If I were to sum up the posts on this as well as most articles, the conclusion I would come to is that both parties have failed the American public for many years. Sadly people have bought into the 2 party scheme which I think goes like this. Republicans: You convince people that they can eventually get rich and the only thing keeping them from that is all the entitlement programs the middle class is footing the bill for. Democrats: You convince people that the Republicans hate the poor and the only way the poor and middle class can survive is if Government intervenes and punishes the rich. And so it goes ..... What would happen if some of the middle class realized they were being played and started working less and started collecting more entitlements? The two party system would collapse and maybe we would no longer have a country being run by both parties of millionares that are in colusion. IMHO

Yes we know Krauthammer, you have a fetish for Reagan. Of course just disregard the fact that him and his administration were the worst in the history of America.

How's all that "austerity" working for Europe by the way?

Godishere - Do you have a reading comprehension problem my friend? I bought my house from a large feed & chemical company. Does that make me a feed dealer or a chemist, you silly person. And you vote?

Godishere Nov 3, 2012 at 10:04 a.m. Are you talking to me????
I'm one of the most conservative (as opposed to right wing nut) on these boards. What made you lump me in with the liberals?????

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/busine...
"There is not conclusive
evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the
top tax rates and economic growth."

"In fact, although correlation is not causation, when you compare economic growth in periods with declining tax rates versus periods with high tax rates, there seems to be evidence that tax cuts might hurt growth."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/study-tax...
Reagan raised taxes 7, some say 11, times. One of those the largest peacetime increase ever. Saying that tax cuts spurred growth cannot be proven.

The Reagan deficits never reached more than 6% of GDP, and that happened only in 1983, the first year of economic recovery. As the 1980s expansion continued, the deficits fell, especially as the pace of spending slowed in the latter part of Reagan’s second term.

[...]The Obama deficits are double that, and more than one-third higher than even the Gipper’s worst year. What explains this? Part of it is that Democrats are simply spending much more, sending outlays as a share of GDP above 25% for the first time since World War II. The White House now says outlays will be higher in 2011, at 25.1% of GDP, than at the height of the stimulus in 2009 and 2010.

[...]The other explanation for the record Obama deficits is that revenues have been so anemic, thanks to the lackluster economic recovery. In the Reagan years, revenues as a share of GDP never fell lower than 17.3%, despite (or we would say because of) his pro-growth tax cuts. In 2010, by contrast, the White House now says tax revenues will hit an astonishing low of 14.5% of GDP, rising only to 15.8% in 2011, even with the huge tax increase that hits on January 1, 2011.

Tax cuts worked, and government spending failed. Next time=lets do what works, not what doesn,t. Just search for truth. "Growth since Reagan to Obama.GOV.

Name calling is all the progressives have. This is why we have not grown. Pity Rock county has still not felt the pain of failed growth. Class is out, will the adults check their wallets?

Bill Ayers discussing back to school on the high level economy Chicago. His vision. "Truthout"
on line magazine. I don,t have time to play games.
________________________________________________

MS: How do you encourage that type of teaching on a national policy level? If you were Arne Duncan, what would you do?

BA: You have to start with the premises of a democracy. If you think about Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, medieval Saudi Arabia, apartheid South Africa, every one of those countries had educational systems that wanted their kids to show up on time, learn their subject matter, stay away from drugs, not get pregnant. We all want the same things, except, in a democracy - at least theoretically - you also want to base your educational system on a profound democratic premise: the incalculable value of every human being. That means that the savage inequalities in the education are an affront to democracy. All the systems I mentioned - Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia - along with math and science and phys ed and music, they wanted obedience and conformity, and they taught it relentlessly. That's why you can have a Germany or an Italy or a South Africa that produced brilliant scientists and brilliant artists, and also produced a culture that could march people into the ovens. You can have an educated population that is morally blind.
____________________________________________
wasp
The fundamental change of America is almost finished. 4 more years--------it is done.
Go find the article. It,s too late-you should at least know how we got here and why.

Mitt Tabula Rasa,
the original Etch-A-Sketch.

Wasp is it?
Go goggle-learn. It,s hard to imagine you don,t know the connection. I don,t lie, I answer to NO man. If I say something, it is truth. You have a PC because you are on one. Lets see,,,,,,google the last appearance Ayers had with the 99%. Try
looking. Fear? Na, I just know the truth. This you should also know. You might also be interested in finding out who sold Obama his home in Chicago. So much you Americans have over looked.

Mitt is the empty suit.

wasp2491, Barack Obama started his political career in the livingroom of Bill Ayes - the ties that bind...binders

Godishere - A little research would show you any serious connection between the president and ayers was debunked in 2008 and you are spreading an out right lie. Are you right wing nuts getting that nervous?

MEET THE NEW AMERICA::::::

9:39 AM, NOV 2, 2012
With the latest jobs report, it is now the case that "Under Obama, Food Stamp Growth [Is] 75 Times Greater Than Job Creation," according to statistics compiled by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee. "For Every Person Added to Jobs Rolls Since January 2009, 75 People Added To Food Stamp Rolls."

Since January 2009, a net of 194,000 new jobs have been created. During that same time, 14.7 million have been added to the food stamp rolls.

