R stands Romney. R stands for Ryan. Remember that in November.

Could also mean Reason, Respect and REALITY but hey,
why stop a good rant from the "OH YES we CAN" crowd,

Especially since by the President's very own words he CAN'T?
Seems it just wasn't "shovel ready".

Of course, if the man ever actually held one out of a photo op, he'd of known that back then huh? (Smiles)

Yeah Brian...you're right...lets borrow even more chinese dollars and spend them at the most ineffecient organism known to mankind...government. Yeah...I'm sure that will help.

D stands for Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt, Debt

Remember that in November

R...Obama has plenty this is ahem...shovel ready.

Please explain how hiring more leaches into the gov for the tax payers to pay for is going to stimulate the economy? The gov does not produce anything nor does it make money in any way. the gov can only take from the tax payers and hiring even more into the gov is taking away the tax payers money and putting less money into the economy. and anyone can see that that anything the gov is involved in becomes a disaster.

Exactly, Brian. To me, personally, R stands for retroactive - back to the 1950's. As a woman, that's impossible to forget. But regression is a better description.

@Candice. You think teachers and first responders are leeches?

@Brian
The Republican have cut 3 billion dollars out of the state budget over the last four years.They will ask for an additional 550 million at the next session of the legislature.We cannot cut our way to prosperity.We have a structual tax problem that needs to be changed.My suggestions would be to 1.raise the cigarette tax 2.updating the sales tax to cover more services 3. eliminate all economic development tax(corporate welfare) 4.find some way to collect sales tax on internet purchases .We cannot abandon the very investments that make Georgia a great place to start a business,raise a family and live.We need smaller class sizes,more patrol officers,elimination of long lines to renew your licenses,better transportation systems,etc.

Typical democrat answer. Raise Taxes! You guys complain when companies leave the US and all you know to do is to keep raising taxes on everyone. Raising taxes don't create jobs. Taxes only run off job creators.

I want to raise taxes on Romney and his crowd. That would be a nice start.

Oh, wait! Maybe if we could just COLLECT taxes on Romney and friends we wouldn't have to raise taxes, well except on stuff that kills people.

There you go. Answer to everything. Someone creates thousands of jobs, pays millions in taxes, donates millions to charities and you people want them to pay more. More for what? So Obama can give FREE cell phones to crack heads.

And I suppose that the omnipotent Obama will solve all. Much like he has for the first three and a half years. Remember R also stands for REID as in Harry. BTW the public sector is the fastest growing sector of job growth. Try to get you facts right...but then again your agrument does not hold water

@Frank Akridge
Debt is not important now.Unemployment is the problem and lack of demand.If debt was important it would be reflected in the market place with high interest rates.Been to the bank lately or looked at treasury bill rates.They are at record low levels.Corporations are setting on over 2 trillion in cash.We need to put money to work building infrastructure:ie,40% of the nation's public schools are in "bad to poor condition" we can do better.

George, It's Floyd not Frank.
So when do we pay off the debt? When and how? I am open to a good anser but I never seem to get one.

Lol, Paul, who are you talking about creating thousands of jobs and giving millions to charity? We're talking about US jobs, remember, and the LDS is not a charity but a religion. That doesn't mean they take care of anyone but themselves. Romney? He should have been paying many more millions because the % rate he pays is way low for his $57k per day . Any charities he and his group donate to allow more tax breaks. Take the church and charity deductions away and see how charitable they are. I suspect that he won't release more returns (especially 2009 b/c of the IRS amnesty program to get offshorers to pay their bill without fear of prosecution for tax evasion) because they will show how little, relatively speaking, he pays. And just maybe the ROmoneys don't really give (tithe) 10% to the LDS church and don't want that known, or maybe they give 10%, but 10% of what amount? See what secrecy does? Causes all kinds of speculation. Why do you defend them? They care not about you or me, or certainly the people who need help the most.

George, I hate to say this but now you sound like YOU may be a crack head. Of course Romney gave to charity. Are you kidding? Where has Obama given or Biden? Doesn't Obama's own brother still live in a shack? The answer is yes. He was interviewed and yes he does. You guys are so jealous of Romney's success. Why is that?

George is right. Unemployment and the lack of jobs is the main problem here.

Pam, why do you suppose that is?

Paul, why do I think what is? The high unemployment rate? Okay, here goes. First, people bought houses they really couldn't afford, on adjustable rate mortgages. Then the banks and mortgage companies decided, for some reason, to raise the rates to a point where a lot of people couldn't afford their payments. Then, the credit card companies panicked and cut everybody's credit limits (happened to me) to basically what they owed, so their credit scores plunged. Then the construction sector started suffering because all new development halted. Then gas prices went sky high and the auto industry suffered. Then everybody panicked and tons of people lost their jobs because companies were worried about the bottom line. Well, that's how I see it.

"I want to raise taxes on Romney and his crowd."---Georgia Democrat

So much for equality.

" That would be a nice start."

Penalizing success? Sure.

@ don Gabacho - that's a Republican BS talking point. Did you pick that out of your R tip sheet email? I don't envy success. I have enjoyed it myself, thank you. "Penalizing success"? Do you mean expecting successful people and corporations to pay a fair percentage in taxes? Look back at the Eisenhower years, an era of unprecedented American growth and development and the birth of the interstate highway system (now in need of repair). The top marginal tax rate was 90%. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/20/249061/chart-taxes-economic-growth/?mobile=nc I'm not for going back to that rate, just pre-Bush tax cut rate for the highest INCOME group - middle and lower income groups need every dollar they can keep so the current rate shouldn't increase, which helps the economy b/c they HAVE TO spend it. This country needs the revenue. "Equality"? That's exactly what I want! (all caps for emphasis, not shouting ;)

Revenue equality? That would require that everyone pay income tax. Would it not? You guys have driven the "FAIR" word in the ground but NEVER address the fact that that 47% don't pay federal income tax. What is FAIR about that? Please answer that question.

Brian Crawford - Do you any idea how idiotic your statement is? Any at all?

The reason job creation is low is precisely because the government is crowding out private sector jobs with debt and taxes. When government issues debt it takes wealth (savings) from the private sector and transfers it into Bonds. That is money that could be used to invest in capital, plant, and equipment to create jobs. When government issues debt it take that money from those who saved.

In order to invest you need savings. To generate savings you need people to be able to keep more of what they earn. Low taxes allow people to keep more of what they earn.

Government takes this wealth and wastes it, because government does not create jobs it creates employees. Employees for government take the wealth and potential savings you could generate it and destroys it.

How did this nation get so many economic neophites?

Bill, you don't seem to understand how treasury bonds work. You can learn more about them here: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/

@Paul, first off, don Ho didn't say "revenue equality", just "equality". What's fair about Mitts and his elitist friends paying 13% or less, or nothing and having so much left over that they can't or don't spend it in America, store it in foreign banks, don't "work", don't have to sweat except at the gym or the beach or while riding horses? Then, the sweaty working poor (who do pay payroll taxes and sales taxes and some pay property taxes), often don't have enough left to feed their kids 3 squares a day, pay rent or mortgage, put gas in the car to get to work, or hitch a ride if they have no car, and then probably have little or nothing left for doctor and Rx bills? All so Mitt and friends and their corporations can pay less or nothing. Why should your "47%" have to pay federal income taxes if they don't have to? Shouldn't they use every advantage (like Mitt) to offset what little they would owe anyway? What are Mitt and Angry Ann hiding? How much they're really worth, how much cash on hand and where it's banked, how little or nothing they pay in taxes, their questionable deductions, how much they really give to the LDS and/or charity? I'm not saying he has done something illegal, but his actions are suspect. Did anybody see Angry Ann's body language in the interview with Natalie Morales. Why so defensive? Oh, she did say something about ammunition. I guess that word gets you guys excited, so you would miss what she was really saying.

There goes the WEALTH ENVY again. Otherwise, why refer to successful people as elitists? Make your own riches and then you can over-pay taxes all you want. What is wrong with you people?

Jeff B, your "wealth envy" phrase is divisive. The Romneys are elitist, Paul Ryan, too. Their words, actions and photo ops prove that. That's no argument. They like their elitist status. They're elitist but they have no class. Two different things entirely. "You people!"

If you think that government jobs are going to save the US economy by being a major employer than you must not understand what happened to Greece, Ireland, Spain, Italy etc. Always remember that the USSR's graetest employer was the government and look at was has happened to them!

Greeces 33% of all jobs being government played a big part of their meltdown. It led to patronage jobs and inefficiency.

Why is the US Post office going broke while UPS, FedEx, and DHL continue to thrive?

So he USPS and FedEx are the exact same except for private v govt ownership. That's clearly the only difference.

UPS, FedEX, and DHL are all private companies owned by different entities. These companies are all making a PROFIT.

The US Post office is government run. It is NOT making a profit. Instead it is losing money.

You people do realize that the Romney's live off their capital gains right? Sounds to me like they invested wisely whilst working...so much so that they pay CAPITAL GAINS tax on the $4+million they make just from interest. And you know that capital gains tax is the 13% they have paid. So yes, they have paid their fair share of their taxes. It sounds like to me you expect them to be doubly taxes because they were already taxed on the money when they made it, invested it and now are paying their capital gains taxes.

Well Becky, it's unpatriotic to just pay the legal amount. FAIR SHARE is paying lots extra like our millionaire democrat politicians do. And then they donate record amounts to charity to boot.

Becky, many of us invested wisely. Some of us were laid off for extended periods of time, had medical issues not covered by our weakening insurance policies, or other unforeseen circumstances happen, and those investments are mostly gone now. Not everyone can put enough money away to survive every circumstance. It takes foresight and luck to succeed.

Well Brain I will be more then happy to send you my tax bill. R stands for doing the RIGHT thing D stands for lets keep doing the same DUMB thing. The only government stimulus we need is less Government and less Government spending. 6 Nov will be a turning point for the better if Romney WINS and sadly a road of NO RETURN if Obama returns to office and any other democrat who supports his failed leadership and economic plan. Once again 6 Nov Vote out Obama/Biden Vote in Romney/Ryan and all truly conservative Republicans.

@Andrew Blawat, the USPS is going broke because they are mandated to fund employee/retiree health care costs 75 years in the future. Place that restriction on FedEx and UPS and see what cuts would start being made.

Interjuju...mandated? In 2006 both postal unions endorsed it and EVERY Senator and EVERY Congressman voted to pass it. Looks like the greedy post office unions wanted to make sure that their employees pensions were funded for 75 years in advance. They made their bed and now they can lay in it.

Since 2009, the USPS' losses have exceeded the prefunding requirement to the tune of more than $2B per year. For this year, the USPS loss is projected to be $14.1B. Eliminating the $5.5B prefunding requirement would still leave the USPS with a deficit of more than $8B! Over the last 10 years, the USPS has downsized its workforce by 250,000 employees, yet their labor costs have remained steady at 80% of their overall budget. In addition, in spite of the fact that first class mail volume has been plummeting since 2006, the USPS still maintains the same number of mail processing centers it had during its heyday. Remember a little while ago the fuss over closing small unprofitable post offices? I don't think UPS and FedEx keep unprofitable locations open. Congress needs to nut up and allow closures of small unprofitable post offices. Politics is the business of morons.

innerjuju , The USPS does not fund retirement on an on going basies for their workers. Yes they do pay for Health Care but the retired employee also pays double what his or her payment was when still worked for the USPS. As for the pension they are now on a 401K type of retirement and most have been since the early to mid 80s. Yes unions are a big problem for the USPS they cause more work for those who work hard by letting those who do little work remain on the job. Many are on the employee self help drug program . That means that if you step up and get help they will not fire you . Problem being the union steps in every time to help those who have fell off the wagon time and time again. I am for 2nd chances but when it starts to cause more problems for those who give a honest days worked for a honest days pay something needs to be done. They had their second chance and if they blow it they need to go. Overtime is another problem with the USPS. Many who deliver the mail take their time to get extra hours in during the week. If you worked over 8 but less then 10 hours that would be time and a half over ten is what they call V time and that is double time. The USPS needs more part time workers to fill in and stop the overtime for the full time workers. But the union will never let that happen. The Union is about the union and nothing but the union and does not give a rats butt about hard working people or the USPS.

