views. There is no reasoning with that. Not ever. Romney's record alone in MA should be sufficient as to what he will deliver to the US. Romney and Ryan are as stuck in their own delusions - but I think primarily in Romney's case because of his ambition.

Have a good night and thank you for bringing up this incident. Duly posted on FB!

are you related to the cathy bates from misery. if you got proof bring it on cause thats a game changer. if it's here say then debunked it is.

Thanks, Locally. And a good night to you, too.

See Cheryl? The 'believers' deny and question all information that does not comport to their own views.

I know. No matter who wins this election, thus country is in a hell of a mess. Thank you, tea party.

@Mr. Cortez - Thank you for representing the Tea Party in a much more rational perspective than, well, anyone I know in the Tea Party or have seen of their actions. When many of us, such as Cheryl, refer to the Tea Party in broad brush terms, it is their derogatory, inflexibility, to which we respond. In my interactions with the TP, I have been called every blessed name in the book. Conspiracy theories abound. It's just silly. When a fact is presented - hard documentation that both liberal and conservative agree upon, the TP decries it as MSM, conspiracy, birther, blah blah. One cannot have a rational, logical debate when such irrationality is extended in return.

Yes, for once in a very long time, the country is leaning liberal as a natural response to the right leaning that has existed for a long time. Things swing this way. That by no means our country is descending into the depths of hell as has often been painted.

If the issue is about jobs, then one has to agree that 31 months of job gains is better than 600k in job losses when the recession was in full swing. It must also be acknowledged that this is the greatest global, financial crises since 1929 therefore to expect a normal recovery is not normal. Economically, financially - it cannot happen. Debt like we've assumed with the many unfunded initiatives takes time to weed through. Debt, like weight gain, is easy to put on, but takes time to take off to sustain good health.

Learn about Mitt Romney's campaign promises, in his own words!

Already 1 million views this week!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPgfzknYd20

@JR - this is the MItt we knew in Boston! There's a reason he earned the reputation of a flip flopper - "multiple choice Mitt". He promised not to raise taxes, yet his austerity program resulting in raising property taxes by 20%! You think this area is bad? It can get worse. We lived it. He said what he has to say to win. Love the competitive spirit. But he's like trying to nail jello. Love the fact he's not married to ideology - but that results in his flip flop on positions, where his actions are purely tactical. And, you have to be tactical when involved in leveraged buyouts and M&A - because you're not in the game for the long haul, but for quarterly profits. That's not how a country is run. As a die-hard capitalist for 30+years - it's the quarterly view that has killed us. Managing for just the next 3 months doesn't work in business for the long term. Managing a country is a non-profit venture. How you manage a non-profit is different than managing a for profit corporation. Mitt tried to run MA as a for-profit - it didn't work, it just raised prices.

Rk, you can continue to use Fox News and other right-wing outlets to justify your poin of view. That is your choice, if someone has a different point point of view, using thise as your source of info leaves you with no credibility. The mist breathtaking remark Romney made in his 47% fundraising effort was that those 47% think they're entitled to food. That shows his true character. I could never vote for someone who is so dismissive of people in need.

Rk, if you're referring to Romney's advising a young unmarried Mormon woman to give up her baby for adoption as innuendo, you didn't read the Boston Globe article. Romney admitted to it. That is a fact.

Anyone who claims that Mitt Romney allegedly "lied" in the debate last week needs to be confronted with the countless PROVEN and egeregious lies told by Obama, such as found in this article by Thomas Sowell:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/09/phony_in_chief_115715.html

'If you know any true believers in Obama, show them the transcript of his June 5, 2007 speech at Hampton University (available from the Federal News Service) and then show them page S6823 of the Congressional Record for May 24, 2007, which lists which Senators voted which way on the waiver of the Stafford Act requirement for New Orleans.

'Some people in the media have tried to dismiss this and other revelations of Barack Obama's real character that have belatedly come to light as "old news." But the truth is one thing that never wears out. The Pythagorean Theorem is 2,000 years old, but it can still tell you the distance from home plate to second base (127 ft.) without measuring it. And what happened five years ago can tell a lot about Barack Obama's character -- or lack of character.'