"Simply put, the President’s policies have not produced jobs. During his time in office, 14.7 million people were added to the food stamp rolls. Over that same time, only 194,000 jobs were created—thus 76 people went on food stamps for every one that found a job," says Senator Jeff Sessions, ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee. "This is a product of low growth. Post-recession economic growth in 2010 was 2.4%, and dropped in 2011 to 1.8%. This year it has dropped again to 1.77%. Few, if any, net jobs will be created with growth of less than 2%."

third eye:::::::
If you do not know these names, if you don,t at
this point in your life know the man that blew up to kill many at
a police station=Ayers?
You do NOT understand this Obama you have left in
charge of MY country.
Your kidding, "Standing on our American Flag" on
the cover of TIME magazine Ayers? Man, we are lost. YOU want more of this? You better start vetting your voices in Washington. What POTUS runs for higher taxes, government run=healthcare, auto, bank and mortgage control? This is not the America my sons need. This is not the America my parents or myself worked hard for.
(You really have NO idea who Ayers is?)
Then you do NOT now who Obama is.

Retiredmilitary Nov 2, 2012 at 9:35 p.m. Would you care to expand on what you must feel is a brilliant insight?

I didnt know Obama or any other president was a king? According to this article he is. I always thought everything had to go through congress and they have the ultimate power not the president

I would hope that should he win, Rmoney would not be greatly influenced by ryan. When you look at his record he is a real right wing radical, that voted for every spending bill that was proposed during the bush administration. So much for fiscal coservatism.

Axelrod: Obama’s speech ‘coming from his loins’

Well, he almost got it right...the posterior is close to the loin area.

The CHOICE is EASY - Especially after knowing Romney wants to CUT federal Disaster Relief.

*******BUT - READ ROMNEY"S QUOTE on the clean up after HURRICANE SANDY -----> MITT SAID -"CLEANING UP HURRICANE SANDY IS LIKE CLEANING UP AFTER A HIGH-SCHOOL FOOTBALL GAME"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-d-ro...

" In politics and religion, a moderate is an individual who is not extreme, partisan or radical."

Definitely not a description of BHO.

"Obama is a moderate"
-
What? He began his political career at the home of Bill Ayers, hardly a moderate.

With a closing unemployment rate higher than when he took office, Obama has a big hill to climb; doubtful he keeps his seat.

A moderate is described as... " In politics and religion, a moderate is an individual who is not extreme, partisan or radical." Obama is a moderate. So WAS Romney until he came close to the nomination and adopted his Conservative stance. Conservative's hated him in the primaries(remember that Conservatives)? He did return to his moderate stance in the last debate but a little too late.

Read the article. I know it won`t change your mind, but at least open it up a little. Just because Romney operates with his own set of facts doesn`t mean everybody should.

OBAMA: You pay for 2 hotdogs, I pay for NONE, then we SHARE what we have. Really, it's pretty simple

pharm

Why do you keep posting old news?
To say that Obama is a moderate is a stretch. If it makes you feel better, go ahead. His actions prove otherwise.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012...
Obama, the moderate.

In a suit and tie, Future Pres. Mitt Romney gave a wonderful acceptance speech in West Allis this morning.

greatplain, If Obama is a moderate, what former president besides LBJ might have been more on the socialist side? What are the advantages to having Obama be more socialist than he is? Would it benefit you personally or do you see it as a benefit to the general US citizen? I'm asking these questions not to challenge your opinions but rather educate myself.
I lean toward people working hard to improve and support themselves vs the government stepping in with social programs. I believe this country was founded by people that wanted less government involvement in their lives and they had the expectations of themselves that they need to work hard to improve their lifestyle if that is what they want.

greatplain, Obama is Moderate like Palin is.

LOL

Unlike Clinton who had 6 years of a Republican congress, Bush has opted out of the spot light to enjoy retirement. Good for him.
President 45 will inherit a worse economy the President 44 did. Higher gas and higher unemployment, monster debt and avg. home earnings 10% less.
Higher welfare, more in poverty.

Where's George? I mean George Bush, you know, the torch bearer for the Republican Party and President of the United States for 8 of the last 12 years. Is he hiding in Switzerland or the Cayman Islands too? Please George, America wants to hear from you. Also, remember how much the Republicans enjoyed Rev. Wright, Obama's former pastor? Let's hear from Mitt Romney's pastor too! I'll bet he has some fun things to say about the bizarre nonsense Mitt believes in.

Frusion: Yes. Barack isn't Socialist enough. If you believe the President is a socialist, you are deep in the right wing think zone. This guy is a moderate.

Krabs, you are something but nice try at trolling.
.
btw, Now that the true chain of events is public knowledge, would you like to withdraw your incorrect posting:
.
Posted on October 17 at 8:47 p.m.
NO GUARDS WERE REQUESTED FOR IN BENGHAZI, ONLY AT THE TRIPOLI COMPOUND

"An Obama second term means that the movement toward European-style social democracy continues, in part by legislation, in part by executive decree. The American experiment—the more individualistic, energetic, innovative, risk-taking model of democratic governance—continues to recede, yielding to the supervised life of the entitlement state."
.
This is a question to Obama supporters:
.
Do you agree with this quote from the article and are you ok with the US going this direction? Do you see European-style social democracy as the direction best suited for the citizens of the US?
.

Nobody's right if everybody's wrong...

@Honorfirst: "I am staggered by the fact that so many in our great country would sell out the future by ELECTING this guy. They must be pretty uninformed on topics of the day or they are waiting for his next handout. "
With one word change, in my case, speaking of Romney/Ryan and the rich, I couldn't have said it better!

It would seem that you take being uninformed to a new level. We have NO choice.

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.” That was Barack Obama in 2008. And he was right. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy.
And the middle class has had to live with the erosion of their wages ever since.

After reading Cullen's letter to the Gazette today, he has restored respect for himself.

"I am an American first and a union member second."

"What do you think will happen in the next four years if we stay the present course?"

I am staggered by the fact that so many in our great country would sell out the future by re-electing this guy. They must be pretty uninformed on topics of the day or they are waiting for his next handout.