Both of my parents retired from the postal service (Mom from Smyrna and Dad from Atlanta). They pay (or paid, as in my Dad's case) just over $100 a month for their Kaiser coverage. They pay a small copay every time they go to the doctor and a small copay for their medications. So their insurance is not free, but still cheaper than getting it on your own. When my father died, my mom gets half of his retirement pay. And my mother was the President of the union for awhile while she was working at the Smyrna post office. I saw the good and the bad of unions. The good is that your job was better protected, the bad was that sometimes bad employees got to keep their jobs. And since the EEOC is not very useful for a majority of the country, sometimes I think that unions should be available to everybody.

The great depression was prolonged by those policies. Things didn't get better till we lowered taxes and cut spending. Lets not forget the 2nd depression, in the 20s, it only lasted six months because we allowed interest rates to rise and we focused on paying off debt.

People are always talking about regulation without mentioning specfics.As the owner of three companies our only problem is lack of demand not regulation.So when use use the term regulate...be specific please.Otherwise you are just mouthing platitudes and slogans.

What is it that you have such a lack of demand of?

@Sweeney
The internet,micro computers,and many other innovations have come out of government investment and research.Where have you been? Give me a specific regulation that has hurt private industry.I guess you would also call the GI Bill a waste and the interstate highway system a waste.Your Ayn Rand philosophy is great for college freshman but not the real world.

@Paul Wallace,
That easy ...business

Where do you dream up your information GEORGE? The government didn't invent the internet. Link please. Proof?

Easy business? Maybe your business is suffering because you're selling the same thing you are trying to sell here. That can be found in a cow pasture.

he said,
"The internet,micro computers,and many other innovations have come out of government investment and research."

not

"the government invented the internet"

I can't find a link for it, but I feel like that early investment generated a lot of growth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET

The government did have a roll in funding, however it was business' finding ways to integrate into society and create a public sector and public sector jobs) out of them. Without business doing so those applications would have been viewed as wasteful spending. Its definately a symbiotic relationship, but government clearly has a role to improve and then get the heck out of the way.

Paul, here's a good source for you. Many (if not most) of the tech used in the internet is the direct result of either government projects, government funding, or both.

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-mo-who-invented-internet-20120723,0,5052169.story

Gordon Crovitz (Wall Street Journal): Who Really Invented the Internet? Contrary to legend, it wasn't the federal government.

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444464304577539063008406518.html

It was not government alone that "invented" the internet and it was not private industry alone that "invented" the internet.

Yes, that's the article that Michael Hiltzik (and many others) have thoroughly refuted.

Some more reading about the Internet and where it came from:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/07/23/yes-government-researchers-really-did-invent-the-internet/

http://www.economicprincipals.com/issues/2012.08.06/1402.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/07/who_invented_the_internet_the_outrageous_conservative_claim_that_every_tech_innovation_came_from_private_enterprise_.html

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/wsj-mangles-history-to-argue-government-didnt-launch-the-internet/

http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/07/xerox-internet/

I'm tired of people rewriting history.

1. There are a number of valid claims to origins of the Internet.
2. Although an original date and place might be obtainable for the first networked transmission that could be called an Internet, the result would need by definition to include more than one party or network, and is unlikely to be a satisfactory or useful conclusion.
3. Not only US projects were involved in the beginnings of the Internet.
4. Not only government funded US research programs were involved in the beginnings of the Internet.
5. Not only telcos and the commercial sector were involved in the beginnings of the Internet.
6. Neither Arpanet nor TCP/IP is present in all valid theories.

http://www.nethistory.info/History%20of%20the%20Internet/origins.html

http://www.computerhope.com/issues/ch001016.htm

http://compnetworking.about.com/od/history_networking/f/internet_create.htm

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrymichalski/2012/07/26/not-who-invented-the-internet-how/

International networks predate the internet by decades. The company I currently work for, as one example, was formed as a telecommunications consortium by the airline industry in 1949. Airlines were passing data all over the place by the early 1960's.

What made the internet a special case was the fact that it was a "network of networks", not that it was a network in its own right. Networks were a dime a dozen.

FWIW, the assertions you put forward are not unreasonable.

The article you cited, however, is a classic case of someone (the author) misunderstanding the subject material, and it has been thoroughly torn apart by several of the people who were directly involved in the process.

I realize that is probably not your fault. :-)

Absolutely! Without the Private sector creating jobs - there is not as high of a need for Public sector!!! These people who are constantly wanting more government simply do not understand basic economics and what has made America great to begin with!

SO ... they weren't really lost then ... just misplaced for a finite period of time?

You guys, Nancy Pelosi and you, claim that unemployment and welfare boosts the economy. If your theory is correct, why isn't our economy booming? We sure as hell have a lot of people on both.

Unemployment and welfare benefits go directly back into the economy to purchase necessities so yes, they do have a direct stimulative effect. However, no one has claimed they create a booming economy. We would all rather have as few people drawing welfare and unemployment as possible. When the economy is depressed or in recession government's role should be to get as many people back to work as possible. Again, the only true job creator is demand. I would much rather see teachers in the classroom or construction workers building bridges than to see folks collecting on their unemployment insurance.

By the way. I'm honored to be mentioned with Pelosi but she's way out of my league. Nancy Pelosi is a national treasure.

The problem is we have not disposed of MORE public sector jobs. Public sector jobs cost money. Government = Waste. Government gives power to the large corporations. Government is too big, so big that accountability is unfathomable. Those public sector jobs are paid for by the private sector. The idea that public sector puts money into the economy is absurd. That same money was taken out of our economy in the first place to pay these people who are putting it back in. I'm not saying public sector jobs are not necessary, just that there are too many of them and not enough of us.

Yea Brian, that's really helped so far. Spend more money and see what happens.

A Brian
An explanation of the economic principal the "multiplyer effect" of spending dollars
might help some of these folks understand.

@Mike. During the Obama administration we have lost over 600,000 public sector jobs. This has greatly slowed the rate of recovery.

I was quoting the article. I believe the term seasonal was misapplied but I haven't looked at the source data.

Brian said "I was quoting the article. I believe the term seasonal was misapplied but I haven't looked at the source data."
Quoting an article that you believe has misapplied terms and to which you have not read the source data? Really? So, the article simply said what you wanted to hear and that was good enough for you to quote it? Wow. I'm impressed.
Public sector people can get away with that. Private sector people would be fired for it.

Speaking of cliche, that seems to be the conservative rebuttal for everything. You guys need to come up with a new line.

Ok, how about Horse-Hockey.

@Mike Horsman

"I have found that most people with extremely high IQs have difficulty tying their shoes, mowing their lawn and putting air in their car tires."

I'm glad you want have these problems!
.

@Sweeney,
Cliche? Let me give you a Republican cliche.It is "excessive government regulation".
Out of 215 posts nobody has accepted my challege for a specific in this area as I requested earlier.

Here you go George. Examples of excessive government regulation.
1. Needing a license to cut hair.
2. OSHA applies everywhere except congress. 41" rail bad, 42" rail good.
3. Getting a business license in DeKalb after relocating.
4. Regulating coal mines out of business.
5. Requiring permits for lemonade stands.
6. Refusing to allow UPS to put something in my mailbox.
7. IRS tax code in entirety.
8. Waivers for Obamacare. Especially for Congress.
9. Click it or ticket and motorcycle helmet laws. NOYFB.
10. Spending millions on widening and straightening Temple Johnson Road, then reducing the speed limit to 35 MPH.

@James
Most of the "excessive government regulation" in your mind are not national but local or state.How will the national Republican party help you on these?By the way wearing a helmut is a good idea.They prevent brain injuries in case of an accident.

@George

Yes, I'm obviously against both local and national excessive government regulation. My point was that just because no one listed any excessive government regulations for you, it doesn't mean they don't exist or that it is a cliche.

I hope the Republicans I elect will legislate fiscal responsibility at the local, state and national levels. While campaigning, everyone is a fiscal conservative, even Obama. He called Bush unpatriotic for a four trillion deficit over eight years and said he would halve the deficit in his first term. Still working on that one is he?

While wearing helmets may be a good idea, I don't believe it is the job of the government to legislate their use. It would certainly save lives to require all cars and trucks to have a maximum speed of 10 MPH and require all occupants to wear 5 point seat belts, helmets and fire resistant coveralls. Fall protection harnesses in the shower would also save lives. Do you believe the government should mandate all these safety ideas or do you believe in freedom?

James...it may not be the government's job to require you to wear a helmet when you ride...But in the same respect, it shouldn't be the government's job to scrape your brains off of the road, provide medicaid hospital care to you while you're a vegetable or recovering, and pay Social Security dependent benefits to your survivors or you as a slobbering handicapped drain on society.

That is why Romney is your best bet. When he was Gov. of MA the unemployment rate was 4%. Lets see what is the unemployment rate in the US now under Obama?

It actually hit 4.7% his last month in office which mirrored the rate of the national economy. MA ranked 47th in job creation during his tenure as governor. Not a very good track record. http://www.politifact.com/virginia/article/2012/jun/14/ad-watch-claims-about-romneys-job-creation-record-/

I have found that most people with extremely high IQs have difficulty tying their shoes, mowing their lawn and putting air in their car tires.

Given that obama and the dems just lifted the work requirments for welfare, gave thousands of illegals the right to welfare and have made it so that anyone can get welfare and food stamps id say that the dems in fact do want everyone on the dole. that is how they buy votes. if they keep the uninformed voting for them the dems dont care what they are actually doing to them.

Here you go Candice: http://factcheck.org/2012/08/does-obamas-plan-gut-welfare-reform/ From the article: Talking about the Romney misleading (lying) "welfare" ad: “I think — and now remember I’m a Republican — that the ad is very misleading,” Haskins said. Ron Haskins was the Republican staff director of the Subcommittee on Human Resources for the House Ways and Means Committee from 1995 to 2000. Now at the Brookings Institution, Haskins’ biography states that he was “instrumental in the 1996 overhaul of national welfare policy.”
And, "However, Haskins also said that the new waiver policy does not “gut welfare reform.” He cites two reasons: The federal government will continue to hold states accountable for moving people off welfare and into jobs, and the states have a tremendous financial incentive to use the new waiver authority to improve employment outcomes. “The idea that the states will use this to bring people back on the welfare rolls … doesn’t make sense to me,” Haskins said. “The states are all about work. All they talk about is work. They agree with welfare reform and they want to figure out how to get everybody they can into the labor force — because it is to their advantage.”

And Candice, that stuff you said about dems buying votes - why bother with a few votes when you can buy the Presidency, courtesy of the Citizens United ruling? You know, what the SCOTUS decided about undisclosed, unlimited election contributions to US candidates from even foreign entities or govts., billionaires like the Koch Bros, Sheldon Adelson and a number of others. Adelson is the LV casino guy under investigation for money laundering and violation of US bribery laws involving the Macau casino off the coast of China: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/sheldon-adelson_n_1676571.html. Oh, yeah, and that's who Paul Ryan went to see this week on a fund raising trip. Huh, imagine that! Isn't gambling against Christian values, which the Republican party is supposed to be all about?

@Candice. The Obama administration has not lifted work requirements for welfare. That is another Romney lie, probably his most egregious yet.

Speaking of lying, Paul Ryan denied that he asked for stimulus money for his state, after he publicly denounced it, saying that it wouldn't help the economy. Now he says he forgot about the letter he wrote asking for money. Says he only signed letter as a constituent service. Lying and blaming it on his staff. He's a fast learner under his new boss. :D

About Adelson, first backed the Newtster (what an embarrassment to GA, but at least he's not a native) then had to hold his nose and get behind Romney (sorry, bad image). Spending 100s of millions to get a Republican White House no matter which candidate lands on the ballot. Hmmm . . . wonder why a Republican Justice Department would benefit him?.

Gas prices peaked at $4.15 a gallon in July 2008. The economy was beginning to slide and by October 2008 it was in free fall. Today corporate profits are at an all time high and the stock market has fully recovered after losing over 40% of it's value in 2008. If you're not better off today than you were four years ago that only serves as proof that trickle down economic theory is a sham and a fraud. The folks at the top are much better off.

You do know that corporate profits listed on the stock market are for the true global profits and not just for domestic profits. Tupperware is an example. It is an American corporation that has the majority of its sales and manufacturing outside of the US. Plus, a mojority of those profits don't return to the US due to the high taxes here.

In short, the US stock markets are a place where US inverstors buy stock in international corporations. Most International corporations see growth outside of the US and, in turn, invest outside of the US.