Mr. Joy, our church gives bags of groceries to over 100 families in our parish each week. These people are the working poor. Have you ever trued to luve onmminimum wage? Are we supposed to stand by and do nothing while children are hungry?

@Kathy K - if Rev. Wright is game, then were you equally as offended and outraged over Sarah Palin's video tape of giving 'testimony' at her church in AK speaking of witches and speaking in tongues? That is a bit out of the mainstream. But witches seemed to be a thing in 2008....

Seems to me, that when it comes to conservatives, outrage cuts only one way and understanding of context is one way,

When you sum up ALL the Romney statements, he doesn't get what he doesn't get: 47%, uninsured can use the ER, making $10,000 bets with primary candidates, dismissing the simple bakery cookies, insulting England, to "my wife owns several cadillacs" town PLUS his flip flopping, my faves:

"I purchased a gun when I was a young man. I've been a hunter pretty much all my life." (April 3, 2007) FoxNews
"I'm not a big-game hunter. I've made that very clear. I've always been a rodent and rabbit hunter. Small varmints, if you will. I began when I was 15 or so and I have hunted those kinds of varmints since then. More than two times."
(April 5, 2007) CNN
"In France, for instance, I'm told that marriage is now frequently contracted in seven-year terms where either party may move on when their term is up. How shallow and how different from the Europe of the past."
(May 5, 2007) - Regents University to condemn a non-existent French marriage policy.

Best: "It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person." (April 26, 2007)

Kathy, thewhole tape has been available for some time. Romney clearly said people think they are entitled to food. That comment is heartless, in my opinion, and it doesn't matter who he was referring to.

Mr. Joy, My family was the working poor. You don't know antpything about me, either. I am not delusional, and have had to face harsh reality my whoe life. Stop condemning people who don't agree with you and try to have a little empathy for others.

More Romney highlights:
“I’m running for office, for Pete’s sake-I can’t have illegals.”

Using off shore tax havens to avoid (legally) paying taxes while bashing people who don't pay taxes (do love that one)

For Kathy K. context

“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That, that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what … These are people who pay no income tax.” guess if people don't want to pay taxes, they should do so legally in the Cayman Islands

"..but I have some friends who are NASCAR team owners.” (Daytona Feb 26)

“I’m in this race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it,” Romney told CNN February 1. “I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90 percent, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.” flip flop!

“We have a president, who I think is is a nice guy, but he spent too much time at Harvard ....” (funny for a guy who has 2 Harvard degrees!)

Kathy, it's a shame you regard any news outlet other than Fox as left leaning. No matter what Romney says or does, it seems you justify it. I cannot justify everything Obama has said or done. He's a human being and makes mistakes. I realize that, and he does, too. There just seeme to be a double standard in that Romney is not being held accountable for his flip flops on major issues .

We get it that you lefties hate Romney because he is extremely successful. But have you taken the trouble to get up to speed on the staggering amount of altruism and personal sacrifice he has generously involved himself in, the actual testimonies of those whose lives he's touched personally with his sefllessness? If you haven't, then just stop boring us all with your endless babbling about his having to adjust his positions and policies from those of a state-level (governor) to those of a federal-level (president), etc., as well as legal and moral decisions he's made as a private citizen according to his judgment. Prudent adjustments are the mark of sound character, by the way.

And while you're at it, admit that Barack Obama is a serial, pathological narcissist and liar of the first order. To this day, despite professing to be a Christian, he still wears a ring on his wedding finger with the inscription "There is no God but Allah," by the way, since long before his marriage. I'm no Bible-thumper, but this disgusting charade has gone on long enough.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/obamas-ring-there-is-no-god-but-allah/

Twenty minutes from now, congress will begin hearing testimony and asking questions of those involved in Obama administration dereliction and cover-up surrounding the Al Qaeda Benghazi attack. If there were justice in the world, Obama would be in an orange jumpsuit, in a dungeon, and Eric Holder too, et. al.