Christina,
No. And, I'm worse off than I was in 2000. The only logical answer is a flat tax with no write-offs. Romney won't make anything better, and I don't think POTUS knows what to do. We're stuck in an eddy and I don't see things getting better either way. Romney is a lying sack of bull squeeze, and the current POTUS is confused. Take your pick.

Bloomberg ran a 'must see' chart this week: Shows how austerity measures, currently under way will reduce US deficit as a percent of GDP under Obama or Ryan plans. The cuts that will be occurring over the next few years, either way, will dig deep into the economy.

Public sector employees will be shifted to limited private sector jobs, increasing unemployment. The question really is "Do you see Romney/Ryan policies better able to increase economic growth, in four years," to offset this shift?

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/single-best-chart-obama-s-or-ryan-s-austerity-Uz8ktRknRMSSZBCY7lAFxg.html

The Obama energy policy.
"In 2008 gasoline prices had a yearly average of $3.24.. In 2008, gas prices slid from October to December 2008 to less than $2 a gallon nationally.
The national average will be between $3.86 to $4.13 per gallon, prices in 2012 will come close to or set new all-time highs.
The real annual average for a gallon of regular gas last year hit $3.56, up from $2.90 in 2010, according to the EIA."

“Electric bills have skyrocketed in the last five years, a sharp reversal from a quarter-century when Americans enjoyed stable power bills even as they used more electricity. Households paid a record $1,419 on average for electricity in 2010, the fifth consecutive yearly increase above the inflation rate, a USA TODAY analysis of government data found. The jump has added about $300 a year to what households pay for electricity. That’s the largest sustained increase since a run-up in electricity prices during the 1970s.”

If only someone had warned us that under Obama’s policies, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket… wait, someone did!

Barack Obama warned us under his plans, “electricity rates will necessary skyrocket…. Coal-powered plants, natural gas plants, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations, that will cost money, that they will pass that money on to consumers.

Wait just one second Truthseeker...You honestly believe that President Obama alone has any bearing on Oil Prices? You do understand they're traded on an open market right? I mean some people are so gullible....

Instead of putting people back to work and while their balance sheet is flush with cash, Corporate America is busy repurchasing their own stock. Is great for the investor class...of which I am a part of...but does not help those struggling to meet ends meet.

We said plenty, unfortunately W wasnt listening very well...how do you do a war not on the budget? Did he have a stash of cash under his mattress to pay for all the equipment and the soldiers salaries (meager though they may be)?
Bush spent too much. It was wrong. Obama is spending even more. That makes it that much more wrong.

Ok, the factcheck.org article you sent me says "Spending under Obama remains at a level that is quite high by historical standards. Measured as a percentage of the nation’s economic production, it reached the highest level since World War II in fiscal 2009, and has declined only slightly since."
I already knew that, what is your point?

That's a great article. So, not only did the Republicans spend us into trouble and obstruct Obama from rectifying the situation, now they're blaming HIM for the problem and claiming that THEY have the solution. What hypocrisy! Romney's cynical choice of Ryan was merely an attempt to attract more donors so that he can buy the presidency, and if the people on this board vote for them because of the Republican propaganda and misinformation, Romney/Ryan will take us right back to the ideology that got us into trouble in the first place.

"Again the debt people didnt say a word"

Who are the debt people?

Reagan proved deficits don't matter.

The article states " It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget".

WHAT BUDGET? When there's no budget, there's no metric. 9 Trillion-16 Trillion / 4 years.

Bush's biggest one year deficit was $450 billion...Obama has averaged three times that much each and every year.
The debt increased just shy of $4 trillion during 8 years of Bush. It has increased over $5 trillion in less than 4 years of Obama.

Its factual and I didnt go to Fox or Breitbart to find it. But its unsurprising that somebody who uses the term teabagger would try to blame it on Fox instead of finding out for himself. You just got done telling Paul it was simple math. Apparently its too difficult for you though.

Jimmy, show me your facts. I want to see them. Give me something that your opinion and we can talk. Otherwise you're just spewing the company line..

You got a computer. Go google US debt and read some of the hits. Then come back here and tell us what you found. I did my research already, you do yours.

That's funny Jimmy, I believe everything I read on google too! I'm actually the only one here who has brought facts and knowledge, you have brought opinion and falsehoods. You have no facts, just republican and tea bagger talking points.

You still have not provided any 'facts' to dispute my numbers. I dont care if you like google or not, use the search engine of your choice. Are you not smart enough to look up info on your own?
You seem to have an unusual fixation on the term 'teabagger'. Are you trying to tell us something? Is there something you want to let out of the closet?

Since you're not smart enough to scroll up, here is the link again for you.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?pagenumber=1

Just for your information, just because I refer to you as a teabagger, doens't mean I'm gay. Not that they'res anything wrong with that, but I'm happily married with a child. Thanks

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?pagenumber=1

Since you're not smart enough to scroll up...

I had read your link. The article doesnt say anything that disputes the increase in debt that I cited.

If we attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush, we find that spending under Obama grew by about $200 billion over four years, amounting to a 1.4% annualized increase.

After adjusting for inflation, spending under Obama is falling at a 1.4% annual pace — the first decline in real spending since the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon was retreating from the quagmire in Vietnam.

So what is all this spending you are talking about JIMMY?!?!

It seems kinda ridiculous to be celebrating a 1.4% decrease in spending (adjusted for a 2.2% inflation rate) when running a $1.3 Trillion deficit on a $3.7 Trillion budget...compounded by the fact that our debt is now equal to our GDP. That is a danger zone.

Oh this is too funny. God ever read an actual news paper, not a pundit.

Not to be offensive, but why aren't you trying to improve your skills to get better than a minimum wage job? Then you wouldn't be fighting with the supposed illegal immigrants for an awful job. You do realize that over 99% percent of companies are checking for immigration status, unless you work on a farm right?

Bstein so you are telling PAm who cant find decent work. To take on a big chunk of debt that may or not help her? Yep thats the answer.

B Stein, I was making $23 an hour in my last job. I have a lot of skills, but can't find a job to use those skills. That is why I have resorted to looking for any kind of job. When you have no money coming in, anything would be helpful. I've already lost my house and defaulted on all my credit cards, so I don't need the $23/hr any more. But the stores and restaurants won't hire me because I have no retail or restaurant experience. I have been told that by, believe it or not, Waffle House and Dollar General. So maybe you can have a little compassion and realize that some of us are hurting and don't need anything else to hinder our ability to try and rebuild the American Dream.

Didn't work the first time? If you're referring to the stimulus, check this out--

"In a survey conducted by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, 80 percent of economic experts agreed that, because of the stimulus, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been otherwise...CBO’s own analysis found that the package added as many as 3.3 million jobs to the economy during the second quarter of 2010, and may have prevented the nation from lapsing back into recession."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/congressional-budget-office-defends-stimulus/2012/06/06/gJQAnFnjJV_story.html

It accomplished nothing from 1791 to 2009.

Student Loan debt is nothing to be ashamed of. Must be nice to be born with money like you Republicans.

BS you can stop linking to left wing "journolist" group articles. They were outed a long time ago. Maybe you didn't get that message. What a tool.

Please remember, this country is a republic, and not a democracy

I agree that the US is a republic but the dictionary says we and Canada are democracies. Why is that?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy?s=t

Finally, somebody that understands. Thank you.

Absolutely true. I've been there. Sometimes the success or failure of a job hunt comes down to sheer numbers. It has nothing to do with you, and everything to do with the flood of resumes that companies receive for even the least paying or least interesting positions.

If a thousand people apply for one position, the chances that one of those people is seen as being "better qualified" than you is rather high, and many companies will stop wading through the resume pile after they've found a number of suitable candidates. From there perspective, there's no reason to go further if they already have some good people to select from. And that means you're screwed.

Republicans voted the spending congress out. Republicans didn't pretend that it was okay.

Paul...Republicans were either hypocrites then or now. Your beloved Veep Chaney proclaimed when speaking to Treasury Secretary O'Neill "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter".

Bingo well said!

Didn't dems take the house and senate? Republicans spoke at the poles just like the Republicans spoke in 2010.

Paul, voters "spoke" at the polls in 2010 because all those Republicans running for their dream (elected) jobs promised . . . you know, JOBS, JOBS, JOBS! So, where are the JOBS, JOBS, JOBS? You guys said you could get it done. What happened? Ain't so easy is it? Not that they tried because they did not want the economy to improve. If it did, for sure they would lose in 2012. Republican Congressional leaders have boasted that their #1 PRIORITY is to make President Obama a one-termer. Party and power over country! Shameful b#st*@ds!

Wow!! A Democrat referring to someone as a shameful bastard. That's the pot calling the kettle black.

Careful David. You know that the use of the word black in any context, even to describe a car or a dog, by a non-liberal will automatically get you accused of being a racist.

@David - When Congressional Republican leaders, including VP candidate Paul Ryan, met the night of this President's inauguration to plot and plan their strategy for making him a one-term president before he has begun the job he was lawfully and duly elected to perform, that is the very definition of the words shameful and b#st*@ds, moreso when those words are put together. Notice I was careful not to use the actual spelling in deference to any tender eyes that may be reading here ;) @Observer, you don't have to be a liberal or a Democrat to recognize racism. You want to throw that word in there, too, go ahead because it overwhelmingly fits. Ask yourselves, honestly now - privately if you must, if the same man were white, named John Smith, and born in the lower 48 of 2 white protestant parents, would the treatment of him, the disrespect shown him from members of Congress on national TV and in blog comments such as these, be less hate-filled, more given to credit the President for what he has done to benefit this country and bring it back from the brink, for his historic achievements? I know the answer to that, and so do you. Your party has not served you or the USA well at all.

Hey George get the tin foil hat off. It has obviously affected your ability to have a rational thought or conversation. Is it possible for you to even walk with that boulder on your shoulder? Don't bother yourself with the fact that Democrats were the party of racism. The Democratic party has done more harm to the black community than any Republican.

Thanks for embarrassing your side of the argument with well thought out points.

@Truthseeker, the old Democratic Party was racist - you know, pre-1964 Civil Rights Act. Then the Dixiecrats left and joined you guys. They were the foundation for the new Republican Party in the South. Ever hear of the "Southern Strategy", developed by the Nixon team? The seeds of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 began with President John F. Kennedy, a Democrat, then enacted in 1965 under Lyndon Johnson, also a Democratic president. The pre-1960s Democrats became the current day Republicans, and vice versa in the racism category. Republicans get that handle now :D BTW, I'm a white female, born and bred in the great state of Georgia.

Since the article is about the unemployment rate and everybody has gone off on a tangent about the debt and other useless things, ain't nobody winning.

Pam, it is not realistic to think commenters are going to stay on topic. Everybody has an opinion, then explanation for their views, which leads to another topic and so on. It's a natural consequence of these threads. Sure would be dull otherwise. I guess some want only to read about their personal interests. Besides which, pretty much all this stuff is connected.

S Bailey- I am with you. These people are only serving the real beast. They think fellow Americans are the problem. They are having a great deal of fun playing to the whims of the real problem, our government, politicians. They revel in it. They are getting a wonderful cheap thrill from trying to prove which side is smartest, while our government grows like a malignant tumor. 80% of us agree on many things. The 10% on each far end are destroying the brotherhood/sisterhood that all of us should have for each other. Why? Vanity, that's all.
America is in trouble people. We are all on the same team. The government is now too complex to enforce accountability. Facts are too easily twisted to the whim of the writer or interpreter, much like the bible.
Our eye is not on the ball. We are easily turned against one another. C'mon people, for the sake of those who have sacrificed their lives for our kind of freedom, grow up, band together, stop dividing. Hold the beast accountable. Please.

Reminds me of the saying, "Democrats fall in love. Republicans fall in line." Mike claims to know what we all think :D But, he doesn't acknowledge that Republicans built the mess we're in and grew government. They want to make the mess bigger and deeper by picking up where W left off. Not to mention they are the dividers. Thank you John McCain for choosing Palin, who made political polarization cool.

You're trying but failing to sound cerebral. Everybody I know bathes everyday. How about you, because your words stink. We all have roots that go back to Africa.

Untermenshen? The Kenyan? Give me a break. I would suggest you might be more comfortable beneath that rock crawled out from under than in a civilized discussion.

The Kenyan's tactics resemble Huey Long's "share our wealth" platform--classic demagoguery.

If I had Romney's money I wouldn't do anything shameful with it, and I would share more of it to help those less fortunate. Why not contribute more of his millions to help humanity to offset some of the taxes he owes? That's not an argument. It's reason. Government waste is real, but most tax money is not wasted.

He doesn't owe any taxes. He's all paid up. If not, he would be in jail. Right?

Maybe, maybe not. Guys like Romney don't go to jail for tax evasion.

Well Tim Geithner and Charlie Wrangle didn't go to jail and we know for a fact that they are both tax cheats.

Geithner and Wrangle aren't running for the highest office in the land. And, they got found out. Will Mitt get found out?

Answer.... LOWER CORPORATE TAXES. Then and only then will companies keep their money here.

I'm sorry but that is yet another Republican fantasy. The number one controllable expense for any business is the cost of labor. We lose jobs overseas primarily for one reason; the American worker isn't willing to work in sweatshop conditions for slave wages. They also like things like health insurance and retirement plans.

Couple that with unfavorable trade agreements and a tax code that incentivizes outsourcing and soon there will be no American manufacturing jobs left. Besides the wealthy elite, Romney and his friends, think outsourcing is a good thing. They want to ship as many jobs overseas as absolutely possible.

I'm sorry but that is yet another Democrat fantasy.
"Romney and his friends, think outsourcing is a good thing"

Jeff, you really should pay closer attention. This has been going on for a long time. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A30194-2004Feb10

If you want the real story on how Romney and his pals feel about peasants like us read "Unintended Consequences: Why Everything You’ve Been Told About the Economy Is Wrong" by Romney's friend and former Bain Partner Ed Conrad. Ed has no problem telling the world how lucky we are to have the likes of him and Mitt and how we owe everything to the rich. It also includes a wonderful defense of off-shoring jobs.

Besides, anytime John Kerry is quoted in an article, the facts become distorted by default. Oh... he served in Vietnam. Don't want to leave that out.

Everyone? You say "Everyone must pay their share". I agree. So then we agree that the 47% not paying federal tax now, should start paying so to make it fair?

@bulldogger
Check out the word gerrymandering that will explain why people like Brian Crawford do not run for office.It may also explain to to you why our government is so divided .Check out the "Citizens United"court decision and that will explian how you lost your democracy not to socialist but to large multi-national corporations.

Government and the American public are being divided by a president who hates success and constantly preaches class warfare. Of course it is absorbed and propagated by those of you who are too lazy to make money for yourselves and are jealous. Shame shame shame.

What office are you running for? BSer in Chief? And, don't you know, no matter who wins in November b/c all that Republican-fabricated "uncertainty" will surely be gone, the corporations and "job creators" have learned they can employ fewer for longer, get more out of them, pay no benefits, pay less money, and pay their execs more? If R & R get in, they'll get to keep payroll down (no job growth) and profits will grow.

Jeff Banks, the President doesn't hate success - another lying Republican talking point. He is successful. Success isn't just about money, either. Mr. Obama grew up in a lower income household. His success is his own. (Is Mitt's? You know he started Bain with money from South American death squad families living in Miami. Oh, my, wait til that fit hits the shan!) He wants more Americans to become successful. Class warfare is coming from the top down. Who's lazy and jealous? That's a shameful charge and a generality.

BS Georgia Democrap - Obozo grew up in a wealthy family with private schools. Obozo has done absolutely nothing of any consequence in his life but carry a clipboard and make coffee in South Chicago. I swear Democraps are actually Dumbocraps.

Jeff, your conclusions are wrong.

The 2-10% are being screwed. We pay more total taxes and a higher tax rate than the 1%. Why? Because we work for a living, we start SBs, we pay the AMT. Good stuff. When you reminisce abouth how awesome W was, just look at the taxes he cut vs the ones he left in place.

Hey, Evelyn, Mr. Obama spent much of his childhood with his grandparents in an apartment. Doesn't sound like the lap of luxury to me. His grandmother died of cancer without health insurance. He wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth or in a town built by his great grandfather. I know that much. Private schools define wealth? I know families with children in private schools who went into foreclosure to pay the tuition. Mr. Obama has done vastly more than carry a clipboard and serve coffee. He's the POTUS now and before that a law professor, and oh yes, can't forget "community organizer" . . . helping underprivileged have a voice, a vote and other lacking services. What are you? President of anything? HOA? Sunday School class? Anything? You disrespect the office of the presidency. Therefore, you're not worth future response.

Hey Georgia Dumbocrap - Obozo is a miscreant and misfit. He is one of the dumbest people ever to be in politics. I think Biden is brighter than Obozo. Obozo the Libtard can't even talk without someone streaming the words on a teleprompter, otherwise he is nothing more than oop, aaaack, splort, douffous, moron himself.

Bill, you appear to be in over your head here. Calling people names and inventing new Obama slurs isn't adding much to the discussion.

I agree. Please try to keep it civil. You're not helping me prove how wrong the left is. : )
You can argue without breaking out the schoolyard name calling.

Why should they spend it George? If it's theirs, they Earned it and Saved it, then they should do with it as they please. RIGHT?

The debt will than take care of itself.

Now George, that's just plain stupid......does your debt take care of it's self? WOW

Exactly. The debt seems to be growing rapidly. Maybe that's what George means by taking care of itself. How frickin ridiculous!!!

The Democrats lost the house in 2010 because they were not bold enough in spending,We should have spent twice the amount on the stimulas,every liberal economist was telling us that at the time.(see Paul Krugman).The Democrats did however prevent us from going into a great depression,but the consequence of following conservatives was high unemployment and anemic growth.We can still change this by voting the Obama ticket back in with a majority in both houses.

Okay George. : ) Spending Is The Answer Everyone! Why not? It has worked so well in Europe.

Okay. So why should they spend it George?

@jeff Banks
Actually the Europeans, especially the British under the new conservative government, decided to follow a budget restraint policy and cut spending.As a result Britain is falling back into a recession.

You are correct sir. Those that don't get it are too busy hating success to realize the facts. Thanks to Obama for training them well. They're like little puppets.

@North Georgia Weather
As the owner of three corporations ,my corporations have never paid any tax.Why?The tax law allows me to not pay any if I show a loss.Ido this by increasing my salary.One year I made an accounting error and had to pay some corporate tax but thanks to the tax code the next year was allowed to get it back with what the code calls a"look back".I not only understand economics but the tax code as well.I read a report the other day that many of the top corporations paid their executives more than they paid in taxes.So the corporate tax rates are not important,its the manipulation of the tax code thats important.

Actually, if they pass too much on to the consumer they won't have as much business. Competition comes into play to soften prices. Isn't that how the free market system works? Now, if they pay more in taxes, probably will have to cut back on top-end salaries and bonuses so they can keep enough lowly workers who contribute to their success. Your 50% figure is not realistic and you know that. Try something a little less inflammatory. Even Papa John is only going up 11 cents a pizza to cover his costs under ACA, so he says.

@George, I agree. If there is a problem in the system, it lies with the government and its convoluted tax laws. Until the entire system is overhauled, there will always be loopholes that help reduce your tax obligation. And the way the laws are now, there is absolutely nothing wrong with what you are doing in my opinion. It's their rules and you're just playing by them. And if you didn't, your competitor would and he would have an advantage over you. I completely understand.

Sure. I understand too. So why is it wrong for Romney?

"Democratic majority in both houses" GOD FORBID!!!
The debt will never be paid the way we are borrowing and spending. You guys live in a fantasy world. Pinch yourself. Wake up!

I agree. Clinton was far better than Obama. Then of course we had 911 and congress voted for those wars. You know like John Kerry and Hilary Clinton. I think most of us hate that we went to Iraq but where would Iraq be today if we had not? Obama would be flying drones over there KILLING the enemy.

Exactly, George!

Jeff, Clinton didn't have to clean up after little George, just Daddy Bush, who only had that little ol' short-lived war. John Kerry, Hilary Clinton, Congress, the American people (and maybe even Dubya himself) were lied to by Cheney-Rumsfeld "intelligence reports". If we had not invaded, today Iraq wouldn't be a war-torn, destroyed country, at least not by American might, having to be rebuilt by your tax dollars. How are drones more inhumane than putting our troops on the ground, having them and civilians killed? How many of our people have been killed in Afghanistan the past 2 weeks? 17, 19? Too many! Had we taken care of the fight and foe there instead of sidetracking to Iraq, we could have had success there, sooner. Many of our own would be alive today. The drones are pretty accurate with the right intelligence. Your loathing is misplaced.

It's not loathing there GD. I'm just comparing apples. I agree. I would rather have drones do the work. Just making a point. I don't agree that Iraq would be destroyed. I think Saddam would be stronger and the UN would still be doing nothing but making useless threats.

Jeff, Iraq HAS been destroyed by American invasion. If we had stayed in Afghanistan, maybe somebody else would have done that, but wouldn't be on our hands and the rebuilding at our expense. Saddam may have fallen anyway in the Arab Spring uprisings. He was a monster and his own people probably would have taken him down, or maybe by covert operation. Please don't call me GD. You can ask Horsman why if it's not obvious. GA Dem, GA D or something like that are fine if you can't bring yourself to write the word Democrat ;) Thanks! And, I appreciate the interaction here. Civility is best in these threads.

My apologies. Feel free to call me JB.

Thanks, Jeff. I didn't think you meant anything by the initials. Some of the others on here had their fun with it for a while but, to their credit, haven't lately. Or, maybe they're just not talking to me any more :(

Jeff is funny its all democrats fault and he doesnt know Clinton and Kerry were senators not congressmen. Learn basic gov before commenting on it.

Put the thesaurus down, Ted.

Just say he is black and thats why I dont like him. I would respect you more than hiding behind terms that have nothing to do with him and you really dont understand. Obama actually leans to the right of Nixon. If you look at what he has done not the color of his skin.

Race card denied.

OMGoodness! Reagan was the godfather of this horrible trickledown s#*t! Cain train? That is hilarious! You were for the rhymer and thought he was a good family man? He was a (white) womanizer. His poor wife! He visited humiliation on her in the most public way. The liberal media didn't derail him, he did that with his own reputation. 9-9-9 plan? Ridiculously simple-minded tax plan that would have been so lopsided and put this country deeper in debt. You're right about one thing though, we're probably missing out on a lot of good, talented people because of the 24/7 Fox-type vilification anyone they don't agree with is subject to. And the money? Got to have or get some big $$$ to campaign. Campaign reform is needed right after tax reform.

@Tammy Osier
If trickledown takes about ten years than the Bush tax cuts for the rich should be hitting about now.happy days are here again.

if you look at real numbers not imaginary pundit math. Tickle down doesnt work middle class wages have been flat since Reagan and you only feel like you are doing better because of cheap plentiful credit.

Reagan is the one who fixed Carters mess. After Carter unemployment soared up to 10.4%.

Obama is in the process of replacing Jimmy Carter as the worst president in history.

Pretty ironic that the liberals blame Bush for this economic mess but fail to credit Jimmy Carter with leaving a mess for Reagan.

Andrew...The economy wasn't strong and interest rates were high when Reagan came to power. FWIW, the economy wasn't in great shape when Carter came to power. However, in the 4 budget years of the Carter administration, national debt increased by $299 billion (42.8%), but under Reagan's 1st 4 years, national debt increased by $825 billion (82.7%). Over Reagan's next 4 years, the debt increased another $1 tillion (56.7%). One key reason that the economy improved under Reagan is that he did deficit spending to stimulate the economy.

So if a Republican dramatically increases the deficit, that's OK. But if a Democrat does the same, he's a socialist.

Look at chart 7.1 for the real figures of our debt Frank. Files are in Excel as Obama changed them from Docs 2 years ago. If need be you can get an Excel reader from Microsoft for free,

Source: Whitehouse

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals see table 7.1

Andrew...Don't know exactly why you pointed me to the Whitehouse website as I pulled my data from another U.S. Govt. site. But hey, thanks for the link. My only question to you is whether you've actually looked at the Whitehouse site and table you referred me to. Why? Because that table is even more flattering of the Democrats than the numbers I used. For instance...

Carter - $288 Billion increase in debt (40.8%) and debt was 32.5% of GDP.
Reagan (1st term) - $822.6 Billion increase in debt (82.7%) and debt was 43.8% of GDP.
Reagan (2nd term) - $1.05 Trillion increase in debt (57.8%) and debt was 53.1% of GDP.
Bush 1 - $1.5 Trillion increase in debt (51.7%) and debt was 66.1% of GDP
Clinton (1st term) - $1.0 Trillion increase in debt (23.4%) and debt was 65.4% of GDP --A DECREASE
Clinton (2nd term) - $401 Billion increase in debt (7.5%) and debt was 56.4% of GDP - A DECREASE
Bush 2 (1st term) - $2.1 Trillion increase in debt (37%) and debt was 63.6% of GDP - AN INCREASE
Bush 2 (2nd term) - $3.9 Trillion increase in debt (50.2%) and debt was 85.2% of GDP - A HUGE INCREASE AND HIS POLICIES WRECKED THE ECONOMY.

Facts are Facts. For all of the propaganda of Republicans are good for the economy and their financially conservative rhetoric, the economy and debt have been better under Democrats.

7.1 is called "Federal Debt at the End of the Year" and looking at the "Gross Federal Debt" slot tells the story.

At the end of 1976 the gross federal debt was $628,970,000,000. Jimmy Carter was president starting 1/20/77. By the end of the year in 1980: $909,041,000,000. During his 1st and only term he increased the gross federal debt by $280,071,000,000.

End of 1980 we start with $909,041,000,000 in federal debt and end with $1,564,586,000,000 at the end of 1984. Reagan was president and serving his first term at that time. Gross federal debt climbed by $ 655,545,000,000 during his first term.

Gross federal debt at end of 1984 : $1,564,586,000,000 to end of 1988: $2,601,104,000,000. Reagan's second term had the gross federal debt increase by $1,036,518,000.

End of 1988: $2,601,104,000,000 to end of 1992: $4,001,787,000,000. GWH Bush 1st and only term seen an increase in gross federal debt by $1,400,683,000,000

End of 1992: $4,001,787,000,000 to end of 1996: $5,181,465,000,000. Clinton's 1st term seen an increase in gross federal debt by $ 1,179,678,000,000

End of 1996: $5,181,465,000,000 to end of 2000: $5,628,700,000,000. Clinton's second term seen an increase in gross federal debt by $ 447,235,000,000

End of 2000: $5,628,700,000,000 to end of 2004: $7,354,657,000,000. GW Bush 1st term seen an increase in gross federal debt by $2,173,192,000

End of 2004: $7,354,657,000,000 to end of 2008: $9,986,082,000,000. GW Bush second term seen an increase in gross federal debt by $2,631,425,000

End of 2008: $9,986,082,000,000 to end of 2011 ONLY A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS $14,764,222,000,000. In 3 years Obama has increased gross federal debt by $4,778,140,000,000!!!!! The projected end of year figure for 2012 (from the Whitehouse) is $ 16,350,885,000,000. That means in his 1st term Obama has been responsible for increasing the gross federal debt by $6,364,803,000,000 IN HIS FIRST TERM!!

Andrew...You're still missing a key point of a financial discussion! A president is elected one year, takes office the following calendar year, and gains budgetary responsibilty for the next fiscal year. It works like this:

Carter, elected in 1976, took office in 1977, 1st budget year 1977/1978, last budget year was 1980/1981.

Reagan, elected in 1980, took office in 1981, 1st budget year 1981/1982, last budget year was 1984/1985 (1st term).

Reagan, re-elected in 1984, last budget year was 1988/1989

It continues with Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, and now Obama. As such, you shouldn't be looking at the deficit at the end of the year in which a President was elected but instead the decifit at the beginning of his budgetary responsibility.

Unfortunately, it isn't flattering for the Republicans and you're attempting to shift Bush's bailouts onto Obama.

In respect to Carter, Reagan, Bush 1 and Clinton, even your incorrect numbers cast Carter and Clinton in better light than Reagan & Bush 1. I also noticed you did not include the National Debt vs GDP figures. These numbers are also much more favorable to Carter/Clinton than Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2.

I stand by my interpretations of the numbers.

Using your figures Obama increased the federal debt $4,475,034,000,000 in a period of three years

The previous administration, or President, proposes a budget. The previous Congress approves a budget. And what Congress approves can be radically different from what the President proposes.

For fiscal year 2009, President Bush in February, 2008 proposed a budget with just a 3% spending increase over the prior year. Fiscal year 2009 ran from October 1, 2008 until September 30, 2009.

Recall, however, that in 2008 Congress was controlled by Democrat majorities, with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, and the restless Senator Obama already running for President, just four years removed from his glorious career as a state Senator in the Illinois legislature. As Hans Bader reported on May 26 for the Washington Examiner, the budget approved and implemented by Pelosi, Obama and the rest of the Congressional Democrat majorities provided for a 17.9 percent increase in spending for fiscal 2009!

Actually, President Obama and the Democrats were even more deeply involved in the fiscal 2009 spending explosion than that. As Bader also reports, “The Democrat Congress [in 2008], confident Obama was going to win in 2008, passed only three of fiscal 2009’s 12 appropriations bills (Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security). The Democrat Congress passed the rest of them [in 2009], and [President] Obama signed them.” So Obama played a very direct role in the runaway fiscal 2009 spending explosion.

Tammy, you seem too young to have had a son in Iraq (appreciate his service). You are so naive! And, yes, my dear I have every right to and can speak to Iraq! Your son going there makes you an authority? I suspect your son, like a good soldier and good son, spared you the horrific details of his war experience. My dad was in the South Pacific in WWII and he wouldn't talk about it to his 4 sons; my brother took 2 tours in VN and he would only say war is hell and in the jungle multiple hell. You base the Iraqi civilian love for America and its military on one woman and some friends he made. I'm sure she cozied up to the Americans, may have saved her life, or maybe she wanted some American $$$. That's hardly a strong testimony. More like a limited experience. You and he were lucky - he came back, and I hope with all limbs, no severe brain injury or debilitating depression. And, hopefully, a job. Tearing up a country was not justification for getting Saddam. And, that was not Bush's motivation. Other Arab people have brought down their monsters, Iraqis could have and probably would have, too. You can't pretty up war. And you're an authority on Iran, too? Maybe R-R can send you over there to negotiate their nuclear disarmament. Doing better than us? Uh, no. Lol, honey, too funny.

if they love us so much why are they still shooting at us? Also we didnt go to iraq for the iraqi people we went there on a lie. That cost a ton of money and accomplished nothing.

You can't be the voice the of reason while claiming to buy lottery tickets.

Pam, I am truly sorry you are unemployed, that has to be tough; however, if you haven't used them up, you're probably drawing unemployment and there are tons of welfare programs out there to help you along, paid for by the 50% of Americans who are paying taxes and China.....and you're welcome. My best advice to you would be for you to make an intelligent decision on November 6, 2012......

Good grief, jumping on somebody because they buy a dollar's worth of lottery tickets every now and then. You must be a joy to live with. My unemployment ran out in March. My savings ran out a long time before that. No, I did not buy lottery tickets with my unemployment. I moved in with my mother after my father passed away in March, so my circumstances have changed a lot, but I still need a job. And believe me, I have tried everything. On the other story's comment page (about the illegal aliens getting papers to stay), I've explained everything I've tried.

I wish you luck in your job search. I dont think any president is going to help unemployment unless they pushed for huge tariffs on imports so its not so cheap to build overseas. No one will do that because you need a billion dollars to run for president. In reality the show is put on but they are all center leaning right. You will never see a teddy or a fdr again who was bold,progressive and the only thing they cared about was the people.

Well God forbid she's struck by lightening first. I save every dime I can. I sure wouldn't waste change on lottery tickets while I'm looking for a job. Looking in the trash cans on the other hand, I can't say it's a bad idea. Especially if you've won from it. I might start dumpster diving myself.

Thank you, Traci. I have been saying that I did have a better chance of winning the lottery than finding a job. And Jeff, good for you for saving every dime you can. Are you enjoying your life or just putting your money away so you can enjoy it when you retire? My uncle did that, retired at 60, died three days after he retired. And I really have won some money on the tickets I find. I go to Goodwill with some of that money to find "treasures" to sell on ebay.

Pam, you definitely should vote democrat.

Being a lifelong Democrat, it's still hard to hear people bashing a Democrat. I was with Obama until the bonehead move with the illegal aliens. I'm still not comfortable with Romney. I'm kind of halfway between liberal and conservative. Too bad we don't have a happy medium.

Yeah Tammy and Pam, let's get Romney in the WH so he can pick more neo-conservative judges and maybe we can get another Citizen's United-type ruling, and do away with all advances made for women in the last 50 years. Attention Right-Wing Talking Points USA: Obama is barely center left, and certainly not far left like Romney is trying to be far-right to get elected. If, God forbid, he gets elected, "You people!" are going to be sorely disappointed as he will try to move more to the center. Remember, Mr. Etch-a-Sketch was supposed to do that after the primary season? The Tea Party's actions have halted all reasonable work in Congress. Romney's no "new kid on the republican block", silly. He has been running for president for 8-10 years!! And, it's his turn! hehehe! ABO? That is a stupid way to waste your vote!

Only an idiotic buffoon can claim "Obama is barely center left, and certainly not far left like Romney " . Didn't your mom teach you that lying is wrong?

Pam, I know you're hurting under long-term unemployment, but Pres. Obama's compassionate action for people who were brought to this country as infants or children is not going to affect your job chances. They're a recent easy scapegoat for a several-years-old problem. Put yourself in their shoes . . . having to leave a country they grew up in, in many cases the only country they've ever known, to be deported to a land where they may not even know the language? That's inhumane. And, they're not all Latino, maybe most because of US proximity to Mexico and Central America. Impossible for me to blame someone for trying to escape to a safer, more prosperous country. Have you applied at any temp offices? You have to reapply to various ones. The fresh applicant is forefront. Good luck and God bless!

Blawat, didn't your mama teach you that name calling and insulting, especially people you don't know, is wrong? You can't possibly be for Romney-Ryan if you're so averse to lying! Documented, caught on tape and in print lying! Who's the idiot buffoon?

Face it libtard you are nothing but a libtard posting libtard opinions without fact. Calling the leftist Obama more to the right than Romney is pretty good for a laugh!

Oh, and Blawatt, this is what I said: "certainly not far left like Romney is trying to be far-right to get elected." Edit much? That's a Romney-Republican tactic. Too bad you've stooped that low. Hurts credibility of anyone who does that.

LOL!!! Saying that 11 MILLION illegal aliens don't take away jobs from American Citizens is really rich!

Blawatt, did you change your name from bob or Veracity or Bill Evelyn or are you all the same troll? You sound just like those guys. All name-calling and insults, no substance.

A lemming regurgitating team Obama's propaganda pretty amounts to nothing.

For one this is ny real name as I am not a coward like you hiding behind the internet. For two all you do on here is dribble your slanted leftist opinion while trying to present it as fact.

Blawatt, blah, blah, blah! The subject is the recent undocumented people who were brought here as infants or minors. Not 11 million! A temporary compassionate fix for innocent young people - and the conditions are stringent, not a give-away. What I saw was about 200,000. If someone credible and reasonable who will write with civility can correct me with verifiable source, be my guest. You're up early. Whatsamatter? Your black heart pounding in your chest won't let you sleep in? You're a hater. I don't waste much time or many words on haters. You guys are mostly incurable. @Tammy - you wanna pray for this dude? My list is pretty long already from names collected through Patch comments.

There are at least 11 million illegals in America and Obama just circumvented congress and gave 1.7 million of them a backdoor amnesty. You can try your libtard "hater" label all you want but if they want to be legal citizens they need to go through the steps of citizenship as all LEGAL IMMIGRANTS have done.

What I saw was 200,000 LOL!!! Once again presenting your opinion as fact. Here is reality:

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/08/14/up-to-1-7-million-unauthorized-immigrant-youth-may-benefit-from-new-deportation-rules/

Furthermore this encourages even more illegal immigration as it all happened before during Reagan's tenure.

If you want to pay for illegals do it out of your pocket not mine.

Blah-Blah Blawatt. Your name is awkward ugly. You should have used a moniker. As for me, I like privacy. Attack, rabid dogs like you have no conscience, so I like my safety, too. Anyone using their real name here has that right. Anyone using a moniker has that right. What's right for you is stupidity for me. I believe - no, you are - you're the most vile poster I have encountered . . . a real sicko aren't you?

" I like privacy." No Democrat you are just a coward hiding behind a keyboard. There are quite a few more documented attacks from libtards against conservatives than conservatives against liberals. That tells us who the rabid dogs really are.

As for "sicko", lame attempt on an ad hominem attack sluggo.

OH, I get it Blah-Blah Blawatt. Hahahahaha! I'll bet you're a freakin' birther, too! I'll let someone else tackle most of your other blathering. (I don't trust any link offered by a hater.) I read through your babble, and it's proof positive you're a Beckerhead for sure. So, you're okay with a preventable oil spill ruining the US Gulf Coast? Uh, huh, and you would be okay with the auto industry vaperizing, along with supporting industries so you can keep your retirement - and I'm pro-union - but auto unions did get pretty greedy with their higher-than-average blue collar hourly plus all their bennies. Anyone who buys a vehicle pays for them. Wonder what a collapse of the US auto industry would have done to the unemployment numbers. I know, Republicans would have love that! Obama didn't kiss and hold hands with an Arab leader like Georgie Bush. Go to www.snopes.com, cause, fella, you need some educating. That's a source that the simple minded can understand, more on your level. As for the teleprompter comment, most Presidents do use a teleprompter, including W but he was still hilarious in his awkwardness. That's so they can make their speeches tolerable, smooth, factual and less gaffe-prone. President Obama is human, so he's allowed human mistakes. There, that's the high spots. You're a colossal waste of time, bud.

Typical Libtard. I present factual links (some which are pretty leftist) yet you ignore that. Yup don't let facts get in the way because you can not think for yourself. Not very bright of you thing Pew Hispanic is anti-Latino. DUH.

Next after that you confabulate a whole bunch of things in your state of delusion. Brithers, oil spills, Beck, and etc... Typical libtard tactic of trying to put words in my mouth.

Auto bailout? How is GM doing?
http://articles.philly.com/2012-08-18/news/33262024_1_gm-bailout-gm-chairman-ed-whitacre-chevy-volts

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/15/auto-bailout-price-tag-rises-to-25-billion-how-high-will-it-go/

LOL on the predictable Blaming Bush libtard strategy. Kissing =endearment and bowing down to =servitude to.

It really figures that a person like you gets educated from going to snopes.com...

Re: "Romney has also governed..."

Tammy,

Shhh. Governor Romney doesn't want people to know that he was once the Governor of Massachusetts. During his time in office, MA was among the states with the slowest job growth in the nation. After his first term as Governor was over, Romney's popularity level was so low that he didn't run for re-election.

http://www.redstate.com/brookhaven/2012/02/14/why-didnt-mitt-romney-run-for-reelection-as-governor/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/as-massachusetts-governor-romneys-record-on-jobs-was-unremarkable/2012/02/06/gIQABzEfxQ_story.html

Incidentally, Tammy, with all due respect, please don't pretend that you care about experience or lack thereof. You're an anti-choice, pro-assault weapons, pro-corporations, pro-Iraq war, pro-Iran war, pro-lower taxes for the rich/higher taxes for the poor, pro-privatize Social Security/Medicare right-winger. As a result, you'd vote for plumber or a failed half-term Governor or a ditch digger if he or she agreed with you on these and other positions, irregardless of experience. You're not fooling anybody with the experience argument.

Romney's spotty (poor) governing experience "dealing with mayors, senators, etc...) hardly equates to a sitting president who has real time experience on the national and WORLD stage (R's crash course whirlwind international visit recently doesn't count and was a gaffe fest.), working with heads of state, his own cabinet, Congress (ugh!) and local officials, natural disasters, man-made disasters, two wars, climbing out of the deeper-than-anyone-thought Republican-built financial hole, etc., etc., etc. How much history has to pass before "You people!" give this President the credit for the achievements benefiting your and my country? Tammy, you need a reality check!

“If any other of our presidents had doubled the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate­, in one year, would you have approved?

If any other of our presidents had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

If any other of our presidents had criticized a state law that he admitted he never even read, would you think that he is just an ignorant hot head?

If any other of our presidents joined the country of Mexico and sued a state in the United States to force that state to continue to allow illegal immigratio­n, would you question his patriotism and wonder who's side he was on?

If any other of our presidents had pronounced the Marine Corps like Marine Corpse, would you think him an idiot?

If any other of our presidents had signed a guest book May 24, 2008 when it was May 24, 2011 would have thought he was lost in space?

If any other of our presidents had put 87,000 workers out of work by arbitraril­y placing a moratorium on offshore oil drilling on companies that have one of the best safety records of any industry because one foreign company had an accident, would you have agreed?

If any other of our presidents had used a forged document as the basis of the moratorium that would render 87000 American workers unemployed would you support him?”

“If any other of our presidents had been the first President to need a Teleprompt­er installed to be able to get through a press conference­, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If any other of our presidents had reduced your retirement plan holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If any other of our presidents had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If any other of our presidents had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If any other of our presidents had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought it a proud moment for America?

If any other of our presidents had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia would you have approved?

If any other of our presidents had visited Austria and made reference to the nonexistent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?”

Blawart, half of those statements are factually inaccurate and the other half are the kind of innocent gaffes that W made every other day.

Brian, post links to prove that they are untrue. Obama has more gaffes than Bush despite serving less than half the time that Bush did.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama-isms.htm
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/224544/barack-gaffes/michelle-malkin
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/17/obamas-gaffes-not-for-laughs/
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1887005,00.html
http://obamasgaffes.blogspot.com/
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/the-top-seven-obama-gaffes-20120611

See you are still using the Libtard favorite of blaming Bush! LOL!!

Chris did it ever occur to you that Massachusetts did not have a large job increase rate because they had a low unemployment rate during Romney's tenure? Don't let the facts get in your way.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=state:ST250000&fdim_y=seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment+rate+massachusetts

and old Mitt had the lowest job growth during a boom while gov. Also this 47 percent dont pay myth
http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/debunking-47-pay-no-taxes-talking-point

I'll write it slow for you so you can understand. When your state has a low unemployment rate to begin with it won't need to hire as much as states with a very high unemployment rate.

Yes. You will get welfare and an Obama phone.

absolutely....if you want four more years of unemployment....and a total of eight years of it being Bush's fault.

Stop with the Obama phone crap. Welfare (TANF) is a block grant program that allows states to design their own systems. Some states find issuing pre-paid cell phones is essential to helping welfare recipients find jobs; i.e. scheduling interviews etc. Many cannot afford or are unable to get their own. They have limited use.

So what did people do before we had to pay for free cell phones? They got off their ass and knocked down doors to feed their families. That's what. I can't feel sorry for someone online all day complaining about not getting hired. If you were hungry enough, you would go door to door. Quit making excuses.

For those who care about facts--

"A Mitt Romney TV ad claims the Obama administration has adopted 'a plan to gut welfare reform by dropping work requirements.' The plan does neither of those things."

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/does-obamas-plan-gut-welfare-reform/

Chris, thanks for the link to yet another biased site. Is owned by a now liberal group, the Annenberg Foundation.

For those interested in the real facts.
n the past, state bureaucrats have attempted to define activities such as hula dancing, attending Weight Watchers, and bed rest as “work.” These dodges were blocked by the federal work standards. We can expect “work” in the TANF program to mean anything but work.Obama gutted not only the program but what constitutes work.

The Problem with the 20% Work Increase Requirement

By requiring states to increase Welfare work participation by 20% and removing the federal definition of what constitutes work, the administration is encouraging states to add non-work activities so they can hit the increased target. Getting 20% more recipients to perform activities will require states to get creative in order to receive their share of more than $16 Billion in federal subsidies. One can expect art classes, group therapy and workouts at the gym to be included before long.

@Pam
We have spent an enormous amount of money educating the children brought in by their undocumented parents.In many cases they don't even speak their parents native language .Why would we want to return this expensive investment back to a foreign country .I think that's the rationale behind the dream act and Obamas's executive order. Also on another subject, Cuba has a large force of highly trained medical personnel and doctors that we are going to have a shortage of in the future.The smart thing for us as a country would be to normalize relations with Cuba so that we could steal some of this talent.Just a thought.

George, sure we spent a lot of money educating illegal aliens. Money THAT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SPENT IF PEOPLE HAD OBEYED THE LAW. But, no, they broke the law by coming over illegally and forced our government to take care of their kids. And maybe their own countries could use the well-educated people more than we do. I know that Mexico does. Honduras does. So, as far as I am concerned, your argument doesn't hold water. Sorry.

RE: "thanks for the link to yet another biased site. Is owned by a now liberal group"

Facts are facts, regardless of who states them. A fact doesn't stop becoming a fact--even if you don't like it--simply because you labeled the source of the fact as "liberal."

Here's another fact. As Governor, Mitt Romney asked for the same flexibility with welfare that he is now criticizing President Obama for granting. (Romney flip-flop for political gain? It's hard to believe...I know.)

Here's another fact. President Obama granted these waivers in response to requests from two Republican governors.

For evidence, click on the link to the letter signed by those biased liberal Governors, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Haley Barbour, and Jeb Bush. http://t.co/fD9h22CK

For a so-called "truthseeker," you're pretty gullible.

You can also forget that garbage "In many cases they don't even speak their parents native language". Horse Crap! If Mexican kids can speak a language, you can bet they can speak Spanish.

@Pam
Why would a five year old be guilty of what their parents did?Also,who was hiring and in many cases exploiting these people?That's where the real crime was committed.

George, I feel sorry for the children that were brought over by their parents. But by age 20, you know that you are undocumented and you should have taken steps to do something about it. And, yes, the companies hiring the illegals need to be held accountable. I was just watching the news where they showed the hundreds of people that showed up at this building somewhere around Atlanta to learn more about the "amnesty" program. A professor from Agnes Scott College was talking about two of her students who are "undocumented". How did those two get into college? Had to be illegally.

Pam, you can attribute that to fear. If you had been in a country for as long as you could remember, your family struggling to feed/clothe/shelter you, keep you in school, keep you safe and healthy through your teenage years, would you have had the forethought to "take steps to do something about it"? Or would fear have had you in its grips? You really can't say because you're not them. Those people calling it amnesty doesn't make it that. Surely you don't let your bitterness toward people who are trying to get to a better life the same as you show up in your attitude when you apply for a job. No matter what, anger and bitterness, blaming someone who doesn't even know you, will make you ill. Call Agnes Scott College tomorrow and ask them that question, and while you're on the phone, ask if they are hiring.

Chris the problem is when these left leaning sites present lies as facts. An often used Lenin tactic; "a lie repeated often enough becomes fact." And kool aid drinking Obamaites repeat the lie.

Romney and other R -Governors NEVER requested waiving the work requirements.
"HHS responded that Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, sought a waiver from federal work requirements in 2005.
In support of this concoction, the Administration provided a letter from Romney and 28 other Republican governors to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R–TN) from that year.
But this letter makes no mention at all of waiving work requirements under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. In fact, the legislation promoted in the letter—the Personal Responsibility and Individual Development for Everyone (PRIDE) Act—actually would have toughened the federal work standards. It proposed raising the mandatory participation rates imposed on states from 50 percent to 70 percent of the adult TANF caseload and increasing the hours of required work activity.
The governors’ letter actually contradicts the Administration’s main argument: If the law has always permitted HHS to waive the work requirements, then why didn’t the governors just request waivers from then-President George W. Bush? Why would legislation be needed?"
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/19/obama-administration-rebuffs-congressional-inquiry-on-legality-of-gutting-welfare-reform/

George, what scares me is that I am arguing with a Democrat. I have been a Democrat my whole life. But this is one thing I cannot agree with. I sort of like Obamacare, but I just cannot agree with a program that puts mllions of more people out there looking for jobs. That would be like being happy that ten big companies closing and putting those employees out there. Same concept.

Pam a dollar spent on an illegal alien is one less dollar spent on a US citizen. In addition think of the job displacement of citizens and the illegals not paying any taxes.

If the liberals care so much about them they can send money to Mexican charities.

Truthseeker, if you are what you claim to be, you should carefully inspect the documents provided by the Heritage blog. Sebelius never claimed that Romney et al requested waiving work requirements (as purported by Heritage), but instead that they requested more flexibility in administering the TANF program. From her letter to Hatch:

“For years Republican and Democratic Governors have requested more flexibility in implementing welfare reform so they can meet their states' specific needs. In 2009, 25 Republican Governors requested 'increased waiver authority, allowable work activities, availability of partial work credit' so they might more 'effectively serve low-income' Americans.

Sebelius is quoting directly from the governors' letter. This letter doesn't contradict anything that the administration said, in fact it backs up the original intention of the waiver offer; to give states more flexibility. Isn't that what Pubs are always crying for?

This is the problem with Republican “think tanks”, they count on their readers not thinking for themselves. The truth is clear in the very documents they provided. Oh wait, the one document they didn't provide was the Sebelius letter. Wonder why? I've included it below.

http://democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/112/2005_Romney_Letter.pdf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/07/Sen-Hatch-TANF-7-18-.pdf

Brian, That's some Orwellian spin there. You are now claiming that no one is putting out information claiming that Romney and other Republican Governors were asking to waive work requirements for welfare? That's exactly what Chris and oh so many other blithering idiots keep saying. I am refuting that claim. It has been paraded around as fact over and over by the Obamamania media as well as their shills. Then you tell me that no one is claiming that Romney wanted to waive the work requirements and I need to look closer. Saul Alinksy and Lenin would be proud.

So now truth is Orwellian spin? Nice. Go back and read my words. I was addressing the following claim from the Heritage blog: "Not only did Secretary Kathleen Sebelius completely ignore the legal questions surrounding the Administration’s unilateral rewriting of the law, but she also fabricated charges against Mitt Romney and 28 other Republican governors" and "HHS responded that Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, sought a waiver from federal work requirements in 2005."

Those claims by Heritage blog are false. Period. I wasn't addressing what anyone else in this whole "he said/ she said" mess might have claimed, including any fellow commentators.

Regardless of any of that, the claims in the Romney ad are undeniably false as well. The Obama administration has no intention of gutting welfare reform or abolishing work requirements. To say so is indeed "Orwellian spin".

WRONG again Brian, But don't let that ruin any other false idea's you have floating around in your mind numbed kool aid state.

"HHS responded that Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, sought a waiver from federal work requirements in 2005.

In support of this concoction, the Administration provided a letter from Romney and 28 other Republican governors to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R–TN) from that year."

I'm sure you have no idea where Chris and other Obamaites get this LIE and repeat it often. I'm sure it couldn't have come from the administration you so heartily defend. .

My guess would be Ann Romney, but that's just a guess.

RE: "The D's have voted for their Health Care Plan modeled after the Socialist Model employed in Europe."

Centuries after the Revolutionary War, we have to reflexively reject any and every idea that can, in any way, be associated with any and all European countries, regardless of merit? I guess that rules out the Romney/Ryan European-style austerity plan too. Right?

Also, if you live in America and use tap water, eat safe food, breathe clean air, benefit from medical research, drive on roads and highways, purchase goods that arrived through our ports, benefit from air or rail, benefit from public education (yours or others'), use power or gas, and/ or use satellite technology, then you are, by right-wing definition, a Socialist.

One might be able to win a policy debate at a Ron Paul meet-up by lazily throwing out the words "Europe" or "Socialist", but fortunately, most aren't so easily persuaded.

The D's modeled ACA after ROMNEYCARE. Where he got it, I don't need to know. Even he said it would be good for the entire nation. Now he hides from it. Such an upstanding, principled guy. ;D

The people of America do not want Obamacare:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

HEY! Biden rode the train to work for years.

Talk about cherry picking! R-R: they're both strong on lying and weak on the middle class. Biden is a good, experienced statesman. Your saying otherwise doesn't change that.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/joebiden/a/bidenisms.htm says a lot about Biden.

Yeah, Blat. Biden's so bad. So bad, he just kept getting re-elected. His constituents know him better than you. I'll trust that judgment of him, not yours or Tammy's.

OMG that is a good one! He is good because he keeps getting reelected! LOL!! Was Nixon good because he was reelected in 1972?

No, some of us wish we got paid! Brian is one of our resident (liberal trouble-maker :-)) bloggers at the Dacula Patch site. Mine is a weather blog for Gwinnett, Barrow, Walton, and the surrounding area (cheap plug). We don't get paid.

NGW actually knows what he's talking about when it comes to weather (although he's still a little shaky on climate change). I highly recommend his weather blog.

Brian, I'll actually call you sir and say "thank you sir!" :-))

Wanna see what winter might be like? Kristi (our editor) isn't awake yet or my most recent would probably be on the main page! http://dacula.patch.com/blog_posts/will-we-have-winter-this-year (Another cheap plug! And if you like what you read, please ask your local Patch editor to carry my blog!).
Oh... and please visit http://www.daculaweather.com for all your weather needs. :-))

Ok... I'm REALLY done. There are enough plugs there to stop Niagara Falls!

Now back to your regular tag team political match.

Athens Mama, I warned you about drinking the kool-aid and you done went and drunk it.

The name calling doesn't help your case any, it only reinforces a negative stereotype of conservatives and makes you look ignorant. Thought you should know.

Brian I really don't care what you think as you are another Obamanaut libtard.

Trolls don't use their real name you moron. DUH! No wonder you are a Democrat. You need the guberment to take care of you.

Oh I see. Anyone who disagrees with Obamanauts is a troll for you.

I got it now! Anyway who disagrees with your liberal dogma is a hater and a troll.

Illegal Immigrants Cost U.S. Taxpayers $113 Billion Annually

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/07/illegal-immigrants-cost-u-s-taxpayers-113-billion-annually/
Since Arizona, Alabama, and Georgia have enacted legislation against illegal aliens it has not amounted to no real increase.

If illegals want to pick vegetables they can LEGALLY get a work visa and pay taxes...

Andy, I'm sure you can verify that no-increase-in-produce statement b/c of A,A and G discriminating laws passed by Republican legislatures. But, again, I don't trust links from haters. I referenced snopes because you can find the most common political legends debunked there without having to go to umpteen different sites, plus you seem simple to me, what with your derogatory name-calling, insulting tendencies. Those illegal field workers have been here for decades, long before President Obama was sworn in, and under a number of Republican Presidents and Congresses. All human beings (well, I guess not really all) are worthy of a decent life. The agriculture industry doesn't pay enough to eat well on, much less pay taxes with. If they did, then you would be bitchin' about them being on Medicaid and eventually SS and Medicare. And if they did, you're gonna pay more for the produce, more than you pay now. They are poverty-level, seasonal workers. Ask Alabama and South Georgia farmers if they will pay more to harvest their fields to illegals or legals. Desperation was and is the driver of most illegals. In more recent times, drugs became a factor in both the desperation to leave their homeland and for the distribution of the true illegal problem - the drugs.

Snopes is a private web site run by two individuals. As anyone can put up a website and put whatever they want to on it does not make it true. Snopes and Wikipedia are not reliable sources. In fact, there are numerous posts on the internet stating that Snopes has a liberal bias when it comes to politics.

Illegals are illegal. If they want to work here they need to either get a work permit or gain citizenship and pay taxes. If you feel sorry for them perhaps you should send them money but in the meantime get your hands off my wallet.

Pretty gullible of you thinking most of the illegals are here picking fruits and vegetables. They work a multitude of jobs including construction, restaurant chiefs, retail sales, fast-food, general factories and lots more.

Illegal Jose Antonio Vargas even worked as a reporter for the Washington Post.

Blawat, I would go nowhere near YOUR wallet or its vicinity! My tax money is as good as your tax money. We don't get to say where it goes. I wish! I didn't say all illegals are here picking produce, but that's where the influx started. Those jobs you mention are not, in great numbers, held by the first generation of illegals who came here. You can't tell if someone is illegal by their appearance, can you? Do you mistreat servers and talk down to them, or others you come in contact with on the job or wherever you go? If you do, you're an embarrassing American. If those jobs you cite are payroll jobs, they're paying taxes. If they don't file a tax return, that's an IRS issue. Many construction workers left when the housing bubble burst, so lots of those guys left the country. It's an employer's responsibility to check backgrounds. You can't blame illegals for accepting offered jobs. Bet you would do it. It's a survival instinct. Do you prefer to have them hovering under overpasses, living in abandoned warehouses, vacant homes, tent communities, vehicles? Workers are workers. They earn their money. Get off the snopes kick. You ain't making points with that. Facts are facts, whether reported by liberal, right-wing or neutral sources. I can see through slant, can you?

Ga Democrat. If tax dollars are used to support illegals you are in my wallet. These funds are for AMERICAN CITIZENS who pay taxes.

" Do you mistreat servers and talk down to them" You have no clue.

Are you that stupid that you don't think illegals file a W-2 with a large amount of dependents when they use a stolen SSN?

Even when they file legally using nonresident alien ID numbers they game the system. Educate yourself moron:

Illegal Aliens Get Billions in Tax Refunds

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/illegal-aliens-get-billions-annually-in-tax-refunds/

You have a mental illness called liberalism and you are unable to deal with reality.

Illegal aliens ruined the construction industry. It used to be a very high paying job. Now they reduced it to about $12 an hour while US citizens used to earn $20 plus an hour.

" It's an employer's responsibility to check backgrounds" . Yeah and foxes and wolfs should guard the hen-house.

"They are poverty-level, seasonal workers. " You are nuts. Illegals are are in many industries. There was one who was even working as a reporter in the Washington Post.

AB, If I'm in your wallet, you're in mine with your right-wing oil subsidies and wars, tax breaks to the upper echelon of income earners, give-away Medicare Part D that was not funded like your wars, which were not on the Bush/Cheney budget. You are so one-way! I'm not a liberal on all issues. I'm moderate. What are you? Right-wing extremist, maybe? Extremism in either form is dangerous and damaging to the majority of Americans. Republicans have been the master janitor (thanks, Newt) in sweeping the immigration issue under the rug.

@AB Thanks for the elevation, but I don't personally have that kind of power - to direct how tax dollars are spent. If illegals are on someone's payroll and are using false SS#s (yes, I do know about that), the W-2s are filed by the employer, so those workers can be tracked by the IRS. SS and medicare withholdings are not based on dependents, but a percentage of the salary. Even with no dependents, many of them don't make much, so are in lower tax brackets. Illegal aliens making low dollarly rates ruined the construction industry? Huh, I thought it was easy money, relaxed mortgage rules, mortgage fraud, too many sub-contractors deciding they wanted to be builders, etc. My question to you about how you treat perceived foreigners was rhetorical. You're wrong, though, I do have a clue, in the form of your words and the tone in which you write. You should watch that, servers don't like it when they're treated badly. Aren't you a sweetheart? In your rant, you called me "stupid . . . moron . . . nuts" and diagnosed me with a mental illness. You should get with S Bailey and find a good shrink to talk you off your ledges.

I guess the point of you supporting politicians who use taxpayers money to support illegals escapes you.

WWII did indeed lift us out of the great depression, it was also the largest government stimulus in the history of mankind. Returning soldiers built the middle class with educations and business loans provided by the GI Bill. That was my father's generation so I'm well versed in it.

Your Revolutionary history is also a bit off, the Boston Tea Tea Party was about taxation without representation, not raising taxes.

The practice of raising the percentages of taxes an individual paid based on amount of income was a result of WWII and was supposed to be temporary. Never mind that a man who made three times the money of another already paid three times the amount of taxes, now the better you did the HIGHER the percentage you paid as well, which, to me, sounds counter productive in encouraging people to work hard.
So, WWII was not so much government stimulus as it was a stimulus provided by Americans who were successful. Americans and their traditional ideals won WWII, not the government. That generation, who many consider the best, benefited from the GI Bill but they were also the generation that appreciated help, paid back their loans and continued to break their backs for what they had.
Comparing current social programs to the GI Bill is an insult to these people who fought and died for our country and an insult to that entire generation.
Brian- Omnipotent one- The Boston Tea Party was about increased taxation as a result of non-representation. Your saying Lynn's Revolutionary history is off over nuance is a lame jab at her position and builds upon your already festered lack of credibility.

Sorry Mike, you folks must have gotten your history books from Louisiana or Texas. According to mine we've had a progressive income tax since 1913. One pushed for by the other great (regrettably Republican) Roosevelt, Teddy. If you've never read his "New Nationalism" speech, you should: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=501

Are you saying that "We didn't build that".

Are you saying that "We didn't build that".

Underwritten? In 2009 just 25.7% of lottery proceeds were given to education for one. In 2004 was funded 100% by the lottery.

http://www.open.georgia.gov/rsa/downloadRef.aud?refNumber=12091

Despite it having initial success the Education funding from the lottery /education program is having some financial problems despite the lottery earning record amounts of money.

Do like your straw man argument that because at one time the lottery/education program was successful means that all government programs are successful. LOL!!

When it comes to private schools they don't number very high in Georgia but I bet you already know that because of your background. However, if more private schools were established along with a voucher system it would result in better teachers and better education.

I worked full-time during my school initially until the school hours could not match my work schedule. A good portion of classes were a joke and it was easy enough for me to get Magna Cum Laude despite having worked full-time during the majority of school. Wonder how long it will take before they have to dumb the the SAT scores again because of liberal teachers who sit in their guberment jobs without any consequences if they do a bad job. If a company is privately owned it is a private company.

You can thank the unions for driving up the prices so that the companies went elsewhere to get a profit. When you demand exorbitant pay for a semi-skilled job you deserve replacement

Diane, Andrew has a good point. There is no arguing the fact that the Georgia lottery's original goals and projections have become just another government sponsored failure:
http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2011/apr/27/allie-mccullen/luck-runs-out-student-lottery-claim/

Thank you, Diane. I lost my job in December of 2009. I was making $23/hr. I transferred my 401(K) over to an IRA so I wouldn't have to pay the penalty when I had to withdraw it. After about six months, it looked like finding a job wasn't going to be as easy as I thought it might be, with all of my experience and all. I found out that, for some of the jobs I applied for, 300+ people applied for the same job. I tried staying in my house and I managed to do that for the first year (2010). But I also went through most of my IRA. Then, in January of 2011, I rented my house out so that I could keep it. The renter did not pay rent from March until I finally got her out in July. And she managed to do a lot of damage to the house. I took her to court and she said she would pay the $4,500 she owed me, but she didn't. I filed the papers to have her salary garnished, but she filed for bankruptcy. Then the company that my brother had worked at for 16 years closed. Since I was living with him, my unemployment had to help pay to keep us in his house. I didn't have the money to fix my house up enough to rent it out again, so it was foreclosed on. I stopped paying my credit card bills, so you can just imagine the phone calls I got. So, since my credit has tanked, nobody is going to hire me if I have to handle money. I'm a very honest person, but they won't see that. Oh, and I am now 59 years old.

Pam, what kind of work did you do before you lost your job?

Brian, I have 14 years of experience in personal property tax (was a tax associate), and the last job I had was with a property management firm, working in the tax department (as a Tax Admin). I have worked for most of the big accounting firms. I don't have a college degree, so I was lucky to get most of those jobs. So, now, maybe everybody can understand why I don't really want to work at Waffle House or clean hotel rooms. I will, if I have to, but I hope everybody will understand also that I don't have to be happy about it.

Illegals are illegal. Are you suggesting we have an open border?

Blawatt, I don't know who you're addressing. If you're talking to me, I don't think the borders should be open. Of course not. Illegals who have been here for decades because of lax immigration laws and enforcement, basically given an open invitation to come here to work in the fields and at jobs too lowly for citizens -apparently, should be treated humanely and fairly. They're here, a part of the economy. If they haven't broken other laws Congress should get down to work on immigration reform to help these people, and work with the states to pass an effective and legal system that would hold up under the inevitable SC challenges. You know - there are always going to be haters and resenters of foreigners, legal or not. How much would deportation of "11 million" illegals cost? Just transportation, now, not including the effects on local economies once they're gone. In more cases than not, their contribution to American society will outweigh any negative effects of their presence. Stop the hate, intolerance and resentment and good ideas and solutions will be brought forth. When you're not jaded, you still believe in the spirit of good Americans.

Illegals "who have been here for decades" need to pay a stiff penalty and get citizenship the correct way.

Blawat, it's going to be hard, if not impossible, to collect any "stiff penalties", but I agree that all illegals from anywhere else in the world, not just Latinos, need to obtain citizenship or work/study visas if they're going to remain in the US. That's why Congress has to seriously address the issue in a bipartisan fashion and formulate a humane, feasible, fair way to ensure that happens, and sooner, not later.

Wow! That about covers it. Well said

Nothing to correct here Brian? Is that the extent of your integrity?

Please provide proof of your accusations rather than parroting propaganda.

Quit using other peoples words and present them as your own:

http://huntington.patch.com/blog_posts/congressman-steve-israel-endorses-joe-dujmic

Looks like King Obama emailed some propaganda and you Obamanauts just can't resist cut and pasting.

Jeff, while all of that cannot be attributed directly to Romney/Ryan, it certainly fits the Republican agenda. You could probably argue some of the nuances but overall I think it's about right.

However I think cut and paste, unless you acknowledge the source, is very bad form, so shame on F&F.

Not to mention it was pasted under 18 different articles on patch.

Hey,
What do you know. This is a liberal troll poster. This same comment was posted 18 times in at least 8 states. Please take the Soro's money you are earning to post your robo-comments and buy all of the medication your doctor reccomends. When you skip doses or medications it seems you enter an alternate reality world. Just my advice.

Brian talk without proof is cheap. You shilling for the propagandist is amusing.

And the US is in debt largely due to the first Gulf War, Afghanistan and Iraq (and the rebuilding of that country). Republicans expect the lower and middle class to pay for that debt.

Taxation without representation wasn't a by product of anything. It was the way things were. We were ruled by a monarchy. Today We The People are the government, we tax ourselves as our democratically elected representatives see fit according to the will of the people.

Are you saying that Obama spending over 5 trillion dollars has nothing to do with our debt?

We the people are not the government.The U.S. is a Republic

Is that why only 53% of people pay federal income taxes?

The government is SUPPOSED to be a REPRESENTATIVE of us. We are not the government.

Do kindergarten teachers deserve $100,000 a year salary? I'll show you a few that get that kind of money through Open Government Georgia.

Diane: What was the purpose of this statement: " I think if you look, you'll find that those loans are underwritten by government funds, and that lottery is also a government program." as it is pretty obvious the lottery is a government program.

School loans are from private financial institutions.

I pay taxes on my home and on my income. A large portion of my home taxes go to education so I paid for my portion of a public school and I continue paying.

There is already a $100,000 max family income level for HOPE so your income cap statement is errant.

I thought you were well informed but it is apparent you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer. You seem to be very spacey.

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money"

-Margaret Thatcher

Sure, a degree might help. But how do you suppose I pay for it? I went through the process with Cobb Works to get more training, but they wouldn't approve me because they said I knew enough to get a job. It takes money to open your own business. I have put feelers out there, but no takers. H&R Block does personal income taxes. I worked on property taxes and non-resident alien taxes. To be honest with you, personal income tax forms confuse the heck out of me! Give me a list of equpment and I can do that return quickly. Talk to me about capital gains, and I am lost. Go figure. And I got unemployment pay for 99 weeks. I am very, very thankful for that. Of course, I didn't have tax taken out so I owe the IRS $4,500 and the state of Georgia $1,200.

A degree takes at least two years and costs money and opening your own business costs quite a bit of money unless you do something on the web or have a very unique talent.

If you are going to go for a degree you can bypass a lot of core classes by taking Clep tests if you study up and are well versed on the subject. http://clep.collegeboard.org/

Andrew, I know about the CLEP program. I told all of you that I know about a lot of things because I have a lot of time to research. But I still need the money to get more training. Financial assistance won't help because there's no guarantee I'll get a job to pay the loan back. Plus, I'm 59 years old, and according to the lady at the Cobb Works organization, they probably aren't going to give me money to go to college. Yes, she told me that.

Have you taken any talent assessment tests to assess what talent themes might be transferable to other industries like retail or manufacturing? Have you held leadership roles? Could you maybe be an inventory manger?

Brian, I have taken about 10 "talent" assessments. They all seem to point in different directions. And training costs money. I have absolutely no retail experience, so that works against me. Not in a good economy, but right now it does. I appreciate everybody's ideas, but in 2 years I have just about exhausted every possibility out there. Like I said, unless it's free, I can't do it. It really isn't much fun being poor.

We already are paying a whole lot more for food and we are going to see food costs increase regardless who gets elected. Corn shortages due to drought and usage in ethanol will make food costs rise for certain.

I just came back from Arizona which was famous for instituting SB1070 a few years ago. The heads of lettuce for $0.10 and red bell peppers costing 4 for $1.00 at the farmers market was paralyzing.

You are spouting propaganda.

Here is an ad from a super market in Mesa.

Roma Tomatoes 4lbs for a dollar
Peaches 2lbs for a dollar.
Bananas 4lbs for a dollar
Cucumbers 4 for dollar
Avocados 5 for a dollar

Yeah illegals not picking fruits and vegetables in Arizona sure made a difference...NOT

http://myfoodcity.mywebgrocer.com/Circular.aspx?c=127628&n=1&s=226288703&g=b052e81a-0b5e-4e5c-9c4b-f0af8eafe6e2&uc=1F3D3152

Liberals want to enact the Dream Act that way US taxpayers can fund illegals education .

The shilling is so amusing!

I spoke too soon, Diane. I see he has started in on you, too. But not the name-calling, yet. Well, my last name is D E M O C R A T :) So, maybe that incites him. Whatever, it is immature and unnecessary, and it reduces his credibility. I don't trust a thing he says because of it.

We paid alright. Did Kuwait pay for the healthcare, loss of lives and other costs of that war? Show me the money. Going to Afghanistan was inevitable after 9/11, but that whole Iraq endeavor and the rebuilding of that country, ongoing as is our Afghanistan presence, caught us up in a quagmire that has no definite end. We have to rebuild Iraq - that's part of the deal. And you know what? We should because America invaded and destroyed. What if any other country invaded the US, bombing and blowing up towns and people? We made that more likely to happen here by doing it in the Middle East.

People are starting to switch to online/tax software for taxes.

When a company charges $50 for a 1040EZ people find different ways.

Diane, I have looked and looked for ways to get help. I have filled out forms, but what I need is free money. I have no money. Loans won't work because I have no money to pay them back. There are grant programs out there, but I am a white, 59-year-old woman, and we are not prime candidates to get grants.

Plenty of people would take work in construction, food service, and factories. The assumption that all illegals pick fruits and vegetables is very incorrect.

Andrew, it's tough to get those jobs in construction and factories when the housing and credit situation have dried up so much construction, and factories have shut down so jobs can be outsourced. Food service? Try making a living wage by working at McDonald's. Apparently the big bennie from that type of work is you make so little that you're among the 47% accused of paying no federal income tax.

"Andrew, it's tough to get those jobs in construction and factories when the housing and credit situation have dried up so much construction, and factories have shut down"

Sounds like a real good reason illegal aliens should not be getting any of these jobs.

Andrew...Where is the outrage against the employers who willfully hire illegal aliens while knowing that they're breaking the law? Let's punish employers for hiring illegals...How about $10,000/day/illegal employee? I guarantee that employers would start hiring U.S. citizens if the Feds & States enforced such a law!

Immigration policy doesn't have to be complicated or costly! Raid employers, assess fines against the employers, and send the egregious ones to jail. There'll be a mass exodus of illegals at $0 cost to the taxpayers...And we'll make moning along the way!

Here Frank old cut and paste that answered that:

Andrew Blawat

6:32 pm on Wednesday, August 22, 2012

I agree with punishing the people who hire illegals but we must also increase the security around the border and deport all illegal aliens. This type of tough approach would result in most illegals self deporting themselves.

If East Germany was able to stop most people from defecting into West Germany we should be able to stop a large amount of aliens illegally crossing the border by using current technology.

Although I agree with some of what you say here, I also believe that most illegal Mexicans come to America, not to share the American dream but to live as Mexicans in a wealthy, generous, compassionate society. Sure, most Americans understand WHY Mexicans come to America illegally but Most Americans believe in the Rule Of Law. That rule of law by which Americans are held to abide.
It's not a lack of compassion to be responsible and understand also the liability of having undocumented people roaming our nation. It makes it very difficult for law enforcement to track undocumented criminals and very difficult to prosecute.

From the L. A. Times

1. 40% of all workers in L. A. County ( L. A. County has 10.2 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This is because they are predominantly illegal aliens working without a green card.

2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.

3. 75% of people on the most-wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.

4. Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal, whose births were paid for by taxpayers.

5. Nearly 35% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.

6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.

7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.

8. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.

9. 21 radio stations in L. A. are Spanish speaking.

10. In L. A. County 5.1 million people speak English, 3.9 million speak Spanish.
(There are 10.2 million people in L. A. County.)

(All 10 of the above statements are from the Los Angeles Times)
Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops, but 29% are on welfare.
Over 70% of the United States' annual population growth (and over 90% of California, Florida, and New York ) results from immigration.
29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens.