90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
Week In The News: Denver Debate, Voter ID, Syria Hits Turkey

Debate and aftermath. Turkey, Syria trade artillery fire. Benghazi won’t go away. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

President Barack Obama, right, shakes hands with Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney after the first presidential debate at the University of Denver, Wednesday, Oct. 3, 2012, in Denver. (AP)

President Barack Obama, right, shakes hands with Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney after the first presidential debate at the University of Denver, Wednesday, Oct. 3, 2012, in Denver. (AP)

Last week, Mitt Romney on the ropes.  This week, Mitt Romney on the move.  At least in pundit land, after the first big presidential debate in Denver.  Romney was hot.  The president was not.

Now the Romney camp is fired up, and Obama’s saying “who was that?” moderate-sounding guy at the podium.   Etch-a-Sketch or Mitt at last?  We’ve got new unemployment numbers, and they are – blessedly – down.  7.8 percent.  Good news for the White House.  Turkey and Syria trade bombshells.  Airline seats in motion.

This hour, On Point:  our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

-Tom Ashbrook

Guests

Bryan Monroe, editor of CNNPolitics.com.

Molly Ball, staff writer covering national politics at The Atlantic.

Jack BeattyOn Point news analyst.

From Tom’s Reading List

Politico “The debate was relatively sleepy, and there were no fireworks or big “moments” to speak of, but Romney scored on points against a barely-there incumbent.”

National Review “Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both been running for president since about 2006, and have participated in a lot of debates in that time. I think this was Mitt Romney’s best debate in that entire time, and Barack Obama’s worst. Obama was the more surprising. He was weaker than usual in every way — poor on substance, poor on style, very tired; he missed opportunities and failed to defend himself. I personally think the president’s record is in most respects indefensible, but presumably Obama doesn’t agree with that. He didn’t show it tonight.”

Foreign Policy “Everyone who wasn’t rushing to fight on the front lines seemed to be starting a newspaper or radio station or volunteer group, eager to connect to the world from which Muammar al-Qaddafi had isolated them and grateful to the mostly Western countries that helped them in their moment of need. “

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • gonkers

    Facebook allegedly hit 1 billion users yesterday. I say allegedly because many have more than one account. I have two which I pay no attention to.

    I simply don’t trust Facebook.

    Facebook is perhaps the most insidious invasion of personal privacy ever invented.

     

    • Gregg Smith

      Then why do you have two accounts?

      • Don_B1

        Possibly because they are hard to close and some say never go away.

        • DrewInGeorgia

          Sounds like Tax Deductions and Loopholes. lol

          Tribble anyone?

          • TheDailyBuzzherd

            … or Russian Roulette.

      • gonkers

         The first one was the only way I could contact someone about a documentary… the second one was a political project that I haven’t worked on since day 1.

        I’d NEVER use Facebook for personal reasons. I can’t imagine any more insidious way to collect information by which corporation can manipulate consumers.

    • TheDailyBuzzherd

      Facebook = The Next Big Nothing

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    67 million viewers to the debate. Folks must be yearning for a change, or something.
     

    • gonkers

      Ya, the last 12 years since Bush deliberately sabotaged the fiscal health of the nation… got us into an illegal war of aggression, destroyed the economy… and left the mess for the next guy to clean up probably has left a sour taste in the mouths of most Americans.

      Unfortunately the GOP has shown NO remorse, no second thoughts about the disaster their ideas caused…. and they want to do it all over again… only this time on steroids.

      And all too many of the the True Believers on the Right are intellectually incapable of placing blame where it belongs and they’ll foolishly place their trust in Romney: the latest Right wing whack job.

      I doubt that’s the change those GOP True Believers were hoping for.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         What was the illegal war?  Libya?  I remember a congressional vote on Iraq and Afghanistan but not Libya.

        • gonkers

           We already went through this. Please stop playing dumb. The AUMF contained CONDITIONS that Bush willfully violated.

      • sickofthechit

        Thank you!

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Joe Trippi, a Dem operative,  has reported that GOP early  voting has doubled in the 24 hours after last nights debate.

    What does this mean?

    • gonkers

       It means if there’s ANY way to spin the GOP into a positive… or any way to spin the Dems into a negative… YOU’LL BE HERE SPEWING THAT PARTISAN RUBBISH.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         Why did my comment upset you so much?  Frankly, I don’t find it very meaningful.

        • gonkers

          Gee, if all you do here 24/7 is spew Right wing rubbish… don’t blame others for noticing.

          • StilllHere

            Come on gonk shoot him down with a fact from one of your left wing hack websites that churn out the rubbish 24/7.  You’re slipping buddy.

    • Ray in VT

      That Republicans will also use the evil early voting.  Does this mean that both parties are now using it to try to steal elections?

      My honest opinion is that the GOP candidate did well in the Presidential debate, and that motivated some of the party’s supporters to get out and exercise their right to vote.  Do you think that it means something else?

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        I agree with you but it doesn’t mean much except they probably now believe Romney can now win.

        I still think voting this early is problematic. I suspect we will eventually vote online during a 24 hour window once they figure out how to do it safely.

        • sickofthechit

           I watched a Charlie Rose program last night where he had a computer software expert on and she said there is no known way to do secure voting on-line in the forseeable future.  She said the only reliable voting method is one that uses paper ballots which are controlled and audited throughout the process and then saved for actual recounts.  Sadly, she pointed out that Virginia (an important swing state) has paperless, outdated, unreliable, very hackable Dieblod machines like much of KY (my home state).  The way they do a “recount” here no is push a button!

        • Ray in VT

          Maybe they do now.  Sometimes voters need a kick in the pants.  By all accounts he carried himself well and went on the offensive.  I only caught the end live and a few highlights later.

          I personally prefer going down on the first Tuesday after the first Monday.  That is the way that my family has always done it, and I like to be able to bring the kids along so that they can see democracy in action.  I like having the early voting option, though.  Plus, in my town people are out doing stuff around the town offices, and candidates often stop by, although they are required to stay a certain number of feet from the door (or something).

          I am so skeptical regarding online voting, and that is primarily due to concerns regarding network security, and I don’t see that being fixed at any point in the near future.  One of the problems is that no matter how good the system is, there always seems to be some very creative person out there who figures out how to compromise it.

          • Don_B1

            The last segment of Thursday’s Charlie Rose had an interview with Barbara Simons, the co-author of a book “Broken Ballots: Will Your Vote Count?”, which gives a flavor of the problems that will need to be solved to attain a trustworthy election. See:

            http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12588

    • TheDailyBuzzherd

      “What does this mean?”

      ’50s extended indefinitely!

  • Michiganjf

    Romney says Read my lips: “No tax breaks for the rich.”

    Romney claims he will give the wealthy a 20% tax break,
    but will make up for it by cutting TAX LOOPHOLES THE WEALTHY NOW USE TO PAY LESS THAN THE TYPICAL MIDDLE-CLASS AMERICAN.

    Well, I do believe he’ll give the wealthy that 20% tax cut, but eliminating those tax loopholes the wealthy bought and scammed for will require the cooperation of a Republican House, and possibly a Republican Senate…

    DOES ANYONE REALLY BELIEVE REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS WILL ELIMINATE TAX LOOPHOLES THE WEALTHY LOVE SOOOO MUCH??????!!!!!!!

    NO!!!!

    The wealthy will get their 20% tax break from Romney, then Romney and the ‘Pubs will make the estate tax disappear irretrievably… then Romney will make a half-hearted effort to close some loopholes, as “promised,” but Republicans in Congress will thwart the effort utterly and the effort will ultimately be dropped entirely!!!!!

    Then who will take up the slack as Romney and Republicans push to narrow the deficit (something Obama has already been doing, from 1.4 trillion/year when he took office, down to 1.1 trillion now)?????

    The middle-class, the elderly and the poor, THAT’S WHO WILL GET HIT TO REDUCE THE DEFICIT WHILE THE WEALTHY SUCK US ALL DRY!!!!!!

    THINK, FOLKS!!!!

    The last eighteen years of Republican dogma and intransigence will tell you that is EXACTLY what will happen if Romney is elected President!!!!!!

    I re-iterate…

    Romney for president of SOME OF AMERICA 2012!!!

    Don’t let the lying Republicans who LIE ruin this country any more than they already have!!!!

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Sorry but the poor and middle class need jobs.

      The country needs jobs.

      To solve our debt and deficit we need jobs.

      To save the safety net and entitlement structure we need jobs.

      The choice in 2012 is clear:

      Romney == Jobs
      Obama == malaise

      And if we are lucky a President Romney will clean the bloat and corruption out of Washington too.

      I’ll leave you with a dirty little secret.  If Romney’s tax plan gets implemented the only people who will be hurt are the lobbyists and that is good for all of the little people.

      • gonkers

         As Bush PROVED… if tax rates are too low, then they’ll FAIL to capture enough revenue. Romney’s “growth” as a panacea plan is similarly flawed.   

        • William

           If so, why did Obama extend those tax cuts and enact his own tax cuts?

          • jimino

            Thank you for conceding that such tax policy is harmful to our economy.  Or are you saying the economy is fine? 

            You can not logically say both.

          • Duras

            You know exactly why Obama extended all of them!  Because republicans weren’t giving in to just letting them expire on the top, and Obama wasn’t willing to raise taxes on the rest of the population.

            Quit being an unctious twarp.

          • Gregg Smith

            He had 2 years of majorities. It was Democrats refused to cooperate.  

          • Duras

            The Bush Tax Cut debate came after the republicans took the house.

          • Gregg Smith

            The debate could have been any time. If Democrats were in favor of letting them expire they would have. If Obama was against it he could have vetoed the extension. Nope, theres no way to logically blame Republicans.

          • Duras

            What are you talking about?  The law was set to expire after the republicans won the house.  It’s a law!  You do know what a law is, right?

          • Gregg Smith

            It doesn’t matter. Theycould repeal them any time.

          • MrNutso

            Actually, about 4 months out of 24 where the Democrats had 60 votes (the new 51) in the Senate.

          • Michiganjf

            You’re counting independents, some of whom (Liebermann) were unreliable votes for the Dems.

          • Don_B1

            Another, one of the “Blue Dog” Democrats, was Ben Nelson (D-NB) retired CEO of an insurance company. But there were several more, also.

          • Don_B1

            Do I REALLY have to do this AGAIN?

            There were 59 votes in the Senate (including one Independent — Bernie Sanders — and one Independent-Democrat — Joseph Lieberman) until 7 July 2009 when Al Franken was sworn in, giving the Democrats60 votes necessary for cloture of a filibuster. But on 4 February 2010 Scott Brown was sworn in as the successor to Paul Kirk who had been appointed as Ted Kennedy’s successor after Sen. Kennedy’s death.

            I KNOW you think it is in your interest to keep repeating this lie, but I will try to show that it discredits ALL the things you say here.

          • Gregg Smith

            Spin all you want, the notion  Republicans stopped a willing Democrat Congress from letting the tax cuts expire is not credible.

          • Don_B1

            You have an over-ideolized view of how Congress operates.It does not take account of the threats of filibusters in the Senate that brings attempts to act on proposed legislation to a halt.

          • anamaria23

            In addition, the Repub threatened to cut off unemployment insurance
            at a most vulnerable time for many if tax cuts not continued.  No responsible president would let that  happen.

          • Don_B1

            Obama took what he could get (much like Reagan, but Reagan had a much more cooperative Democratic Congress); the tax cuts, particularly those for the 1% have a low multiplier, but the unemployment compensation extension that came with the tax cuts, has the highest multiplier.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Don’t confuse simpleton JAQing-off William with political reality and math all at once.

      • Duras

        Name one time in American history where we had great jobs, full employment with taxes on the 1% at the level Romney wants them at!

      • Steve__T

         ALEC wont let that happen

      • hennorama

        Employment is up by 2.687 million in the last 12 months

        Unemployed workers down by 1.809 million in the last 12 months

        Unemployment rate down by 1.2 percentage points over the last 12 months, to 7.8%.

        Malaise?

        Nice try.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    This should frighten everyone:

    “Beginning in 2014, IPAB would consist of 15 unelected technocrats whose recommendations for reducing Medicare costs must be enacted by Congress by Aug. 15 of each year. If Congress does not enact them, or other measures achieving the same level of cost containment, IPAB’s proposals automatically are transformed from recommendations into law. Without being approved by Congress. Without being signed by the president.” 

    These facts refute Obama’s Denver assurance that IPAB “can’t make
    decisions about what treatments are given.” It can and will by
    controlling payments to doctors and hospitals. Hence the emptiness of
    Obamacare’s language that IPAB’s proposals “shall not include any
    recommendation to ration health care.”

    - George Will 10/5/2012 WaPO

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-romneys-trifecta/2012/10/04/8e4fc77a-0e4d-11e2-bb5e-492c0d30bff6_story.html

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Hey gonk,
    there is still time place an intrade bet.  He is only up about 15 points from his low.

  • Middlepath11

    As far as Romney winning the debate, I’m not so sure.  My take away was: Prep School Bully Vows to Fire Big Bird.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Anniversary gifts, by year:

    1st year: paper
    10th year: tin, aluminum
    15th year: crystal
    20th year: humiliation in front of a national audience.

    • Shag_Wevera

      You are right.  Romney has this one in the bag (Is there an emoticon that represents rolling your eyes while turning your head?).

  • Ed75

    About the HHS Mandate, we must be clear that (it is now law, as of August 1st, in place for private busines owners) it requires Catholics to pay for things that they can not provide in good conscience. And if they don’t they will have to pay crippling fines ($1,000 per day per person, for a large company or charity millions of dollars).

    The result of its implementation is that many charities and services will come to an end.

    It is not a question of access to contraception of abortifacients: they are available through other government programs, or for purchase. Tax money is already paying for these things.

    But the mandate goes farther and states that the Catholic Church has to pay for these things (the accomodation is meaningless, and the one year delay for churches is just that, and also meaningless).

    In the Revolutionary War George Washington needed soldiers badly. But the Quakers said that they could not fight because it’s against their conscience. And George Washington excused them from fighting because consience rights are central.

    • J__o__h__n

      The church itself is exempt.  If it wants to participate in other activities, it must provide the same protection to its workers as everyone else. 

      • sickofthechit

        Well said!

      • Ed75

        That view, freedom of worship, is the one the administration would like people to accept. But we have free exercise of religion. And it’s part of the Catholic faith to serve the poor, to educate, to provide health care. And we have the right to do that without having to act against our consience.

        In the Revolutionary War, George Washington needed soldiers. He conscripted some Quakers, but they replied that they could not fight because it was against their beliefs and conscience. And George Washington respected their conscience, though he needed soldiers, and did not conscript them. And this was outside worship in the Church.

        Also, the Church’s general waiver lasts only one year, we have one year to accomodate ourselves to acting against our conscience. This won’t stand.

    • Jim978

      Ed,

      Church-related employers may write the check that goes for a healthcare plan that includes contraceptives, but they are not “paying for it” as you suggest.

      Monies employers allocate to benefits are employee compensation (non-wage compensation in IRS-speak).  This is compensation employees earn in return for their services.  That money belongs to the employees, not the employer.  If an employee authorizes the employer to forward a portion of his/her wages to a 401(k) plan, would anyone suggest the employer is paying for that?  Of course not.  If it’s not your money then you aren’t paying for it.

      With regard to contraceptives you also say, “Tax money is already paying for these things.”  Would you really prefer that taxpayers pick up the cost of contraceptives rather than having employees pay for these things using their own hard-earned employee benefit dollars?

    • Don_B1

      Every Catholic who works in the private sector for a company that provides healthcare as part of its benefits package would seem to have the same problem, EXCEPT that providing contraception benefits actually REDUCE the healthcare costs of employees who make use of them, so the worker SAVES money!

      So by including something in the package that you disagree with, you get lowered cost.

      Let’s let Catholic workers pay double the healthcare cost premium for no-contraceptive policies so the rest of us can have the lowered premiums and use the money to buy contraceptive benefits? How far do you think that proposal would go?

  • StilllHere

    Obama was more prepared for his appearance on The View than he was for Wednesday’s debate.  He didn’t know his own plan much less Romney’s.  He looked tired, pathetic and completely out of his league.  Hopefully the next debate is at sea level because altitude apparently makes him stupid.  

    • Shag_Wevera

      Maybe the president was thrown off by his challenger’s willingness to lie and change positions (as he has done throughout his entire political career).

    • Don_B1

      You are making unsupportable assumptions. It is inexplicable that he apparently had adopted a non-confrontational approach for the debate, but that does not in any way imply that he does not know his or Romney’s plan.

      In fact, he knew Romney’s plan, at least as of last month (it is hard to tell what page Romney is on each day, in his encyclopedic every possible plan book — oh, you can’t call his tax cuts Keynesian, though they are a weak form) and demonstrated it.

      He just didn’t ask Romney to tell him WHY Romney had changed his plan!

      • DrewInGeorgia

        Why ask Romney WHY? Romney is as Romney does.

  • JONBOSTON

    several things revealed by the debate. First, Obama is nothing more than an empty suit who without his superficial and misguided talking points , has nothing to offer the American people. His lack of understanding of fundamental economics and inability to articulate a coherent message of economic progress and job growth is startling. The man is  an utter incompetent who looked small and shallow compared to Romney’s command performance. Finally, the mainstream media was exposed for having shielded this man and his policies from any real scrutiny these past 4 years. Regrettably , this country is now suffering the consequences.

    • Shag_Wevera

      Easy to look good when ou lie without remorse and regret and bully the moderator.

      PS  You are smarmy.

    • Potter

      I agree 100% with the names reversed… and future tense at the end of your comment with re a Romney presidency.

  • Potter

    Your reading list blurbs notwithstanding, Romney changed or misrepresented his own positions for the debate. Romney  who “won” decisively did so by getting away with lies about his own positions and lies to the American public with a tired President standing by almost speechless.  I hope that we learn here and in other media, prior to the election, the meaning and the consequences of lying, bald-faced, the meaning of word mendacious…Romney is one slick snake oil or patent medicine salesman.

    The astonishing ease in which Romney pulls this off! I hope the media does it’s job to break the spell of the flashy smoothness Romney has cultivated.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Romney has been consistent on tax policy since he released it in February. Axelrod and Obama have been misrepresenting it for months and Obama looked shocked that Romney called him on it. Maybe Obama didn’t do his own research and just relied on what they load in the TelePrompTer for him.

      You don’ t seem too concerned with Obama’s 8 whoppers including his blatantly false claim that he offered $4T in budget cuts.

      • Duras

        The Tax Policy Center said that Romney’s tax policy doesn’t work.  That’s an independent source.  Romney can sit there and say all day that it is revenue neutral, but economists say otherwise. 

        Plus, America has never had a successful economy with a balanced budget with an effective tax rate less than 35% (that’s effective tax rate, not tax rate for clarification).

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          The TPC report was debunked. CNN reported TPC have backed off their initial claims but Obama STILL uses it.

          • Duras

            Yeah, debunked by Heritage Foundation…http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/26/how-to-make-mitt-romneys-tax-plan-add-up-sort-of/.

            Let me tell you something about economics: the individual tax code mostly influences consumerism, thus it we should always have low taxes on the consumer class.  As for the entrepreneur class, job expansion depends first and foremost on demand.  We had supply and capital problems in the 1970s when the tax rates on the top were 70% and unions had a lot of power back then.  Today, we are well below the the maximum revenue mark on the Laffer Curve.  It is pointless to lower taxes on the top.  Plus, the effective tax rate on the top is hovering around 27%.  If Romney wants to decrease the rates 20% from 35%, which is 15% yet flatten the code so it is the rate is the same as the effective rate, then he would indeed be giving the rich a tax cut! 

            Do you think that the rich are currently overtaxed? 

            And I would like you to do a little history homework and look up the economies that America has had with an effective tax rate on the 1% that was below 35%…what were the deficits…what was the economy like…?

            I would like to inform you that Romney wants to push this country righter than it has been since the pre-Depression era.  It is always nice to use history when discussing economic policy, instead of making an argument in a vacuum.

          • anamaria23

            Thank you for an enlightening post.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            You are misinformed about Romney’s plan. His plan cuts rates by 20%. The top rate then gets reduced to 28% from 35%. This is the same as Simpson Bowles.

            And as you point out the rich are already paying at 27% so it is feasible for the rich to have the same tax burden with a more efficient tax code with the new rate as Romney has promised.

          • Duras

            The effective rate for the 1% is roughly 27%.  As you know, the top tax bracket has the top 2% in it, and I am unsure of what their effective tax rate is.  But, nonetheless, fine.  And will you please show me where in American history a sub 35% effective tax rate on the 1% has worked?

            Were the rich hurting under Clinton’s 35% effective rate?  Personally, I can tell you that I grew up on the lower end of the top tax breaket during the Clinton years.  I got a free college education, we stayed in New York every year to attend the U.S. Open, we traveled, and lived a half mile from the beach, and my dad paid the full 39.5%. 

            I don’t think you understand that an underfunded government is a big problem, and because Romney wants to spend money where government is already bloated, money is going to come out of people medicare and SS checks.  If you are not in the 1%, you are voting against your own economic interests.  That is the core reason why I am voting for Obama.  Don’t get me wrong, I clearly think there is a time when we could have overbearing taxes on the top and I believe that a wealthy class is necessary for the survival of capitalism.  But the flat rates that America is currently enduring only works if labor unions are strong, which would reduce the wage gap between CEOs and Executives and average earners.

            No economy works with weak unions and weak taxes on the rich at the same time; likewise, no economies work with strong unions and strong (north of 50%) taxes on the rich at the same time.  Pick one or the other.  But you can’t have both.  Romney, who ignores the Adam Smith when he talks about how crucial unions are for capitalism.  And Romney admitted to a New Yorker reporter that he thinks unions are killing our competitiveness.  So much for those good jobs he was promising everybody. 

            Sorry for the long winded comment.  

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             No problem — I’m glad I at least could correct your info on Romney’s plan — but clearly not your ideology :)

            It is all about growing the economy and jobs.  Raising taxes will NOT create jobs.  Reforming the tax code WILL create jobs.

          • Duras

            You do realize that America became a superpower after 3 terms of FDR.

          • gonkers

             Bullcrap. The economy did BETTER under Clinton’s higher tax rates than under Bush’s LOWER tax rates… AND Clinton got to a true budget surplus.

            So PLEASE stop spouting the BIG LIE that never dies.

          • Duras

            I forgot to add on crucial detail: the effective rate on the 1% that I cited includes capital gains.  Because capital gains is 15%, then the effective rate on top income labor will be higher than 27% for sure.  Romney’s tax plan doesn’t raise capital gains, so I don’t think it is possible to lower rates to that level with it being revenue neutral.  And so I stand by what I originally said.

          • gonkers

             Have a link to a credible source?

  • Duras

    Nora O’Donnell, on CBS This Morning, just reported that PBS takes up 0.00012% of the federal budget.

    I’ve been saying it for the last 3 years: republicans want to keep the leading drivers of the deficits in place, and cut things that (frankly) get great bang for a small buck. 

    Except Medicare…republicans have proposed to cut consumer side medicare, while Obama targets the massive fraud all over the program.  Yesterday, on CNBC, they reported that a new law in Obamacare, in their words, “…actually caused the end of fraudulent practices” in a specific area of Medicare.  One of the CNBC republicans went on to say that Obama should go after the fraud in Medicare instead of the Buffett rule” (which is what Reagan fought for in the 80s).

    I slapped my forehead.  If these idiot republicans would just do some simple research and see that Obama is targeting the fraud while republicans are demagoguing him for doing so, and the republicans propose to cut medicare without touching the fraud at all!

    I seriously can’t understand how anybody can vote for these people who protect fraud, want as much money as possible to influence politics and elections, establish voter laws that are obviously aimed to suppress democratic votes, and so on.  Morons!  The lot of you are morons!

    • anamaria23

      I found it disturbing the glee and pleasure  with which Gov. Romney announced his plans to desubsidize public radio which is  a source of pleasure and information for millions.  Should he become President, I would want a more thoughtful and considered decision. 
      Just because public radio does not espouse right wing ideology does not make it “liberal” or socialist”.
      90% of talk radio is right wing dominated.

      • JGC

        This may have been a part of Team Romney’s debate plan to throw moderator Jim Lehrer off his stride. I wonder what sort of Romney “shock treatment” comment awaits Candy Crowley at the next debate. Hmmmm…

        • JGC

          I just read a Politico interview with Jim Lehrer that said, in fact, he thought he did a great job.  A great job. He was persuaded to come back to do another debate moderation with the promise of a new format, where the moderator had minimal input, and the debaters were able to have maximal argumentation without a moderator throwing on the brakes.  This was the agreed upon format.  So for some reason, Obama and his team did not fully appreciate the ground rules. And I hope that Obama, Biden  and their advisors will be fully versed in the game rules for the remaining debates forward. 

      • Duras

        I think republicans think that NPR is liberal because it talks about what is happening in every corner of America and shows the viewers, in the truest sense, other people’s perspectives…instead of the Evengelicalcentric news over at Fox.  NPR is just more broad, and broad-minded people listen. 

        I also think that PBS News Hour, NPR, and the BBC news they air is the last stand of major media journalism.  Fox, MSNBC, CNN are all crap to me.  The empirical, nonpersuasive, not declaritive but comparative journalism at NPR and PBS is curcial for America.

      • OnPointComments

        How did we get in the financial situation in which we find ourselves?  An increasing segment of the population believes “A source of pleasure” is a function of government. Romney has it right:  the question isn’t whether PBS is worthwhile, the question is whether we should borrow money from China that our children and grandchildren will have to repay.  If PBS is truly worthwhile (and I believe it is), then I’m sure private contributors will step up.

        • sickofthechit

          What we should not have borrowed from china for was the war in Iraq, and tax cuts for the ungrateful wealthy.

      • Don_B1

        While I know that most of the audience here is a big consumer of radio (talk, music, even drama, etc.) direct government support is about 7% of the total budget for NPR, though rural public stations do get other direct support, with which they are able to buy Morning Edition, All Things Considered, Car Talk, Only a Game, etc.

        But the big (relatively to the stations’ budgets) is the $440 million that goes to CPB which funds PBS programs like Sesame Street, American Masters, Nova, Frontline, and The News Hour, etc.

        It is probably programs like Frontline that drive right-wing enmity.

  • anamaria23

    Nine of twenty three comments so far by worried for the country.
    mostly to stick it to the President.   Then, the schill for the Catholic Church  is here.
    There are some wonderful informed posters on this site, but it had deteriorated into a dumping ground for right wing Obama obsessed haters.  It is no longer of value as a  mature exchange of citizen participation.

    • http://www.facebook.com/leonard.bast.90 Leonard Bast

      They irony is that they are so devoted to a “socialist” National Public Radio broadcast, which you would think goes against all of their deepest beliefs and yet . . . here they are, nonetheless, feeding at the “socialist” trough. Do you think they even know?

    • http://www.facebook.com/leonard.bast.90 Leonard Bast

      Another irony is that they do their candidate little good. Debate or no debate, does anyone think that loud, shrill, name-calling, emotion-laden comments against Obama are going to bring moderate, undecided voters into the Romney camp? If so, they’re not very politically astute because moderates are turned off by it. The far-right noise-machine is Mitt Romney’s worst enemy at this point in the campaign.

    • jimino

      I think their ultimate goal is to frustrate and chase away real dialogue.  Don’t let them.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Anamarie , I usually try and elevate the debate.

      Occasionally I resort to barbs but it is usually to counter balance the bile spewed out by some.

      Have a nice day.

      • Don_B1

        You call what you do elevation? When you are just spreading false rumors or false economics?

        But then when compared with other Republicans or radical conservatives, you probably fit right in as living in a fantasy world.

      • gonkers

         In W’s mind “elevating the debate” means posting nothing but far Right propaganda and political barbs.

      • JGC

        I’ll agree with you.  You have your decided point of view, but on rare occasions we meet in the middle. 

        Vote Obama/Biden 2012.

    • Shag_Wevera

      The righties are feeling their oats because Obama did not deliver a death blow to Willard the Waffler.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         See anamaria — ole shag is elevating the debate and I guess he isn’t a hater either.

        • Shag_Wevera

          I am perfectly capable of good ole fashioned hatred.

    • Don_B1

      @facebook-100004071951676:disqus 
      I think Leonard makes some good points, but one of the reasons they are here is just to create the disgust that anamaria23 feels, and I can understand her pain.

      But I hope she does not get that turned off and joins those of us who try to point out the failings of the right-wing. [I just saw jimino's post which is a more succinct form of what I am trying to convey.]

      I think this is their approach because together they create the “gish gallop” form of debate tactic, where a debater throws out one point after another so fast that they just can’t be answered as fast as they are put forward. The person not familiar with the subject, who are many and who come here or other places are just turned off, saying “a pox on both your houses!”

      In many ways it is a form of voter suppression.

      Some days I am torn about whether to respond to their idiocy or ignore it. There are distinct advantages to ignoring them (time and not rewarding their attention-seeking side) but I also feel certain false ideas need to be shown as such before they become ingrained in the public “knowledge.”

      Mark Twain had in interesting quote, “A lie has made its way around the world twice before the truth has put on its pants.” [May be a slight paraphrase?]

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         I have disdain for lies and media distortion.

        That in conjunction with my sincere belief that ROmney will be a great President — best in my lifetime –motives me to comment.

        He has the unique skills to turn this country around.

        I know some disagree with me.  That’s fine but I don’t like when either side is lying and right now it isn’t even close which side is more deceitful.

        • sickofthechit

          Sacrilege, unless you weren’t alive when regan was president!

        • John_in_Amherst

           So how do you feel about the Murdoch media empire?  Can you name another TV network (other than FOX) that employs a political operative (Roger Ailes, former chief strategist of the GOP) as CEO?
           
          Sadly, both candidates seem to be keeping the fact-checkers too busy.  Interestingly, it was Romney’s campaign manager who insisted their campaign would not be dominated by fact-checking.  And it shows.  Never let a little thing like veracity get in the way of a good sound bite, right?  This seems to have been the operative strategy of Romney on debate night.  And unfortunately Mr. Lehrer seemed to hope in vain that Romney would tire of constant interruptions, and straying from the topic and previously agreed upon format and time apportionment. 

          The vagueness and multiplicity of Romney’s stands on several issues do make it hard to pin him down with fact checking.  Much like Twain said of New England weather, if you don’t like it, just wait a minute…. Positions he took in MA to get elected too liberal for the national
          stage – oh, he shifted course midway through his term to improve his conservative cred.  Economy too slow?  POOF! let the magic of the market place and unfettered (i.e.: untaxed) job creators take care of that.  Scrapping Obama care a bit too harsh? wait, we’ll keep most of it, AND you won’t have to pay.  Comments regarding the 47% tick you off?  Oh, now Romney really thinks they were wrong.  Emergency rooms are too costly to be relied on for general medical care?  Not now.  etc. etc. etc. Now that he is moving away from the hard right, how WILL he deal with Ryan, and vice-versa?

        • Don_B1

          Now you have a sentence which would be truthful IF AND ONLY IF you admit the deceitful side is the REPUBLICANS!

          After the debate, the Romney camp had to admit three false statements; what makes them even more than deceitful is the fact that Romney had made them in his stump speech and they had been fact-checked and found wrong, and Mr. Romney has continued to make them, in defiance of the truth.

          Have you actually read the fact checkers and analyzed the reasoning on why Romney’s claims are deliberately false? if not, why not? I take it that if you have not it is because you don’t want to know or you were spending your time learning the ways the Romney camp are going to spin their next set of lies.

  • jimino

    I wonder how much the always present StillHere (the irrational crazy one), Ed75 (the religious zealot) and WorriedfortheCountry (the Drudge/Blaze recycler) get paid to begin and dominate the discussion on this website.

    I also wonder why none of them can actually identify even ONE of the loopholes that Romney claims he will close and without which his plan is a $5 trillion tax cut for the wealthy.

    Maybe we can start with the one for religious entities..

  • keltcrusader

    “U.S. Unemployment Rate Falls To 7.8 Percent
    The Labor Department says employers added 114,000 jobs in September, dropping the unemployment rate below 8 percent for the first time in nearly four years.” NPR

    • Gregg Smith

      It’s about damned time. What’s the U6?

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        14.7% same as last month.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      So the increase in jobs is LESS than than population growth but the rate goes down? Most economists predicted this level off jobs added but expected the rate to go up to 8.3%.

      It will be interesting to hear the explanation. Have more people stopped looking for work?

      • Gregg Smith

        Fewer people looking for fewer available jobs equals a lower unemployment rate.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          Yes. The government changed how they report unemployment about 20 years ago. They levelize the jobs universe by the workforce participation rate.

          With the new way workers mysteriously vanish. I have no clue how the measure that workers have given up looking after they are off unemployment. I suspect they can’t measure it accurately.

          The old way would have unemployment around 12%.

      • gonkers

         “Most economists”? Have a credible source? Or will your source turn out to be ANOTHER far Right source?

    • keltcrusader

      The Associated Press notes that: “The economy also created 86,000 more jobs in July and August than first estimated. … The revisions show employers added 146,000 jobs per month from July through September, up from 67,000 in the previous three months.”
      The BLS report also says there were 456,000 fewer people counted as being among the unemployed last month. At 7.8 percent, the jobless rate is back where it was in January 2009 and is below 8 percent for the first time since President Obama was sworn in that month.
      http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/10/05/162352854/unemployment-rate-drops-to-7-8-percent-114-000-jobs-added-to-payrolls

  • Michiganjf

    Old “worried LOVES to leave out that inconvenient fact as he consistently omits the facts.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Huh?

  • Michiganjf

    Good God, Disqus[t] is worthless and has become intolerable!

    Get rid of Disqus[t] until they fix all of these absurd problems!!!!

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Oh OK. I feel your pain.

    • gonkers

       Disqus is a TERRIBLE forum system. I wish WBUR would go back to their old forum software they had in 06.

  • ChristopherNoel

    Today’s unemployment number strikes me as “fool’s gold.”  With only 114,000 jobs added during September, the 7.8% rate must be largely due to people leaving the official jobless rolls due to giving up on finding employment.  In the past, I’ve heard this latter figure cited for a given month, so I assume it is known, or at least approximately known.  Therefore, why do we continue to place so much significance on the highly misleading unemployment rate as traditionally construed rather than looking at an aggregate number that reflects the entire picture?

    • hennorama

      Look at the year-over-year data rather than the one month changes:

      (source: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm )

      Employment up by 2.687 million in the last 12 months

      Unemployed workers down by 1.809 million in the last 12 months

      Unemployment rate down by 1.2 percentage points over the last 12 months, to 7.8%.

      Fool’s gold?

      Here’s the one month stuff:

      Civilian noninstitutional population up 206,000 in one month

      Labor force up 418,000 in one month (increased faster than population)

      Labor participation rate up by 0.1% in one month

      Employed workers up 873,000 (increased MUCH faster than population AND labor force)

      Unemployed down 456,000 (much faster than population)

      Those not in the labor force down 211,000 (faster than population)

      Of those not in the labor force, there were 2.517 million “marginally attached” (down 44,000 in one month) and of these, 802,000 were discouraged workers (down 42,000 in one month)

      So – lots more people were successful in finding work AND the labor participation rate increased.  Good news.

      All good news.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

    iOnePoint:

    The unemployment rate 7.8 percent.
    The world can now breath a little sigh of relief. 
    The wish bone is still stuck in our throat but that can be push down if we continue to support the current administration.

    • Gregg Smith

      7.8% is God awful. The new normal is unacceptable. The “stimulus” was supposed to have us down to 5ish% by now. And dollars to donuts the number gets revised unexpectedly. Obama is desperate for a friendly news cycle.

      • Duras

        Remember when Romney said that we now spend 42% on the government, which is true.  But what he neglected to tell you is that most of it is in medicare and defense, and the slimest section of our government is the public sector, which is currently around 15% and at a much smaller percentage of the economy than when we had a surplus.  It’s amazing to me that republicans want to cut government were it is already slim while continue to bloat government where it is already bloated.  Should have passed the Jobs Bill and kept public employment to around 20% of the economy, (which is very sound by the way…but you are probably a puritanical right wing ideologue, right?).

      • Michiganjf

        It DID just get revised…. UPWARD!

      • gonkers

         Yup… 7.8% unemployment is not good. But Reagan had unemployment 7% and higher for FIVE YEARS… and he didn’t have to contend with collapsed banking, housing, and automotive sectors. Yet we KNOW you consider the Reagan years a magnificent success.

        So PLEASE Gregg… take your far Right Limbaugh rubbish propaganda elsewhere.

        • Gregg Smith

          I’ve never said a word about Reagan. Who is he and what is the relevance? 

    • Michiganjf

      Absolutely AMAZING the U.S. is doing so well… better than just about any advanced country in the world!

      … and this, despite Republican obstructionism the last four years, despite the Bush/Republican recession, despite the world economy continuously putting a damper on growth…

      We can’t risk going back to moronic, recessive, regressive Republican “NO GROWTH” policies!!!

    • OnPointComments

      Retired GE CEO Jack Welch is among those who suspect the White House of cooking the labor figures, as he tweeted a few minutes ago:  “Unbelievable jobs numbers…these Chicago guys will do anything…can’t debate so change numbers”

  • http://profiles.google.com/filmi.girl Filmi Girl

    Re the debate – I hate that the media is insisting Romney “won.” What did he win? He steamrolled over the moderator, spewed a bunch of fake talking points, and managed to keep a smug smile on his face the whole time. So, this is how we’re judging the substance of a debate now?

    Sometimes I wonder why I even bother… 

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      How did Mr. Obama end up speaking for 4:30 more minutes than Mr. Romney and also get steamrolled by the moderator?

      I heard the moderator interrupt Mr. Obama and feed him a line when he was bumbling. I also heard the moderator interrupt Mr. Romney a few times when he was countering some of Mr. Obama’s talking point.

    • Shag_Wevera

      Filmi Girl…  I think I love you!

      • sickofthechit

         Easy sailor.

    • JGC

      You’re right! Romney was a joke.  Why do I even bother…

  • Inquirer7

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq1zpHF0J04

  • JGC

    Sports news from Canada:  There was a report on NPR about the unfortunate cheating scandal in speedskating, involving American skater Simon Cho, who tampered with Canadian skater Olivier Jean’s skates before last year’s World Short Track Team Championships.  Cho is remorseful, while blaming his coach for pressuring him to perform the sabotage, still is ready to accept whatever punishment is decided.  The NPR report did not have the response from Olivier Jean, a winner of relay gold in the 2010 Olympics. He said last month, “I actually found it funny.  We always wish to have a clean sport; that everyone has team spirit. You can’t erase the past.”  Olivier Jean is concentrated on looking forward, which is pretty good advice for a lot that happens in life.

  • Inquirer7

    Who remember the amazing speech given by U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders on Dec. 2, 2010 and who can find a connection with our present economic situation? Watch it again and try to think:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq1zpHF0J04

  • Michiganjf

    You’ve got THAT right Tom!

    Greatest ETCH_A_SKETCH performance ever!!

    … and by someone who wants to lead this country!!

    Romney for president of SOME OF AMERICA 2012!

    • DrewInGeorgia

      He should be nominated Emperor Of The Great State Of Texas. Texas should separate itself from the rest of the United States and under Romney’s tutelage lead us into a New Golden Age…or at least give the rest of the Nation the chance to watch he and his buddies run it into the ground without taking us with them.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Yeah, but when Texas realizes it’d have to do without my Blue State tax dollars, and its job growth can’t be based on “Made in the USA label (with exploited immigrant labor)” or enticing corporations with tax dollars from other states, they’ll wake up real fast.

        • DrewInGeorgia

          Shhhhhhhhh!!! Don’t give away the surprise ending!

          You are getting sleepy Nutjobs, your eyelids are getting heavy, very heavy. You are falling into a deep and peaceful sleep. When I snap my fingers you will awake feeling refreshed and invigorated and will begin making The Great State Of Texas your new homeland. You will not remember anything that TF just said…

  • MrNutso

    We had an entire show yesterday on the debate.  Why discuss it again?

    • DrewInGeorgia

      Because repetition is the key…

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Debates don’t move the needle?

    Ask Jimmy Carter.

    Reagan was down to Carter 39% to 47% on October 20,1980

    And Romney was more dominate over Obama than Reagan over Carter.

    Also, this was the largest debate viewing audience since 1980 — are voters looking for change?

  • Thinkin5

     It’s not the calamity that the press and the right is blathering
    about. All you have to do is look at the Takeover Artist/Mitt’s
    performance and be amazed at his gall. He didn’t fool 99% of the people.
    It’ like letting a fish run with the line. Obama probably did as well
    not saying anything to counter Etch-a-Sketch and just let the public
    judge the fraud that Mitt spewed.
     

    • Michiganjf

      You’re giving those who SOMEHOW still don’t recognize Romney as a FRAUD a lot of credit, but I hope you’re right!

      Even most conservatives KNEW Romney for the FRAUD he is just a few months ago, but they’d vote for a stick so long as it means “their side wins!”

  • WorriedfortheCountry

     Jack — why are you being blatantly dishonest?

    Romney’s tax plan hasn’t changed on iota since February 2012.

    • gonkers

       And that “real” tax plan is….. ? What? AGAIN no link to a credible source?

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         go to the source mittromney.com

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=507593666 Josh DeYoung

    “Will the real Mitt please stand up, please stand up”

  • NewtonWhale

    Pat Nixon, Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton, Laura Bush, Michelle Obama and Big Bird will haunt Mitt Romney‏

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2012/10/04/big-bird-will-haunt-mitt-romney/

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-ghvbv9l5c

    • JGC

      It was a dark and stormy night when the bloody mitts of Mitt Romney…

      Ohhh NO!!! Big Bird! LOOK OUT!!!

      MWAH HAHAHAHA! (Romney grins a crazed grimace, wipes the bloody feathers off his hands, pauses to check on his secret Cayman investments, then shambles off in the direction of Obamacare…)

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    The left are apparently debating against the version of Romney that they falsely painted and not the consistent real Romney.

    It is really quite stunning.

    • Shag_Wevera

      Please enlighten us all.  Who is the real Mitt?  

    • Thinkin5

      Go back and look at Mitt talking in the primaries. You’ll see another Mitt pandering to the cultural wingnuts. The “severely conservative” Mitt.

    • gonkers

       Like there IS a “real” Romney? ROTF

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      “Consistent”.

      Submitted without comment.

  • Thinkin5

    Sunnunu is disgusting. We’ve watched Romney all year and many years before. Why should one night change who he is? Absurd!

  • J__o__h__n

    How moderate is Romney going to be with the Teabagger House?  Don’t buy the etch-a-sketch act.  There is no evidence that Romney will govern as a moderate.  If he isn’t a severe conservative, he is a liar. 

    • Government_Banking_Serf

      Who is the real Obama?  Liberation Theology (20 yr attendance, and speech regurgitation) Socialist, or Post-racial, Post-Partisan, free market capitalist he told us he was?

      If he isn’t a post-racial, bipartisan, market guy, he’s a liar.

      • J__o__h__n

        Romney described himself as a “severe conservative.”  Obama is hardly a black extremist socialist.  Obama attempted to be bipartisan even long after it was obviously a waste of time. 

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        It’s nice to see that, when challeneged, a Libertarian gets back on the old crackpot bigot train. Makes pretending they’re not just a flavor of Republican so much easier.

  • gonkers

    As Etch-A-Sketch does an Orwellian rewrite of his own positions… here’s what I WISH Obama had said:

    WELCOME TO VOODOO ECONOMICS 2!

    Romney claims that economic growth alone will magically create revenue booms even at lower tax rates. It’s the same Orwellian Right rubbish peddled in 1981 and 2001. It’s the Big Lie that never dies.

    There’s another half of the so-called Laffer Curve that the GOP loves to cite as long as it’s in support of irresponsible tax cuts. But there’s another half of that theory the the GOP sweeps under the rug. It’s the prediction that even with GOOD economic growth, if tax rates are too LOW,  those low rates will FAIL to capture much revenue. We saw this in the Bush years where in inflation-corrected dollars total revenues did not exceed Clinton’s last year until 2006 and then barely. During the Bush years total revenues were LOWER for 6 of his 8 years.

    Just looking at ON-budget revenues in constant dollars they only finally exceeded Clinton’s last year for ONE year: 2007… and amounted to a mere $70 billion.

    If one just looks at income tax revenues, in inflation-corrected dollars Bush’s revenues NEVER exceeded Clinton’s last year… EVER!

    Now I’m sure many of our right wing friends will claim FALLING revenue is proof of a supply side revenue boom… but then some people will believe black = white and war = peace.

    • gonkers

       If Obama ever uses this approach he BETTER be prepared to face the wrath of the Orwellian Right who will claim amazing revenue growth during the Reagan years. It’s a lie of course. In constant dollars revenue growth under Reagan was a pathetic 13.5% over his 8 years… much of that from his tax HIKES in 82 and 83. Income tax growth was only 8% over 8 years.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/5EBFE2F5M64QTEGG55KXF242WI .

    Debate analysis in one word: Rope-A-Dope.

    • sickofthechit

       Hope so!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/James-Patrick-Dwyer-Jr/100002088204784 James Patrick Dwyer Jr.

    I read this morning that Romney told 27 lies in 38 minutes. I am a little surprised that people believe anything that comes out of his mouth and I am deeply disappointed that so called reporters do not call him on the carpet for any of them. 

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       I read that Obama told 38 lies in 42 minutes.  So what.

      Spin from both sides.

      I have a list in front of me of 8 massive whoppers that Obama told.

      • sickofthechit

        List them and the source.

  • Government_Banking_Serf

    If we are going to ask the “Where is the real ____”? Then lets be fair and ask about which Obama is the real one? The uniter or the divider we see in all those videos being re-examined. Its a fair point.

  • http://www.facebook.com/anita.paul.5680 Anita Paul

    CNN.  Just gave there position away. We set up a split screen for what? 

  • Shag_Wevera

    I’m entirely willing to concede that Willard the Waffler exceeded expectations in the first debate, BUT……

    I’ve had enough of the conservative lovefest.  If you are going to spew garbage about the inevitable Romney landslide, expect to be challenged regarding the trash you are leaving at the curb of rational discourse!

  • Thinkin5

    If I were the president watching Mitt’s performance I would have had to look away too. Mitt’s plastic face, putting out positions that contradict all he’s been saying all year, was too much. Mitt has no principals and a poor character. A man who will say anything to get a job can’t be trusted.

  • Government_Banking_Serf

    Is Obama a post-racial, post-partisan capitalist, or a liberation theology socialist?

    Does it matter? Why, Why not?

    We voted for one. Which is it?  If your’e going to blame Mitt for drifting left and right from primaries to General, you can certainly ask deeper questions like that.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       They will never hold Obama accountable.

      I wonder if they will bother fact checking Obama’s whoppers.

  • Ed75

    People like President Obama – his youth, his energy. People want to help him, but his policies – on the life issues, on the deficit, are lethal. So we can’t support him, it’s the issues that matter.

    • Shag_Wevera

      Who is “we”?  BTW, I don’t expect a response.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      “Deficit”?

      Where’s the old Ed? I liked you better when all you cared about was government edicts to cram things up females’ vajayjays, and inserting your god between a woman and her doctor.

  • Shag_Wevera

    HEY WHADDAYAKNOW!!!

    Willard the Waffler has “backed off” from his 47% statement.  Is there anything he won’t say to win elected office??!!

    • keltcrusader

      In public, sure, but then he was speaking in private to a group of people he considered his equal - what he spoke then is truly what he thinks of most of the American Public and he has nothing but disdain for the majority of us. That people actually believe anything that he spews out of his mouth shows their true gullibility.  

  • adks12020

    Does anyone really think the debate changed anything for anyone? Look at the comments here.  People that supported Obama before still do; people that supported Romney before still do.  The small # of independants are probably still on the fence. Pundits make it seem as though the debates have a much larger effect than they really do.

    And what is with the Romney team saying people got “to see him for the first time” at the debate? He’s been campaigning for over a year and prior to that he was in another national campaign and all over the news for his stint as governor of Massachusetts.  There were several nationally televised primary debates.  He is far from an unknown.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      The debates probably unwound some of the $250M in smear ads that Axelrod has spent smearing Romney’s character.

      They didn’t see the monster and gaffe machine that the media and ads have portrayed.

      • Thinkin5

         They did see that infamous flip flopper though. The same, I’ll say anything to get elected guy. “I want regulation on Wall St.!!” Really Mitt?

      • adks12020

        I honestly don’t think either candidate did a good job in the debate. Obama seemed tired and blase and Romney seemed way too eager and energetic. Both of them had looks on their faces like they wanted to slap the other guy while he was talking. Both had pompous smirks on their faces the whole time.  Both basically repeated their stump speeches. 

        As I’ve said before the people that pay attention, even just a little, didn’t learn anything new from either candidate in this first debate.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          Interesting.

          I thought Romney showed confidence and passion for the subjects he was talking about.

          Another interesting factoid, Romney spoke 500 more words than Obama but he had 4:30 less time. 

          Someone put together a video that chained together all of Obama’s ums and uhs and it strings for 58 seconds and is really hilarious (or maybe not).

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Interesting.

            Speaking fast, so one doesn’t get moderated or told “you’re time’s up”, indicates less than you think.

            Mitt took a page out of the Republican shitestorm book: So many lies that everyone who cares has to spend all their time wearing out the eraser correcting them.

    • Thinkin5

       Maybe what the Romney people and the right are saying is, “Finally! A guy we don’t hate!”. Meanwhile the rest of the country is used to seeing a president who always delivers. Mitt just exceeded his very low expectations.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        My take on the thought bubble: “Finally, he’s brave enough to continually interrupt an overmatched old man who works for PBS! Maybe he is one of us!”

    • DrewInGeorgia

      “And what is with the Romney team saying people got “to see him for the first time” at the debate?”

      Because people did get to see him for the first time, well at least the New Model anyway. What version are we on now? Romney 7.1?

  • StilllHere

    Our dopey president drops a bunch of lies and then decides to take a 90 minute nap.  This is his presidency in a nutshell.  Maybe he thought he was gonna be on Letterman again!  He’s making a joke of our country! 

  • http://twitter.com/DragonFired Arana Fireheart

    I watched the debate, I though Romney’s smirking and flailing WAS NOT a winning position. He looked a irrational and hot headed and Obama looked in control and rational. I didn’t think it was a game changer for either man.

    Was I the only one that heard Romney say that (I’m paraphrasing) All americans worship the same God!?!? Why isn’t anyone commenting on THAT outrageous statement?

    • sickofthechit

      He misquoted the Declaration of Independence.  It says “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are endowed by their Creator….”  It is “their” Creator, not  “our” Creator meaning they recognized that each person has their own individual view of “God”

    • DrewInGeorgia

      Because most Americans do worship the same God, Mitt Romney included. All bow to The Almighty Dollar…

  • dubhlaoich

    Romney “walking back” his 47% remarks is pure hypocrisy. He said those words in a private session closed to the media. He was exposing his beliefs and exhibited his true disdain for people who are not like him. No amount of running away after being caught will absolve him. Romney may not be a tea party republican but he is without a doubt an old time patrician, country club republican.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Is Obama walking back his bitter clinger remark pure hypocrisy?

      • Government_Banking_Serf

        don’t expect an answer……

      • Shag_Wevera

        Answer the question.  Don’t change the subject.

        • gonkers

           I was just about to say the same thing. But that’s W’s MO.

      • Thinkin5

         God and guns IS the main agenda of the right. That’s not hypocrisy.

      • sickofthechit

         I’ll answer, Obama’s comments were prefaced with – there is a part of the electorate in PA who for the last 25 years have seen their way of life erode and the economy/country has left behind, their way of life has disappeared and they are bitter about it.

        He was saying that he recognized their difficulties and that it would be difficult (but not impossible) to reach them because at that point in time they were “bitter and tended to cling to guns, religion, and bibles.”

        Completely different than Romney saying 47% of Americans collecting some form of government assistance (which includes Social Security Recipients, Veterans Benefits, as well as food stamps and welfare) feel entitled and are unwilling to work.

  • Leedan12

    I find it amazing that Mr.Romney is going to balance his proposed 20% tax cut by eliminating deductions??  This is the same guy that will not release his tax returns and has taken advantage of every tax loophole possible.

    • sickofthechit

       Don’t forget he still has unused charitable deductions to file with an amended return.  Until he pledges to not file an amended or let anyone file it for him he is not to be trusted and his effective tax rate for 2011 is illusory as are all his “great plans”.

      • DrewInGeorgia

        Even if he does pledge not to amend the return he is still not to be trusted. Don’t take my word on that, all one has to do is pay attention to his.

  • http://www.facebook.com/josef.schwabl.5 Josef Schwabl

    9 11 has made Bush a shock, anger and blame President. Obama is a Negociating President. The next phase of the american healing 9 11 will be a president that accepts reality and will move on with the american people to the American dream again  

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

    The American Jobs Act will create jobs that will fix the deteriorating public infrastructure all over America.

    Highways and Bridges that are badly needed of work from Chicago to the city of Chelsea. There are plans to create jobs but the Republicans are the people who suppresses jobs and the future of America and the future of the world.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Harry Reid is blocking 32 jobs bills that have passed the house.  He won’t even allow ANY of them to the floor for debate and even amendment.

      • J__o__h__n

        They are real jobs bills.  They are the same old Republican cut taxes and cut regulations with a new name. 

        • J__o__h__n

          Disqus wouldn’t let me edit:  It should have said, they are not real jobs bills.

      • anamaria23

        These are not jobs bills.  They would accomplish not very much.

      • Thinkin5

         The Republicans main legislative agenda has been abortion. Hundreds of bills have been put forward by them. They have voted down Obama’s jobs bill repeatedly.

      • gonkers

        The purpose of the Senate is to be the grown-ups…  and not to fall for
        the passions of the moment… in this case nutty bills from a House full of Tea
        Party crackpots and loons. 

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        “Job bills”? That’s so cute.

  • MikeinNashville

    What I saw in the debate was Mr. Spock vs. an intellectual fungus. The question is will most Americans identify with Spock or the fungus, according to the pundits its the fungus but I’m not so sure

  • Rajan Desai

    If the debate was between Romney and pinocchio, it would be easier to decide the winner – one with the longer nose wins. If Romney is joined by Paul Ryan – pinocchio stands no chance.
    Obama should debate with Mr. Invisible…

  • J__o__h__n

    Romney can’t break his promise not to raise taxes.  The GOP was much more reasonable in the 80s and 90s and George HW Bush never recovered conservative support after he broke “Read my lips, no new taxes.”

  • Government_Banking_Serf

    An economically-literate, pragmatist, is exactly what we need right now.
    If thats what Romney is, he should win. 

    Way easier for congress take cover to work with a Moderate Republican than an ideological Democrat.

    Do the far right Repubs wish Romney was more hard core? Sure. But I don’t think he is.

    • MrNutso

      Moderate Republican is an oxy-moron.  For a Repbulican to be moderate he would have to be the Presidents twin.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        From your keyboard to David Brooks’ ears. Seriously, all Obama needs for the Beltway to love him is to get rid of that (D) next to his name.

        But we keep getting fed winners of that new reality show, “Barack Obama’s Republican Twin”, and to say the least it ain’t pretty. Michael Steele, Herman Cain, Allan West? Oof!

    • Shag_Wevera

      You really don’t recognize Obama as a big money, big banking friendly centrist democrat?  Are you high?

      • Government_Banking_Serf

        ?

        Yes that is exactly what he is.

        That is likely what Romney is too.

        So given that choice, I’ll take the one that still leaves even weak glimmer of representing the founding ideals of a Constitutionally-Limited Government, that is designed to protect our liberties and allow us to enjoy as much freedom as possible to pursue our ideas and dreams.

        And will keep agitating for people to pay more attention to the points of commonality that people like Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Bill Black, and Glenn Greenwald have.

        Its not easy, but its where the real reform, and real spirit of the founders lies.

        Maybe its too hopeful to think the citizenry can think any smarter than the conventional 2-party narrative, but what is the alternative?

      • Government_Banking_Serf

        When you embrace Big Government as a leftist, and embrace technocratic control by “smarter” and well-intentioned elites, for all of our benefit, it is not surprising that you surround yourself with people like Summers and Geithner.

        THIS IS THE TECHNOCRATIC SOCIALIST FALLACY!

        Only by reigning in power and discretion, keeping it accountable to the voters, not hidden in political appointee positions, and unaccountable institutions and cabals of Washington/Wall St/Central Banking people, will we ever have a chance, a slim chance, of preventing tyranny.

        Do you not think what we have been subject to is tyranny?

        Do you really have a better model for resisting tyranny, than that which this country is founded on?

        Just because we have become lazy, ignorant, or cynical citizens, who could care less about self-governing and being vigilant, and care more about consuming and living the debt-fueled prosperity lie, does not mean the ideals are defunct.

        Just because we don’t know the function and value  Rule of Law vs. Discretion anymore, does not make it centrally important.

        Essentially alot of you have given up. You believe we live in a world to big and complicated to self-govern in anymore, and are ready hand over the American experiment for short term promises of comfort and easy living by politicians and bankers.

        We need to take the power, and the responsibility for organic supply and demand economics, back.

        That is where you find commonality in the words and analysis of Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Bill Black and Glenn Greenwald.

        But you have to look.

        Nobody will do it for you.

    • J__o__h__n

      The last time we had a Republican president working with a Republican congress was such a success.

  • Government_Banking_Serf

    Jack, your “Drastic” qualifiers all need to be put against our debt situation.

    A pragmatist could see that.

    • Shag_Wevera

      Why is the debt a problem today, but not in 1992, 1982, 1972, 1962, 1952, etc etc?  What is the MAGIC number when our debt and deficit become problematic?  Methinks it has something to do with a Democrat being in office.

      • Government_Banking_Serf

        That’s a frightening statement/question.

        You need to check out the levels, do the math on interest on the debt, % of GDP, etc, look at Europe, and defend you position that Debt doesn’t matter, yet.

        http://www.usdebtclock.org

        What do you think will happen when the dollar fully collapses and we default on our debt? You think that is going to be fun?  Did you like all the unaccountable actions taken by the Fed during our last crisis in the name of Emergency, by Paulson Bernanke Geithner et al? Can you imagine what will happen when the real crash comes?

        Do you like the idea of over-empowered financial elites having all that discretionary power, and the idea of us mindlessly drifting to the event that will enable them to finally really  get us under there thumb forever more?

        That is why Debt matters.

        That is why Liberty matters. 

        That is why Rule of Law, not Discretion by unelected Elites, matters.

        That is why regardless of the clownish reality of politicians and all their special interest pandering that we need to stay on top of, we do actually need to address the issues that our “sworn political enemies” talk about, like debt etc.

  • Thinkin5

    Why do the Repcons always try to take credit for bipartisanship?! Don’t the Dems get credit for working with them when they are bipartisan on the same issue? Kind of stupid to say only one side is bipartisan.

    • DrewInGeorgia

      Compromise is seen as weakness by bullies.

      • J__o__h__n

        They are right if it is one-sided.

  • MrNutso

    Mitt’s number one priority is to be President.  He will do what ever it takes to get there and stay there.  Faced with a Republican Congress he will be Bush II II.  Signing anything that comes across his desk.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Remember Saint Grover: “All we (the right) needs is a hand with a pen in it.”

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Romney told you what his priority was:

    CREATING JOBS

    • Shag_Wevera

      I think his priority is feeding his ego and maybe avenging his father.

    • J__o__h__n

      Which he claims he can do through tax cuts and cutting regulations.  Same old Republican agenda that doesn’t work. 

      • Mike_Card

        He has now disowned the 12 million job, 5 T debt reduction promise.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           No he hasn’t.  He will have a balanced budget in 8-10 years.

          • DrewInGeorgia

            And Santa Claus is bringing you a squeaky clean new Soul for Christmas. Every time Mr. Romney sings an Angel gets new wings…

          • jimino

            We already did, by undoing the very policies that Romney now intends to re-implement turned it into a huge deficit, crashed the economy, and stripped 95% of our citizens of their assets and income while the top 5% made off like bandits. 

            So tell us why it’s going to be different this time.

        • Steve__T

           Buy very quietly.

    • Leedan12

      Yeah, by cutting taxes and deregulation.  This is proven to create jobs??

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         Actually yes.

        Let’s look at the inverse.  The CBO says Obama’s proposed tax hike will kill 700,000 jobs and yet only pay for on day of Federal spending.  Hardly a good tradeoff.

        • sickofthechit

           Your comparing apples to walnuts.

          Romney’s ideas are just a re-hash of failed cheney/bush failed ideas. 

        • gonkers

           Have a link to the CBO study????????

    • MrNutso

      If the government destroys jobs, why is he running for President?

      • OnPointComments

        To move the emphasis back to the private sector where it belongs.

        • Thinkin5

          Mitt should stay in the private sector and not try to be something he’s incapable of. 

    • AC

      what sorts of jobs will he create?
      http://singularityhub.com/2012/03/21/amazon-goes-robotic-acquires-kiva-systems-makers-of-the-warehouse-robot/

      creating jobs is an empty promise by anyone who uses that phrase. i want to know what jobs he will create before i believe him. & I do think it was wise for the president to mention that we need to beef up ‘training’ and ‘education’ programs – this is the only real long term solution – there are jobs right now that people are not skilled for. it worries me.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Training and education is one of the 5 pillars of Romney’s economic plan.

        The question is what kind of jobs are we creating now?  Most of them are part time, low paying jobs.

        • AC

          that’s good to hear.
          there’s no one but ourselves to blame for the lack of jobs – think about it: when was the last time you used a bank teller? a post office for ‘mail’? a milk man?
          the nature of ‘jobs’ is totally diff today and history is happening. Personally I don’t blame Bush or Obama – I blame us, and at the same time I love where we’re headed. But the transisition phase is going to hurt like hell. Cutting taxes is as empty a phrase to me as ‘create jobs’. All we can do now is race to educate our populace, and that’s going to cost both time and money….

          • Steve__T

             Romney said he’s going to get rid of education or put it in another branch of Gov, It’s going to be privatized. Sold to the highest campaign supporter that wants it.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Eww.

            Romney came up with all those bad ideas on public education without having a friend in the business of charter schools?

            All the shysters waiting to skim the cream of the students and a chunk of the money from public education  probably understand there’s an opening for “education reformer” at Mitt’s right hand.

            That makes me shudder.

          • AC

            i wrote something back here but it never showed up. in any case, i was thinking of why private companies don’t support education more – if they need educated workers, they should help supply them. why should a student or the goverment take on debt just in the hopes of getting a job later? anyway, an idea, not really committed to it myself as a solution – i did see an article from the 30s that showed high school boys learning ‘welding’ in a public school – do they even still do that?

          • Steve__T

             We used to have a great educational system but it’s gone remedial. Back in the 60 we also had Job Corp that was a good way for inner-city youth to get back on track by learning many different trades while earning money at the same time. Nixon nixed it, and it’s just a shell of what it was. We need something like that, but when the economy is as it is, the last thing you can get is a good eduction unless you can pay for it. We no longer teach good basic skills we teach kids how to pass tests.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            It is all about growing the economy. When the economy is growing and there is opportunity folks put in the extra effort to lift themselves.

            I remember in the early ’80s things looked grim.  Japan looked like it was taking over and that ignited a spark in the American spirit and we had great growth.

            Hopefully, we can get it back.

            If we get stuck in a hopeless cycle we’ll be hosed.

          • AC

            maybe i’m too young, but it seems to me you can’t compare ‘now’ to ‘then’….it’s waaaayyy too different…you could have a nice living and support a family being so many jobs that have since been automated or replaced by software…

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Times were tough back then.  Imagine waiting in gas lines because that is what we had to do.

             I have faith in the American people but you are correct — it is a new time.

          • Government_Banking_Serf

            but don’t you think each decades jobs where being replaced by technology/efficency since time began?

            Let’s not be so defeatist.

            If you don’t believe in the technology dream of providing more and more jobs and growth, we could always move back toward being connected to our food and shelter production, and live simpler lives. 

            Stop buying all the corporate/finanicial crap, and the mega salaries and bonuses dry up and they can pick up a shovel too.

            Problem is how intertwined our Government and Business have become.

            They have made themselves indispensable now, even though so much of what they offer is crap and useless.

            Break the State Capitalism strangle hold and build a more organic economy. Let people do business with each other and with businesses, and the government can stand by and punish rule breakers and the corrupt.  That is the job of Govt. Not to run and guide the economy and give sectors the power and advantage of Government, enslaving us to them.

          • AC

            i wrote back to you but it never showed up. it was something about how eager i am for technology to continue it’s path. that it will be good to see the end of back-breaking labor on any person and the enviromental benefits (no trees harmed when reading an ebook), etc, etc. not sure what ou mean by buying ‘crap’? anyway, i think we need to have more training/education around future technologies because that is were jobs currently are and WILL be….

        • DrewInGeorgia

          It’s NOT a plan, it’s a vague outline of approved talking points.

        • Thinkin5

           That’s what Obama’s policy has been all along. A month ago Romney said, “We don’t need any more teachers!” Now he wants more. Mitt/Ryan’s budget cuts education. They want to get rid of the whole public school system.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         Interesting robot/Amazon article.  Thanks for that.

  • Thinkin5

    I wish Lehrer had asked Mitt how his policies would differ from the failed Bush/Cheney ones. Maybe in the next debate.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

    Presidena Obama was excellent and calm during the first debate. no sweating, acted normal, never lied, honest and respectful.

    Romney was a little irrirated, rude to the President and lied so much to the American people and especially to his never ending Naive followers.

  • winterpond

     What seems to be missing from the debate – albeit a side issue – is that most Massachusetts voters will likely not be supporting Romney.  For a former governor to be getting such a small % of support is his own state, I think, speaks volumes about his legacy here in the state.

    • robymaje

      I strongly agree with this point. I am an independent MA voter who voted for Romney for governor but would never vote for him again. Surprising that we have not been asked why

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/ZPCPSKZMDZOFJGTWV4V3F4LCCM Xuejing

    Why Romney can get things done, but Obama cannot? Because Dems DO compromise, but GOP DOES NOT (not even 1 revenue vs 10 cuts).

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Why doesn’t Harry Reid allow any house bills to come to the senate floor for debate or votes?

      Harry Reid is a Democrat and if President Obama wanted these bills to move forward he would certainly told Reid to allow them forward.

      No, the Dems have calculated that gridlock is good for their re-election.

      • gonkers

         Because the purpose of the Senate is to be the grown-ups…  and not to fall for the passions of the moment… in this case from a House full of Tea Party crackpots and loons. 

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           We haven’t had a budget for 4 years because they are grownups?

          I’ll make a note of that one.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Pending 60% approval from the members of this board your post will not appear.

          • gonkers

            Wouldn’t it be a treat if ALL the irrational if not slavish partisans… GOP and Dem… disappeared?

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Hey, I’m all for bipartisanship.

            I invite the right-wingers to go first.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Jack is lying again.

    The Ryan budget is NOT drastic cuts.

    Ryan’s budget grows spending at 3%.
    Obama’s growths spending at 4.5%

    Obama’s is unsustainable  and creates a spiraling debt bomb that will kill the middle class.

    • MrNutso

      Ryan/Romney wants hard figures for govt. spending vs. GDP that decrease as time goes on.  This can only result in drastic cuts, since they plan to cut revenue.

    • OnPointComments

      We’ve been in Orwell’s “1984″ for a while now.  Only in government is an increase in spending described as a drastic cut.  War is peace.  Freedom is slavery.  Ignorance is strength.  Orwell had it right, but he was off a couple of years.

      • gonkers

        Never head of concepts like inflation or spending per capita?

    • gonkers

      Didn’t BUSH promise tax cuts + growth = debt paydown????  Gee, didn’t Reagan do the same? The actual revenue numbers PROVE all these tax cuts did was REDUCE REVENUE.

      Just because you fall for these lies over and over again doesn’t mean the nation should fall for them a THIRD time.

    • Duras

      I think it is more of a spinning debt bomb full of poop as well as TNT.

    • StilllHere

      Democrats are math-challenged!  To them, growing the government at a slower rate is a cut.  Compounding escapes them and they can’t count past 10.

    • gonkers

      Do you EVER intend to provide links to sources you get your “information” from so we can evaluate them for ourselves?

      Yup… the far Right has suddenly given up on their 30 year strategy to starve the beast… to abolish or sabotage New Deal and Great Society safety net programs. In reality they are going in for the kill… and they KNOW they can never get elected if they told the truth.

    • Bruce94

      Republicans apparently can’t do the math or read history.

      The Ryan/Romney plan is recycled garbage from previous failed supply-side experiments (a.k.a. voodoo, trickle-down, smoke-screen” economics) that served as a Trojan horse for the wealthy feeding the Far Right’s appetite for a free lunch, that is, a cost-free, painless path to prosperity.

      Tax cuts that benefit primarily the wealthy were tried in the Reagan and Bush II years, and contributed to record deficits that exploded the national debt.  Under
      Reagan the debt increased from $800 billion to $3 trillion and under Bush, the Prodigal Son, from $5 to $10 trillion 

      The middle-class and working poor suffered under both GOP regimes with Clinton providing the only respite from the growing income inequality that Saint Ronald gave us and the declining median family incomes, stagnant wages, middle-class contraction and financial collapse that the Prodigal Son gave us.

      Unprecedented improvements in the status of the middle-class and working poor proceeded under Clinton
      AFTER taxes were raised on the wealthy and a new energy tax was levied.  What happened next was record ave. GDP growth at 4% and an unemployment rate at the lowest level in 30 years.  The benefits of this growth were shared broadly in society unlike what occurred in both the Reagan and Bush recoveries.

      Etcha-Sketch may have exceeded most expectations Wed.night, but he failed to be credible on two points that he needed to demonstrate–first, that he could empathize with the vast middle-class and working poor and second, that he had a coherent alternative to Obama’s vision for improving the economic prospects of all Americans. 

      The attack-dog tactics might have energized his base, but IMO did little to enhance his standing with undecided independents who needed some reassurance in the wake of his infamous 47% comment that Romney is capable of “feeling our pain,” not just inflicting it. 

      Instead what we got in the debate was more of Romney as an opportunistic chameleon whose multitude of reversals and misstatements will keep the fact checkers in overdrive and provide plenty of fodder for future debates and TV commercials. 

      Wed. night Romney dazzled us with style over substance befitting an Olympic gymnast performing all kinds of contortions in order to run away from his previously held positions as fast as his feet could propel him.

      But that’s right, according to his resume, Mitt does have Olympic experience.  He claims to have single-handedly saved the Salt Lake City Games.  But wait!  I seem to remember that this self-proclaimed turnaround artist ended up accepting $342 million in FEDERAL subsidies on behalf of those very same Games.  Guess he’s not all that opposed to govt. dependency and earmarks so long as they benefit his cronies.

  • brian copeland

    Solely on the topic of grid lock, would an incumbent be more likely to unlock Congress than for a new President to have to worry about the next election?

  • elevine43

    Speech
    for the Feast of Election Day

    (not entirely original)
    …We do not covet our neighbors fortune, 


    We fairly share what we hold in common;

    We do not turn away when asked for help.

     

    If it’s a sin to see good in sharing,


    Then ours are the most offending of souls. 


    Sing out, Democrats, sing in our millions: 


    Let them who have no stomach for this fight, 


    Let them abstain: they will not be counted. 


     

    We would not fight, allied with those who fear

    To vote their choice on this Election Day.

     

    This is call’d the Feast of Election Day. 


    Who votes on this day and then comes home, 


    Will stand on tip-toe when this day is nam’d, 


    And rouse themselves at the call of Election. 


     

    Who shall vote this day, and see their old age, 


    Will each four years feast with neighbors, 


    And say ‘To-morrow is Election Day.’ 


    Then will roll out the names of candidates, 


    And say ‘These I chose on Election Day.’ 


     

    The old will forget; all shall be forgot, 


    But Vermonters who vot’d will remember, 


    What was done this day. And then shall the names, 


    Familiar in the mouth as household words– 


    Obama, chief; Shumlin, Sanders, Welch–

    Be in their flowing cups remembered. 


     

    This story shall the good teach their children; 


    And Election Day shall never go by, 


    From this day to the ending of the world, 


    But we in it shall be remembered- 


     

    We few, we happy few, we band of sibs; 


    For who to-day shall cast their vote with us 


    Shall be our friends and keep the country whole.

    Be they ill-born or well, poor-born or rich, 


    This day shall gentle their condition; 


     

    And citizens in Vermont now-a-bed 


    Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here, 


    And hold their ballots cheap while any speaks 


    That voted with us on this Election Day.

     

    —————————–

    Liberty’s
    Immigrants

    (not at all original–just a reminder)

    Not like the brazen giant of
    Greek fame,

    With conquering limbs astride
    from land to land;

    Here at our sea-washed, sunset
    gates shall stand

    A mighty woman with a torch,
    whose flame

    Is the imprisoned lightning, and
    her name

    Mother of Exiles. From her
    beacon-hand

    Glows world-wide welcome; her
    mild eyes command

    The air-bridged harbor that twin
    cities frame.

    “Keep ancient lands, your
    storied pomp!” cries she

    With silent lips. “Give me
    your tired, your poor,

    Your huddled masses yearning to
    breathe free,

    The wretched refuse of your
    teeming shore.

    Send these, the homeless,
    tempest-tost to me,

    I lift my lamp beside the golden
    door!”
                                   –Emma Lazarus

  • sickofthechit

    Romney didn’t win, America Lost!

  • MrNutso

    It’s the voters job to end grid lock.  Why should the President be force to adopt the other parties agenda?

    • gonkers

       Some of this is due to defects in the Constitution. Leaving aside gerrymandering which can give a party 70% of a state’s seats in Congress with only 51% of the vote… in the Senate a mere 18% of the population gets 52% of the seats. It’s the most anti-democratic, reform proof body on the planet.

      I’d like to Senate votes weighted to the populations of each state.

  • hennorama

    Total September employment in the civilian labor force is up by 2.687 million in 12 months to 142.974 million.  This figure also
    jumped by 873,000 since August 2012.

    Total unemployed civilian workers is down by 1.809 million in 12 months to 12.088 million (NOT the 23 million Mr. Romney continues to falsely claim).  This number decreased by 456,000 just in the last month.

    The unemployment rate dropped in all categories, except for those with Bachelor’s and higher degrees, and that rate was unchanged.  The unemployment rate has now dropped by 1.2 percentage points over the last 12 months, to 7.8%.

    Wonder how the Romney campaign will spin this good news as BAD news.

    (source: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm )

  • catilinas

    I think we should have a shorter campaign season. The way American elections drag out is ridiculous, especially since, as you’re saying, most people are pretty much decided by now. We should have a limited election season — 3 months — as they do in other countries (like England).

    • MrNutso

      It’s worse than you think, since people are already positioning themselves for 2016 based on the outcome of the election.

    • J__o__h__n

      2016 will begin in January at the latest.

  • Thinkin5

    The caller is right, Romney is a bully. He’s also arrogant and completely out of touch with the lives of most Americans. They are just numbers on a paper to him. He has no idea what cuts to programs mean to the people who depend on them. He only knows that business has an insatiable greed for more and more money.

    • robymaje

      Bully came to mind when I watched Govenor Romney in the debate. He bullied the President AND he bullied Jim Leher!! And they let him do it!

      • DrewInGeorgia

        So, by proxy, are saying that The President and the Moderator are cowards? I disagree, they were both damned if they did and damned if they didn’t. They chose to try and remain professional. After President Obama is no longer in office come 2017 I want to see he and Mr. Romney climb into a ring. Who do you think would turn out to be the real coward?

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      I gave you a like, but I dunno that I’d get so personal about mindset to Romney. He’s been living his whole life in that environment, doing what gets rewarded there. Even with his great flip-flopping powers, do we expect him to turn into a consensus-builder who can stand up to his friends, and can now care about people too poor to be his customers, at the drop of a hat?

      I think it says more about the narrowness of what CEOs need to succeed in this country (which by itself I’m not calling a bad thing) and the media’s fetish that skills for one translates to the other, especially as Senator, governor or President. (Edit: And the latter I am calling a hivemind bad thing of the highest order.)

  • MrNutso

    A great piece on un-decided voters.  They should be called won’t-decided.

    http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/idiots-delight/?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20121005

  • Government_Banking_Serf

    It is astounding, that when the times might call for a Moderate Republican, in the older mold, Mitt could never just run as that from the start, as the guest was just talking about RE partisan hardening.

    Kind of sad that we can’t even have that option and now have to deconstruct all the partisan layers and language to find a candidate.

    • J__o__h__n

      The extreme right has taken over the Republican party.  It will be even worse in four years. 

      • Government_Banking_Serf

        I don’t know about that. It’s all how you define “right”.  The old concept of fiscally responsible? So if you are more dedicated to that, are you more “right wing”?

        What are the strongest messages coming out of those new House members. Fiscal. I’m frankly not that worried about any religious nuttery, as I don’t think the vast majority of Americans would tolerate that.

        It’s astounding that in this time of global debt crisis, all talk of Fiscal Responsibility gets lumped into the “crazy right winger” category.

        Also its crazy how little the bipartisan nature of the foundation of this Debt crisis gets examined.

        If we would just focus on that, if we would have, over the last years, we could have come up with a non-partisan, fact-based map of what caused the crisis, and a concise set of political demands to bring accountability, and prevent reoccurrence, and then demand that in a candidate.

        But instead we just lined up besides the same old same olds, and left the real issues under the rug to fester.

        If we are so twisted and D-R partisan now that we can’t breach the issue of “Fiscal Soundness” and “Living within Means” without being branded a “right-winger” we are indeed lost.

        • J__o__h__n

          Why are you buying into the myth the the Republicans are fiscally responsible?  Clinton left a surplus.  Bush and a Republican congress squandered it on tax cuts and wars and left us with a mess.

          You often claim both parties are at fault but you mostly criticize the Democrats and you are falling for Mitt’s etch-a-sketch counterfactual moderate guise.

          • Government_Banking_Serf

            I’m not. How am I defending the GOP fiscal record, are you kidding? 

            But that doesn’t mean that I have to throw out the whole fiscally-responsible idea with the bathwater.

            Do you really buy that Surplus baloney? You do realize how Alan Greenspan’s, unsound, non-libertarian, free-money policy inflated that whole era that was a nothing but a speculative bubble?  

            That the coffers looked full for a brief moment before the bubble popped doesn’t make it any more real.

            As I’ve often said, criticizing the modern GOP is almost too easy. But you guys need to be more critical of the DNC, and the way they embrace our unsound monetary policies to achieve their goals.

            Or any more socialistic idea, that needs to be funded by our Unsound Monetary system, and debt to achieve its well-meaning, but fiscally-unrealistic ends.

            Sound Money, Rule of Law, Living within Means, Basic Safety Net, not a Middle Class Entitlement society fueled by Debt and giving us indentured servitude to the all too happy to oblige banker class.

            We have to have a more organic economy, not all the Financial BS driven crap. We do not NEED all the corrupt bankers to run our lives, for us to provide food, shelter and the basics for ourselves.

            Do you really think we can’t provide Food, shelter, and a basic goods and services economy without the Corrupt Finance class being in charge of it?

            We can do that without being communists or socialists.  That’s the whole liberty and independence thing.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Dave’s part of that great Libertarian inverse pyramid.

            It’s a patented retail politicking method which interests many converts with “Hey, white male of some means, do you want to smoke pot without going to jail?”

            Then, as every single detail is revealed, more and more of the audience drifts away.

          • Government_Banking_Serf

            Do you defend the Too big To Fail concept? Why?

            Do you defend the Rubin/Summers/Geithner/Paulson technocratic leadership concept? Why?

            Do you believe in a free market, circumscribed by a rule of law frame work, or do you prefer a State-run economy? Why?

            Someday you’ll provide some substance to your armchair criticisms, and show yourself as more than just a hip, anti-anything market progressive with no answers.

      • Gregg Smith

        The Tea Party has taken over the Republican Party much to the dismay of the establishment. They were only supposed to be able to win primaries but that myth is dead. They are hardly extreme. Hallelujah!

        • gonkers

          But then, Gregg… YOU are on record here saying Limbaugh is more credible and a better source of news than NPR.

          Not that you needed help discrediting yourself, but that admission was hilarious.

          • Gregg Smith

            Do you seriously contend NPR is more credible than Rush? Wow.

    • jimino

      Give us an real-world example of a “Moderate Republican” president.  I am not aware of any Republican president since Nixon who has not catered to the religious right and its demand that private lives be monitored and regulated by government and who has increased government spending and debt while proclaiming that “government is the problem” and should be reduced.  Seriously, what real person actually fits your bill?

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Sorta like a backwards-looking Friedman Unit, a Moderate Republican is “now someone who used to be in office 50 years ago”, continually.

        At this rate the witch-hunting paranoid war-criminal enemies-listing bigot Nixon will get his “moderate Republican” wings before the decade is out.

        (And this isn’t about some of the policies he adapted at the time. Overwhelming political odds forced many of his hands, and the man hadn’t a bone in his body that cared about a small-r republic. Creepy foreshadowing of Dick Cheney’s “unitary executive”.)

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

    In order to compete with Japan and Germany we need highly skilled workers in automotive industry space industry and the medical field.

    If we want to compete with manufacturing with China low skilled workers are needed but no thank you.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Rasmussen did a poll last week of hard supporters in the same survey that had Obama up +3.

    The results were:

    Obama 42%
    Romney 43%

    So it sounds like there are a lot of persuadables.

    • Thinkin5

       Reuters had Obama still ahead this morning. Election day will tell us the truth.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Actually, one can start laughing at any sentence that begins “Rassmussen did a poll”.

  • MrNutso

    So caller, you think we should spoil the peoples land with oil and gas wells?

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6DT4R3Q4755PRVG5WT5I7PJWWE dustin

      that caller was actually wrong. drilling is up on public and private lands, though on public lands it depends if you mean oil or gas. one is up, the other is down. Obama told oil companies sitting on permits but not drilling, to drill or loose the lease. That helped drive drilling. Imports are down to levels not seen since the 1980s. That said, I don’t think our public lands should be used to destroy the rest of the planet and peoples livelihoods. No more investments in the fossil fuel future please.

  • Stephen706

    What a bunch of bias pompous excuse-makng fools??? All of these guests and you too Tom!!!

    Do any of you out there really believe the unemployment rate MAGICALLY fell to 7.9% — below the dreaded 8% line??? How convenient? How suspicious? I call BULLS**T and do not this figure one bit–betting it will be revised upward!!!

    Just like the VIDEO killed the ambassador (hint–it didn’t)
    Just like the altitude excuse actually is getting any credibility–REAL JOURNALISTS would be blowing this OUT OF THE WATER!!! Complete and utter HORSE HOCKEY!!!

    THis is why NPR funding will be cut–not worth borrowing money from CHINA to pay for this bunch of CRAP!!!

    • Steve__T

       So why are you here?

    • gonkers

       Yup… so typical of a braindead if not insane Tea Party GOP to go after NPR that costs practically nothing… and yet say NOTHING about the biggest waste of money in the budget: that 450 BILLION that went to pay interest on the debt last year.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        That’s the thing, the right wants the “bitching rights”, to complain endlessly about the pittance which NPR or PBS get. It’s a cheap, easy source of the ire that Fox and Rush and the lesser denizens of the puke funnel need, continually and freshly, to keep their idiot low-information consumers at “threat level midnight” all the time.

        Simultaneously, NPR and PBS are piss-pants-scared of being called liberal by anybody and somehow take as a point of pride that “both sides are complaining about it so we must be doing it right”.

        Yeah, well that’s bullshite. NPR and PBS can’t fight their way out leftwards out of a wet paper bag.

        Why would the right wing wish to change that?

    • hennorama

      Umm … you may want to calm down a tad.  The Sept. unemployment rate is 7.8% NOT the 7.9% you quoted.  Maybe your angry high blood pressure caused your finger to jump from the “8″ to the “9″ keys.
       
      You can also forget the monthly changes and look at the year-over-year numbers, to see the trend and why it’s no surprise:
       
      The civilian labor force has grown by 1.059 million people in the last 12 months, but employment has grown much faster:
       
      Total September employment in the civilian labor force is up by 2.687 million in 12 months to 142.974 million.  This figure also jumped by 873,000 since August 2012.
       
      Total unemployed civilian workers is down by 1.809 million in 12 months to 12.088 million (NOT the 23 million Mr. Romney continues to falsely claim).  This number decreased by 456,000 just in the last month.
       
      The unemployment rate dropped in all categories, except for those with Bachelor’s and higher degrees, and that rate was unchanged.  The unemployment rate has now dropped by 1.2 percentage points over the last 12 months, to 7.8%.
       
      (source: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm )
       
      So, it’s some sort of conspiracy when you don’t like the numbers, but when Mr. Romney says “… unemployment’s been over 8% for X months …” HE USES THE SAME SOURCE.

    • gonkers

      The unemployment rate dropped .3% or more THREE TIMES since May 2010. So that change ALONE is not suspicious.

      • Stephen706

        3 times in 30 months. Really? Actually it is 2 (TWO) times in that 30 month period with this one suspect.
        That is not a statistical pattern my friend and should raise your eyebrows rather than make you feel all good inside. It should make you question the timing and circumstances. It’s not summer. It’s not Christmas. It’s not full time full employment. It’s not counting the folks who have been out so long they are off radar. There is a reason lot of folks are throwing the red challenge flag, just like many did with the attacks on our embassy with the admins trumpeted “it was the video” excuse. Not credible.
        “If it is too good to be true, it probably is.”

        Stephen Bernstein
        334-763-5008

  • MrNutso

    Come on Jack.   A lie is a lie, no matter who says it.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/YPD5OIQ3MX5LEW4YSBMC6XVFBE Daniel

    I think Romney is happy to debate Obama because Obama is a balck man.  Essentially, Romney is such a bigot that facts would always be irrelevant in an argument with Obama.  Bigotry is all about looking down at others to prop. your weak ego.  In the end, this is all that a person like Romney is.

    Did anyone notice how is children were afraid to touch Obama? Creepy.

    • Thinkin5

      Gingrich and Sununnu reveal a lot of racial animosity on the right. They called Pres. Obama “lazy” and “stupid”!! Where do these 2 pigs get off saying those things about a man who obviously isn’t either?!

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Not that I agree with Sununu’s comment but didn’t Obama say  himself that he is a lazy just a few months ago.

        • Thinkin5

           Nice try. With a schedule like the Pres. of the U.S. no one in that office could possibly be lazy. Mitt hasn’t held a job in 4 yrs. I guess he’s lazy.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             I didn’t say Obama was lazy — Obama said Obama was lazy to Baba Wawa.

            The videotape please:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXIre_mYfig

          • Gregg Smith

            Obama’s lazy, he can’t be bothered to attend his military briefings. He never misses Sportscenter. But that’s not the point. Sununu nor Gingrich called him “stupid”. It’s a lie, apologize.

          • gonkers

            Yup… here in the 21st century we KNOW the only way people can communicate is in person.

            Which reminds me… how effective was that in person security briefing for Bush… you know the one where he was presented the evidence “Bin Ladin Determined To Strike In US”?

    • Gregg Smith

      That’s sick.

  • keltcrusader

    Except that the 2 quotes aren’t even comparable as Obama was sympathizing with those folks who felt the country was leaving them behind and was wondering how to get them interested in what was going on in the country:

    OBAMA: “So, it depends on where you are, but I think it’s fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government. The people are mis-appre…I think they’re misunderstanding why the demographics in our, in this contest have broken out as they are. Because everybody just ascribes it to ‘white working-class don’t wanna work — don’t wanna vote for the black guy.’ That’s…there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today – kind of implies that it’s sort of a race thing. Here’s how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn’t buy it. And when it’s delivered by — it’s true that when it’s delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter). But — so the questions you’re most likely to get about me, ‘Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What’s the concrete thing?’ What they wanna hear is — so, we’ll give you talking points about what we’re proposing — close tax loopholes, roll back, you know, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama’s gonna give tax breaks to middle-class folks and we’re gonna provide health care for every American. So we’ll go down a series of talking points.But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. Um, now these are in some communities, you know. I think what you’ll find is, is that people of every background — there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you’ll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I’d be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you’re doing what you’re doing.”
     
     while Mitt was showing his true colors by stating he doesn’t give a damn about those folks at all:

    Romney: “There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government is responsible for them, who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what… These are people who pay no income tax… my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

    My boss just put this on my bin this morning about Obama Care.

    Medicare Shared Savings Program is in effect 27 Accountable Care Organization will responsibility for the quality of care to furnished to people with medicare etc etc. it is a long news but it is good for all of us.

    This is part of the Obama Care. God Bless America

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    OMG — polls today have Romney up in VA, FL and Ohio today

    Granted they are only by 1 to 3 points but that is a dramatic shift.
     

    • gonkers

       AGAIN… no link to a source so we can evaluate it for ourselves.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         AGAIN… .go to RCP and check it out.

        • Ray in VT

          I did, and I would have been more convinced if the polls hadn’t been from Rasmussen, which very often runs more conservative than even polls from Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, which are hardly liberal rags/schills, as some allege for many of the pollsters who have been providing results that they don’t agree with.

          I don’t know enough about We Ask America to make a judgement on their reliability.

          I’ll wait for news from the most well known, and I think more reliable, firms.  Gravis, which I didn’t see on today’s list on RCP, is another one that I am skeptic of, as people don’t seem to know who they actually are, and they run, generally, even further to the right than Rasmussen.

          I am also usually skeptical of PPP for the same reason as Rasmussen.

          As usual, I don’t get too worked up over the daily poll numbers, for reasons that people here have already talked about.  I would be more concerned, on a partisan basis, should polls throughout the weekend show the same trend.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Rasmussen was the most accurate pollster in 2008 but I think it is good to be skeptical.  I think it is more important to look at the ‘change’ from the last data point from the same  pollster.

            I still think this is early and it only gives a loose indicator of momentum.

            The most dramatic late shift was Reagan-Carter where Carter was up in some polls +8 in mid-Oct but ended up losing by 11 points.

            For me, this election looks very much like Reagan-Carter.  A weak incumbent with a poor record and a challenger will a lot of questions and easily demonized by the other side as a scary guy — they certainly did that with Reagan (the dunce actor who wants the nuclear suitcase).

            The debate (there was only one) make huge difference with Reagan-Carter and Carter had a significant foreign policy crisis.

            Obama has a foreign policy crisis but it is just developing.  But Carter was stronger on domestic leadership than Obama.

            Of course, the electorate demographics and media coverage and many other factors are dramatically different this time so who knows.

          • Ray in VT

            I think that it is still way too early as well, and I think think that the President will give a better showing at the other debates, at least I hope so.

            I often don’t like comparisons on things like elections, because from any one event to another there are so many differences that such attempts seem highly fraught with difficulties.

            I disagree with many of your points regarding both candidates, but you already know that.  I’m responding to the Rasmussen point in Pete’s post.

          • pete18

             All polls have to be taken with a pinch of salt, however Rasmussen was actually the most accurate in calling the 2008 election: http://www.speroforum.com/a/16643/Polling-the-polls-Who-were-the-most-accurate

          • Ray in VT

            That is interesting regarding Rasmussen, because I went back and looked at some of the RCP numbers from the swing states from 2008.  Take Florida, for instance:

            http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/fl/florida_mccain_vs_obama-418.html#polls

            Obama won by 2.8
            Rasmussen’s last: McCain +1
            Everyone else had Obama by at least 1

            Now Rasmussen’s second to last was Obama by 4, but the one before that was McCain by 1.  Anyways, 33 polls in the last month there.  4 showed a McCain lead and two were Rasmussen.

            Rasmussen was also on the low end in Virginia and Ohio.  The national number wasn’t too bad.  Not the best, at least as reported by RCP here:

            http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Ras’s ability to have commensurate numbers after Halloween is amazing, considering how little they agree with (seemingly) everyone else from Labor Day through Columbus Day.

            This “closing speed” makes for GOP talking points during times like this, and “accuracy” at the finish line, if all one is looking at is the finish line.

            Their methodologies are mysteries, and in the age of the internet, lots of people who get called by them do comment on blogs asking “who is push-polling me”?

            Like a compass next to an electromagnet, there is no way of telling if the “accurate Rasmussen” will show up.

        • gonkers

          Am I the only person who reads your slavishly right wing posts?

          It’s NOT THE JOB OF READERS HERE TO GUESS WHERE YOU GET YOUR “FACTS”.

    • Gregg Smith

      Just wait until Obama has to defend the horrible decisions to forgo security for our very worried Ambassador in Libya on the anniversary of 9/11. How can he explain blaming the stupid video and misleading the nation when he knew on day one it was a coordinated terrorist attack?

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         I know.  The foreign policy debate is going to be rough for Obama.

      • gonkers

        Yup… if Obama screwed up then he owns that decision.

        But I KNOW you don’t feel the same about BUSH/CHENEY screwing up on 911 where we were hit on AMERICAN SOIL with thousands dead. THAT you just do an Orwellian rewrite of history and it becomes “Bush kept us safe”.

      • OnPointComments

        Benghazi, Libya is the biggest indictment of the failed Obama administration other than the collapsing economy.  I wonder how many more bold bald-faced lies about the embassy attacks will have to be proven before the media abandons its role as Obama sycophants.  The administration tells us it was all about a movie and there weren’t any security concerns, and when the truth comes out, the media abandons the story.

  • http://www.facebook.com/edward.quinn.545 Edward Quinn

    I am deeply disappointed that you talk about the debate as if there was a profound revaluation from Romney. You like so many seem to be mesmerized by Romney being the aggressor that the value, accuracy, or even the fact that it makes no intellectual sense in what he said go by the wayside. And Jack Beatty I am most disappointed in for this fact as well. I watched the debate and thought of Romney make pledge after pledge that I was living 100 years ago and was being promised a chicken in every pot. Please take a hard look at his comments that he would raise no new revenue, Cut the deficit , balance the budget and provide the support to put everyone back to work. He played Santa Claus and you are blown away by his body language and his aggression. 

    Get back to one + one = Two not some made up numbers that by just saying it you make everyone happy. Reality!

  • gonkers

    A quick, off-topic, historical fact: in 93-94 about 80% of the GOP senators signed on as co-sponsors to health care bills that INCLUDED AN INDIVIDUAL MANDATE.

  • Government_Banking_Serf

    When you embrace Big Government as a leftist, and embrace technocratic control by “smarter” and well-intentioned elites, for all of our benefit, it is not surprising that you surround yourself with people like Rubin, Summers and Geithner.

    THIS IS THE TECHNOCRATIC SOCIALIST FALLACY!

    (You can call it Technocratic Fascist when Repubs in charge if it makes you feel better.)

    Only by reigning in power and discretion, keeping it accountable to the voters, not hidden in political appointee positions, and unaccountable institutions and cabals of Washington/Wall St/Central Banking people, will we ever have a chance, a slim chance, of preventing tyranny.

    Do you not think what we have been subject to is tyranny?

    Do you really have a better model for resisting tyranny, than that which this country is founded on?

    Just because we have become lazy, ignorant, or cynical citizens, who could care less about self-governing and being vigilant, and care more about consuming and living the debt-fueled prosperity lie, let alone being good 2-party Pets, does not mean the ideals are defunct.

    Just because we don’t know the function and value  Rule of Law vs. Discretion anymore, does not make it no longer centrally important.

    Essentially alot of you have given up. You believe we live in a world too big and complicated to self-govern in anymore, and are ready hand over the American experiment for short term promises of comfort and easy living by politicians and bankers.

    We need to take the power, and the responsibility for organic supply and demand economics, back.

    That is where you find commonality in the words and analysis of Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Bill Black and Glenn Greenwald.

    But you have to look.

    Nobody will do it for you.

  • gonkers

    Shame on Obama for not being better prepared to deal with Romney’s Voodoo Economic II scheme… is it number III? Even according to the GOP’s favorite tax cut theorist… the Laffer Curve also predicts that if tax rates are too LOW, they will fail to capture sufficient revenue. We saw this during the Bush years where in constant dollars income tax revenues did not exceed Clinton’s last year EVER. 

    After the obvious FAILURES of these Voodoo Economic schemes during the Reagan and Bush2 years, Obama SHOULD have had the revenue numbers from those years handy and would have had an easy smack down.

    Obama should fire his debate coach and staff. 

    Here are some quick look at just Reagan/Clinton/Bush revenues in billions of 2005 constant dollars from Table 1.3 US Historical Budget Tables…

    REAGAN:

    FY81 1,251.1

    FY88 1,420.7 13.5% increase over 8 years including two large TAX HIKES in 82 and 83.

    CLINTON:

    FY93 1,510.9

    FY00 2,309.2 52% increase in revenue over eight years

    BUSH:

    FY00 2,309.2 Clinton’s last year

    FY08 2,288.1 -3% DECREASE not including all the lost revenue for the other years.

  • NewtonWhale

    I cannot believe that Jack Beatty is so uninformed that he would give credence to Mitt Romney’s accusation that Obama ignored jobs and wasted his time on health care.

    Obama lobbied Congress to pass a stimulus from the moment he won the election. He signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on February 17, 2009, less than a month after he was inaugurated. It gave a $787 billion boost to the economy and saved or created over 3 million jobs. It improved GDP by 2-4%:
    http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/qa-michael-grunwald-talks-about-impact-arra?page=0,0

    It would have done more if it had not been shrunk by Republicans, in particular Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Specter, who only agreed to vote for the bill if it cut $110 Billion of aid to states and cities.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/07/gop-senators-risk-political-backlash-support-stimulus/

    Obama’s further efforts to create jobs have been blocked by Republicans:
    http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/united_states_economy/economic_stimulus/index.html

    Only after Obama signed the Recovery Act did he turn to health care, which was an effort not just to provide health care to 45 million Americans, many of whom lost coverage due to the great recession, but also to cut budget deficits in the future. The CBO has estimated that Obamacare will cut spending by $109 Billion:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78909.html

    Shame on you, Jack for regurgitating Romney’s lies and deceiving your listeners.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Tangent: At the very least I’d have liked something about the “riffraff”. Yeah, usually I count myself among them, but not this time. (I’m in the position of choosing between two health plans this month, and the HR folks at each workplace do what they can to minimize the losses when “health care roulette” gets played soon.)

      But that’s not working class. Someone has to get it through the mainstream media’s head that healthcare is much more precarious for the working class than it is for fairly-well-off folks like me, and one bad health crisis can put them into bankruptcy.

      We hear all about the white working class and how it’s wedded to the GOP. (Actually, not so much once we’re not talking about the South. Old memes die hard.) Well, where’s the media’s concern for the white working class on this issue aside from the stuff “everybody knows”?

      Charlie Gibson, who in 2008 basically said “$250k is middle class” by, I
      dunno, asking his neighbors what they made and figuring they’re all
      middle class, is an ignoramus who is not to be trusted on this. From Jack Beatty I expect better.

  • TheDailyBuzzherd

    • TheDailyBuzzherd

      I forgot to mention the only other positive things about Wednesday night:

      The comradery expressed by both candidate families at the close of the debates. GREAT to see. Short-lived, however, as we’ll soon see.

      Jim Lehrer. Last of a breed. Though he did have great difficulty curbing those two.

      In Other News … Disqus ain’t very user friendly on my end. What a PitA.

  • gonkers

    Post count at 6p was 361… at 9p it was down to 337. Anyone remember what the post count was before the nuking????

    All posts after 12:16p have been nuked. WTF

    • JGC

      Yeah, you’re right. I was thinking the posting count was low for a Friday.  I thought maybe everyone was having a chat hangover from the debate aftermath.

      • gonkers

         About 5-6p numerous posts were already gone. Many already published posts had notes they were flagged for moderation. Then they were gone. I posted a protest which was nuked in seconds. Disqus can be buggy as hell, but this is because someone went nuts.  

      • gonkers

        Unlike decent forum software Disqus seems to have no way for mods to warn posters they’re crossing a line. One just tries to log in and gets a you’ve been banned notice… no explanation why, one is just blocked… no length of ban stated. MAYBE if there was a clear TOS like there used to be… but I can’t even find that.

    • Bruce94

      I think the count was well above 400.  I took time to look up some job stats including estimated impact of the American Jobs Act if it has been passed last year, thinking it would add something to the conversation in light of today’s BOL release, but was promptly nuked.  I don’t understand this since I’ve never received this treatment before now and I’m not familiar with protocols at other sites.  Can you explain?

      • gonkers

        There’s no rhyme or reason to how this forum is run… some people who clearly deserve to be banned are not, others who are not… are. Posts/threads today were nuked without apparent cause.

        And Disqus is such primitive forum software there’s not even an option for a mod to IM a user if they are crossing the line. If there’s a TOS for the forum… beats me where it is. When one joins Disqus they agree to their TOS. Obviously those who use Disqus can have their own… but because Disqus then allows us to post anywhere… no one ever knows what each site’s TOS is.

        I think we loyal listeners to On Point deserve better treatment.

         

    • Steve__T

       Over 450 was the count at 430pm est and I was posting at the time, I repeatedly tried to plead with the disqus moderator, to no avail. Those post and some 115 other posts disappeared and so I left and I went to Democracy now and watched some more interesting real issues that were not discussed here. The thing was, I was trying to uphold their fair and balanced moderating and that this was not a good time to disenfranchise their listeners and supporters ie fund raising time. I lost a lot of time, if that happens again I won’t be back, and doubt I’ll be missed.

    • DrewInGeorgia

      Not sure about anyone else but a couple of my comments that went MIA were ones discussing Disqus. I’ve noticed in the past that any time someone is critical of Disqus things get out of hand. Hey here’s a hint Mod/Mods: If it irks you when someone is downing your software due to it’s glitches, address the glitches.

      First rule of Disqus Glitch is you don’t talk about Disqus Glitch.

    • gonkers

      Bruce’s comment below was

      “Bruce94: I think the count was well above 400. I took time to look up some job stats including estimated impact of the American Jobs Act if it has been passed last year, thinking it would add something to the conversation in light of today’s BOL release, but was promptly nuked. I don’t understand this since I’ve never received this treatment before now and I’m not familiar with protocols at other sites. Can you explain?”

      Does ANYONE see any reason why it’s been flagged for review now for over 12 hours????

      • DrewInGeorgia

        No but I’d be willing to bet this entire thread beginning with your “Post count at 6p was 361″ comment is about to go AWOL. Lets just keep our fingers crossed that no unjustifiable bans accompany the ‘editing’.

        As an afterthought the answer to your question about why it’s been flagged for over 12 hours is likely this: Once a comment has been flagged for review it is no longer possible to post replies to said comment.

      • Bruce94

         Thanks for your effort to shed some light on this bug, glitch or whatever contributed to the problem.  The above comment I made disappeared after I tried to edit it replacing “has” with “had.”  I often go back and try to clean up some of my sloppy work.

        I’ll remain a loyal OnPoint listener and supporter of NPR regardless of how my future posts are handled, and promise to try and treat everyone with whom I disagree with the respect they deserve.

        • DrewInGeorgia

           Props on the persistent editing and respect!

  • gonkers

     Is it a violation a politician’s Oath Of Office to defend the Constitution if they also take Norquist’s “no new tax” pledge?

    The Constitution is clear one of its main goals it to promote and provide for the General Welfare… and Article 1, sec 8 explicitly gives Congress the POWER TO TAX to “to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;”

    When a politician takes a pledge to NEVER increase taxes it sabotages the one’s constitutional responsibility to tax, if necessary, to “to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;” The No New Tax pledge binds politicians to NOT define defense, and the general welfare as anything OUTSIDE the current revenue structure… or if it does, it encourages irresponsible borrowing.

    Why do Democrats REFUSE to use this betrayal of the Constitution and the American People as an issue against these GOP pledge takers?

    • JONBOSTON

      You have to be kidding. Our federal government spends about $3.8 trillion a year and you’re concerned that failing to spend more money somehow becomes a constitutional issue? Are you serious? Better question is whether a progressive tax system or a system that exempts nearly 50% of all people from paying federal taxes violates the equal protection clause.

      • 1Brett1

        Please, most of that so-called “nearly 50%” lend the government money, interest free, all year long, through payroll taxes, before they get their tax refund checks. 

        • gonkers

          We The People are BORROWING nearly half of what our on-budget expenses cost. Just what percentage of that spending do income tax revenues even cover?

        • Gregg Smith

          The payroll tax is paying into a system that pays you back, it is not a tax on income. Would you be in favor of allowing folks to invest their own money in their own retirement … with interest? A payroll tax cut accelerates the bankruptcy of Social Security.

          • 1Brett1

            I didn’t say it was a tax on income, but it IS lending the government money, interest free. I also didn’t say anything about cutting payroll taxes. And, another thing, people can invest in their own retirement (and can earn interest on such investment); at least I do, and, why, last time I looked, so far no socialist-communist-type has come in here and herded me down a hole for doing so… 

            As usual, you’re fixin’ to do a little fishin’ using a false deBATE…but I do admit, that was a good-un, Mr. “Smith”!

      • gonkers

        Am I serious? I’m simply asking a question whether the No New Tax pledge conflicts with a congressperson’s more important oath to the Constitution… and therefore its mission statement, responsibilities and powers.

        If someone took a “no new defense system ever”  pledge would that not interfere with the ability to make sound judgements on that constitutional responsibility to provide for the common defense?

        As for borrowing I’m a deficit hawk. I sick of Free Lunch Right Wingers who refuse to deal with the simple fact we’ve spent some 15 TRILLION on ourselves the past 30 years that we REFUSE to pay for… and after the biggest Free Lunch in history, the GOP is actually encouraging people to think of themselves as “overtaxed”.

        I want OUR generation to pay for what we’ve spent on ourselves. I see the no new tax pledge as encouraging a irresponsible have our cake and eat it mentality. With new taxes out of the question Congress just borrows and dumps the bill on those who don’t vote: our kids and grandkids. How goddamn noble.

          

        • pete18

           And what part of the Constitution would that pledge be violating?

          • gonkers

            Gee, it’s not obvious? Try reading it sometime!

            I ask AGAIN: If someone took a “no new defense system ever” pledge would that not interfere with the ability to make sound judgements on that constitutional responsibility to provide for the common defense?

          • pete18

             

            Gosh, that’s an idea. I never thought to actually read the
            Constitution. Usually, I find it’s better to rely on constitutional experts,
            which I know, judging by all of your posts, you must be. This is why I was hoping
            you’d enlighten us on the constitutional argument for what otherwise seems like
            an absurd statement.

             

            From what I hear, the Constitution says the Congress has the
            power “TO lay and collect Taxes,” not that it “MUST.” Nor does it
            delineate how much must be collected.

            Based on your argument, it would be
            just as unconstitutional to vote for spending that created an unbalanced budget
            or deficit, as it would be to pledge not to raise taxes.

             

             

            Since there is no constitutional
            requirement for sound judgment and despite your insistence that the no new
            taxes pledge will bring the downfall of the world if followed, what is
            considered “providing for the general welfare and defense” is a completely
            subjective and political matter, which means there’s not a shred of meat on your rhetorical
            bones.

             

             

            The Supreme Court has historically left
            such issues for the congress to sort out.

            But since you probably came within
            inches of being nominated to the court, I’m sure you can set things straight
            for us.

             

             

             

          • gonkers

            You’re ignoring the Preamble, the Rosetta Stone for interpreting the purpose of the Constitution. What follows MUST be seen in that context.

            When a congressperson takes their oath to the Constitution that INCLUDES to its purpose for existing.

            I ask AGAIN: If someone took a “no new defense system ever” pledge
            would that not interfere with the ability to make sound judgements on
            that constitutional responsibility to provide for the common defense?

             

          • pete18

            The Preamble doesn’t change a thing. As a constitutional Scholar, you should know that Preamble doesn’t assign any powers or limitations on the government and hasn’t been used by courts as a important factor in constitutional disputes.

            Whether a congressman has sound judgement is decided by the voter, not the courts.

          • gonkers

            Court rulings ignoring the Preamble DO NOT NEGATE IT.

            Your argument is as silly as claiming the Ninth Amendment has no meaning because the courts ignore it.

            The Preamble states THE PURPOSE of the Constitution.
            That PURPOSE WAS RATIFIED BY THE STATES JUST AS THE REST OF THE CONSTITUTION WAS.

      • gonkers

        There’s a predictable but perverse “logic” to the Tax Cut crazies on the Right.

        When it’s convenient to create more debt… to Starve The Beast, they brag about taking 5 million tax payers/families off the income tax rolls. They also complain the rich are being soaked because they pay a higher percentage of the smaller tax pie…. even if they are NOT actually paying more in actual dollars.

        THEN they complain the poor are getting away with murder… have no skin in the game… and to make the system “fair” taxes should be raised on the poor… and cut further for the rich.

        The COMMON SENSE solution is to just get rid of the Bush tax cuts. They were passed when We The People were SIX TRILLION in debt. They prevented debt paydown. It’s irresponsible for us now to consider extending ANY of them… and both Obama’s and especially Romney’s tax plans are grotesquely irresponsible. Atop of going back to the Clinton tax rates we need to go back to the Reagan ERTA tax rates for the rich for 10-15 years to recoup revenue that NEVER should have been lost. 

         

  • 1Brett1

    For anyone worried about paying for someone else’s contraception and abortion being legal because of the “unborn”

    http://www.dailyrecord.com/viewart/20121005/NJNEWS18/310050035/Study-Free-birth-control-leads-fewer-abortions?odyssey=nav%7Chead

  • hennorama

    Some are questioning (or stating there is a conspiracy to skew) the unemployment numbers.  They are saying “workers mysteriously vanish” etc.

    There are myriad reasons that workers leave the labor market:

    1. From having a job to out of the labor force:

    retirement
    maternity
    illness/disability
    enter school/training
    household care
    laid off and see poor prospects

    2. From being unemployed to then leaving the labor force

    discouraged
    all of the above

    The Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR) has been declining since the year 2000.  This decline sharply accelerated during the Great Recession.

    LFPR is mostly influenced by long term factors – namely demographics and cultural changes.  LFPR is only weakly procyclical.  In other words, the LFPR changes are also related to the business cycle, but the strength of this correlation is much smaller than the long term factors above.

    -business cycle good = LFPR increase
    -business cycle poor = LFPR decrease

    The Great Recession’s magnitude influenced the LFPR much more than typical recessions.

    Some history:

    LFPR increased from the mid 1960s to 2000 due to:

    baby boomers entering workforce (demographics)
    women entering workforce (cultural shift)

    LFPR declined since 2000 due to:

    baby boomers aging (demographics)
    fewer young people entering workforce due to increased college enrollment (cultural shift)
    fewer college students working in college (cultural & economics)

    So don’t freak out about the LFPR.  It’s mostly
    demographics.

    As Matthew O’Brien, an associate editor at The Atlantic covering business and economics, wrote about 6 months ago:

    “There are two broad explanations for the declining labor participation rate. The first is that the Great Recession has kicked so many people to the curb for so long that they have abandoned any hope of landing anther job. The second is that it’s mostly demographics. Young people are going to grad school. Moms and dads are choosing to stay home. And, most importantly, Baby Boomers are retiring. Demographics and economics aren’t mutually exclusive explanations.”

    Sources:

    http://www.kc.frb.org/publicat/econrev/pdf/12q1VanZandweghe.pdf

    http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000/ (change the start year to 1960 to see the chart for 1960 thru 2012)

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/where-do-people-go-when-they-drop-out-of-the-labor-force/2012/04/08/gIQAMPsz3S_blog.html (check out the charts)

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/heres-why-you-shouldnt-freak-out-about-the-shrinking-workforce/255541/

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/WVQ5FBO3OHIKX2CT3EWRPVMKDE Billy Bob

       More important we should be looking at the quality of Jobs and in July the rate of new food stamp recipients out paced employment by 3 to one.
      Most of the employment gains were part time work.

      A much more accurate and immediate rate is the weekly report on withholding. if that number is rising employment is rising it is more accurate adn informative than surveying house holds surveys and their samples can and are skewed by the BS Bls or as some call them the cook book of the month club.

      If there is a better more modern indicator federal withholding data is compiled weekly.  Why are we paying the BLS to keep their government appointed Jobs perhaps there is a conspiracy to keep politicians in office by clinging to an out modded method of data collection that pays a fat retirement and benefit package to a bunch of math nerds.

      • hennorama

        Please – this “conspiracy” nonsense is just beyond ridiculous.

        Is Mr. Romney part of your “conspiracy”? He and his campaign have been using the “BS Bls” (sic) as the source for their “unemployment’s been over 8% for X months” and “there are 23 million unemployed and underemployed” screeds, too.

        Are the data on part-time workers also part of the “conspiracy?” If so, then YOU are involved as well, since you are using that data as part of your argument. OMG! Where and when will it end?

        Let’s say there’s a conspiracy at the BLS, for the sake of argument. If there was such a conspiracy, why haven’t the “cook book of the month club” been making the numbers better all along? Do you think Pres. Obama and his administration have been benefitting from the unemployment numbers being over 8% for years now?

        When did this all start? Who else is involved? Should we alert the military?

        Your resentment petticoat is showing as well. Your remarks seem to indicate that you don’t care for anyone who has a Federal job – “Why are we paying the BLS to keep their government appointed Jobs…” that “…pays a fat retirement and benefit package to a bunch of math nerds.”

        Maybe you just don’t care for smart people.

        Next time, please present at least ONE scrap of evidence to support your conspiracy theory. People may take you more seriously when you do.

  • gonkers

    I know conspiracy nuts are suspicious about the latest unemployment numbers. I might join them if there were NO other .3% drops in the unemployment rate in recent history. Recent being 2010 – to present.

    Using BLS

    Series Id:           LNS14000000
    Seasonally Adjusted
    Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate
    Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
    Type of data:        Percent or rate
    Age:                 16 years and over

    Other times since 2010 that the unemployment rate fell at least .3% in a single month were

    April-May 2010  9.9% – 9.6%

    Nov-Dec 2010  9.8% – 9.4%

    Dec 2010-Jan 2011  9.4% – 9.1%

    While the unemployment rate stat is flawed as a true indicator of the nation’s employment, I think we can lay this latest conspiracy theory to rest.

     

    • Steve__T

       A lot of people don’t know or realize that last month was FYE for most companies and a lot of companies started Holiday hiring you know that thing we do every year at this time. DUH 

    • Gregg Smith

      ” I think we can lay this latest conspiracy theory to rest.”

      Do you really believe what you write? Have you thought about this? We added more jobs last month (around 200K) and the rate dropped only 0.1%. Why? Chew on that, I’ll tell you up top if you can’t figure it out. In the meantime consider 114K barely keeps up with population growth. Depending on the whose numbers you believe many say it doesn’t. The 114K includes a high number of part time jobs. The full time jobs are not high paying jobs. To borrow a phrase: Where’s the nirvana? We need 350 to 400K/month of good secure upward mobility jobs for a sustained period just to begin to turn the corner. This ain’t that.

      • gonkers

        IF IF IF there were NO other .3% drops in the unemployment rate ever… you might have a point that this drop was suspicious. But that drop alone is NOT that much of an anomoly as I demonstrated. Maybe if you did some actual research at BLS instead of getting all your “news” from far right sources you’d made more sense. As for the ACTUAL state of the job market… that was NOT the point of my post. Please focus.

        • Gregg Smith

          It means nothing. 114K isn’t squat. Manufacturing jobs were lost shrinking the universe of available jobs. That lowered the unemployment rate. 

          • gonkers

             What part of

            “…the unemployment rate stat is flawed as a true indicator of the nation’s employment…”

            and

            “As for the ACTUAL state of the job market… that was NOT the point of my post.”

            are you having problems understanding?

            AGAIN…

            I WAS ONLY COMMENTING ON THE EXTENT OF THE DROP IN UNEMPLOYMENT.

            Gettin’ it yet? Didn’t think so.

          • Gregg Smith

            What you don’t get is the unemployment news sucks. 

          • gonkers

            WHERE DID I SAY ANYWHERE THE ECONOMY WAS GREAT?

            Try reading what IS POSTED and please stop projecting.

          • Gregg Smith

            That is beautiful! Thank you. 

            In CAPS you act like I claimed you said the economy was great (which I never did, you projected) and then you tell me to read what is posted and stop projecting. You can’t make this stuff up.

          • gonkers

             There’s no point going on… like with most of your posts, you just rewrite history… like you claim you  only post from  one IP… and I showed YOUR post showing you posted from 3… and you again deny you ever did.

          • Gregg Smith

            You teed it up.

          • gonkers

            If you write “What you don’t get is the unemployment news sucks.”

            Then WTF is your point if you already claim you know I NEVER said it was good?

            That I have NO opinion about the state of the economy? 

            Your tapdancing to guarantee you have something to save face is, as usual, amusing.

          • Gregg Smith

            The economy isn’t okay, rebounding or encouraging. It sucks.
            Do you realize that?

          • gonkers

            I didn’t tee anything up. It was those who jumped to the conspiracy explanation for the numbers. 

  • jim Brady

    Well Tom you finally cracked. That well polished but (now)
     obviously thin veneer of impartiality went up in flames today as you answered your own question (ostensibly to jack) with the Obama road show mantra. Your boy is in trouble and the memo calling for all hands on deck,all stops to be pulled, obviously hit your desk in time for the show. I am not surprised,after all you are on NPR. My real disappointment or more accurately,frustration, is that NPR will not just admit that it leans very far to the left and spare us all this insulting pap about “balanced reporting”; sure,you and the Daily Worker.Jim

    • DrewInGeorgia

      Give me a break. Tom as well as NPR take heat from both sides on a constant basis. “Your boy”? You obviously haven’t been listening to the show this past year. A large part of your dismay is likely a result of your thinking that anything left of a TeaTopian fantasy land is Socialism.

  • Gregg Smith

    Obama wants fewer people looking for jobs and he wants fewer jobs available to be found. That, my liberal friends (and gonkers), is the magic formula for a lower unemployment rate in crappy economy. 

     

    • gonkers

      Spare us your nutty theories. And your credible source that KNOWS Obama WANTS a bad economy is….? Let me guess… that person is Rush Limbuaugh who YOU believe is the most credible source of news out there?

      • Gregg Smith

        The unemployment number is going to precipitously drop and it’s going to get close to 8% by next November.  Just mark my words.  That’s in the can.  It’s in the cards. -Rush 12/20/2011
        I’m not trying to be funny here.  Barack Obama has decided that the only way to lower the unemployment rate is to kill off jobs.  The unemployment rate went down one-tenth of a percent from 8.2% to 8.1%, but the number of people who left the labor force is at an all-time high. -Rush 5/2012

        • gonkers

           HA! I knew the only source for your insane Obama wants a bad economy” posts had to be Limbaugh.

          • Gregg Smith

            No, that was just another in a long line of accurate predictions. Many have called the numbers suspicious but I first heard it from Jack Welch.

          • gonkers

            ANYONE could predict that the unemployment would fall. You’re impressed with the obvious because some fat blowhard says it? Does it take a genius to predict as long as there are deficits the debt will grow?

            What Limbaugh does is what all propagandists do… he creates bogus frames… the Right is eternally noble and the Dems are demonized. Dems want dependency, Dems can never be trusted. Dems want to destroy the US… and all that which is good and holy. It’s a black and white word where there’s no nuance. Everything then in Rush’s world is designed to reinforce the above… to help the GOP and hurt the Dems.

            Rush lives in a world of his own spin then accuses
            the MSM of duplicity because they didn’t report his propaganda as fact. Dittoheads are told they can ONLY get the truth from the likes of El Rushbo. Like any religious cult, Rush wants to stop his true Believers from getting outside information. This is why Beck created The Blaze and GB TV.

            As I’ve said a million times… ideologies fall into two categories… one is  self-correcting and all the others are self-justifying. Rush has created an alternative universe in the latter category.

            Dittoheads are those who need to feel they have superior values and an infallible sensibilities because they’ve found their political messiah.

            That doesn’t make Rush right. It only proves that Braindead Dittoheads have self-sabotaged their own intellects.
             

          • Gregg Smith

            Do you know what a “ditto head” is?

          • gonkers

            OMG… now there’s a “tough” question. The simple answer is look in the mirror.

            Like with any cult, Dittoheads are those who agree with Limbaugh without question.

            They’ve shut off their “crap detector” and believe whatever he says for no other reason than he’s Rush.

          • Gregg Smith

            You don’t know what a ditto head is. You are wrong.

          • gonkers

            Let me guess…  they’re all logical, independent thinkers… who just happen to believe in Orwellian logic and far Right spin.

    • StilllHere

      This is the only logical explanation for the terrible job he’s doing.

    • hennorama

      It’s so strange that all of those who have been saying “we need more jobs!” can’t take good news on that front as GOOD NEWS.  Instead, it’s a “conspiracy.”

      Forget the monthly changes and look at the year-over-year numbers, to see the trend and why it’s no surprise:

      The civilian labor force has grown by 1.059 million people in the last 12 months, but employment has grown much faster:

      Total September employment in the civilian labor force is up by 2.687 million in 12 months to 142.974 million.  This figure also jumped by 873,000 since August 2012.

      Total unemployed civilian workers is down by 1.809 million in 12 months to 12.088 million (NOT the 23 million Mr. Romney continues to falsely claim).  This number decreased by 456,000 just in the last month.

      The unemployment rate dropped in all categories, except for those with Bachelor’s and higher degrees, and that rate was unchanged.  The unemployment rate has now dropped by 1.2 percentage points over the last 12 months, to 7.8%.

      (source: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm )

      Some monthly figures:
      Civilian noninstitutional population up 206,000 in one month

      Labor force up 418,000 in one month (increased faster than population)

      Labor participation rate up by 0.1% in one month

      Employed workers up 873,000 (increased MUCH faster than population AND labor force)

      Unemployed down 456,000 (much faster than population)

      Those not in the labor force down 211,000 (faster than population)

      Of those not in the labor force, there were 2.517 million “marginally attached” (down 44,000 in one month) and of these, 802,000 were discouraged workers (down 42,000 in one month)

      All good news.
      It’s too bad that good news has become bad news or a nonsensical “conspiracy”.

  • Steve__T

    Ok not posting here since you want to continue to delete my post. I’ll get my news and chat with others elsewhere, and thanks for proving you are fair and balanced.:-p

    • DrewInGeorgia

      No one is Fair and Balanced anymore, if there ever was such a thing to begin with. Fair and Balanced is about as common as a Unicorn. Fight the power! You haven’t even been repeatedly banned for no apparent reason yet, don’t give up the fight.

      • Steve__T

         Only reason I am replying is I got your reply in my e-mail, I see that post are staying in place now. But I still am skeptical I replied to Gregg’s post below and it wasn’t flagged for review just deleted as several others including reply’s to my posts earlier, I did get to read them before they were deleted and were in no way offensive or insulting to me. I admit I was a little aggressive in my reply to Gregg kind of a Stillhere reply.(hope this doesn’t get nuked again )
         “Wow I didn’t know you were a mind reader, I know you hate people to tell you what you think, but could you tell us what Romney was thinking when he made that 47% commit?”

        These ” Selective” moderators who may not know our back and forth gibes at one another and probably do not have a clue as to what goes on here, we may not like what someone reply’s or post,  but I will fight wholeheartedly for their wright to say it.

        • DrewInGeorgia

          I figured you would receive notification which was why I replied. I intended no disrespect whatsoever, just wanted to encourage you to keep posting. When someone has their voice squelched without just cause the last thing they should do is keep quiet.

          • Steve__T

             Thanks for the reply no disrespect incurred, encouragement well received. Thanks again.

      • Gregg Smith

        There’s Fox and Rush.

        • DrewInGeorgia

          Silly Rabbit, pricks are for porcupines.

          :’P

          You know I’m just funnin’ (as were you).
          I wonder how long it will take for this comment to be taken out of context and deleted. Any $10,000.00 wagers? lol

        • gonkers

          For some their sense of what’s fair, balanced, and credible is in direct proportion to how extreme the far Right propaganda is. Which explains why some people here actually embrace Orwellian beliefs like LESS revenue after irresponsible tax cuts = a revenue boom. 

        • Steve__T

           If I Rush to Fox it makes my head spin and takes a week to get the gunk out of my ears. uggffffhh shudder

  • JGC

    Testing testing un deux trois…

  • hennorama

    Unemployment falls to 7.8%. Yes, yes … it’s all a conspiracy.  Here’s how it happened:

    Conspirator 1: Hey Romney won the debate so we need to make the President look good so he’ll get reelected and we can keep these jobs that we’ve had for years regardless of the fact that we aren’t appointed by anyone.  Yes, yes … let’s DO this!

    Conspirator 2: OK, but if we’re gonna do this let’s make it look REALLY good.  I mean, we don’t want to show that most of the added jobs are crappy part-time jobs, right?

    Conspirator 1:  Right – good point!  OK, so then let’s NOT make it so the Unemployment rate is lower than when the President came into office, ‘cuz that would be too obvious.  But we need to make sure it’s under 8%, because that’s all Romney’s been talking about.

    Conspirator 2:  I dunno … 7.9% would look pretty fishy, dontcha think?  Can’t we just go ahead and make it 7.5 or 7.6?  That’d look REALLY good.  I mean, if we’re gonna do this and risk our jobs and our reputations and our retirement and maybe even jail, let’s REALLY do it!

    Conspirator 1:  No no no that’s too low.  All the Republican conspiracy nuts would go crazy if we made it THAT low.  We’ll use reverse psychology – make it 7.8% – that’ll be under the rate when the Pres. came into office, but not crazy low.  And we’ll throw ‘em off by making all the new jobs part-time, so they can say “Well yeah the rate’s under 8%, but look at how crappy these new jobs Obama created are!”

    Conspirator 2:  Wow!  What an idea!  It’s genius!  But won’t they know that we know that they know that … wait I’m getting confused now.  I’m a math nerd so I have so many numbers in my head ….  How’d you think this up, anyway?

    Conspirator 1:  Well … have you heard of this new show called “Homeland?”

  • JGC

    Concerning Pres. Obama’s first debate performance,  interesting insights from Jodi Kantor’s recent book, “The Obamas”, page 68:  “Earlier in his career, (the president’s advisors) had been mentors:  in the 2004 Senate U.S. Senate race, Axelrod had been a guru, an authority Obama was lucky to work with.  When Obama gave a lackluster performance in a radio debate –  he had barely prepared, flipping through a binder a few minutes beforehand – Axelrod had chewed him out over the phone.  You should have blown the other candidates out of the WATER, a staffer remembers Axelrod saying.  But in the presidential campaign, Obama took Axelrod and other advisers on the ride of their lives, making them famous, securing places for them in history…When Axelrod, Gibbs and others walked out of the Oval Office, they tended to relive their conversations with the president, other aides noticed, going over the best parts out loud.”

    And then there is this from Politico, by Glenn Thrush “How Obama reset his campaign”:   Nobody had to tell President Barack Obama he had whiffed when he walked off the stage in Denver Wednesday night – nor was he in the mood for a lot of advice…He huddled with his inner circle – Axelrod, Plouffe, Jarrett, Dunn, Klain and Messina – and settled on the theme they hammered all of Thursday… Hours after arguably the worst debate performance of his career, Obama charged that Romney is a different man than the guy he faced Wednesday.  But it was the president who seemed to be a totally different guy on Thursday.  Gone was the distracted, deer-in-the-headlights mumbler…His mood was radically different Thursday – not just calm but buoyant, loose, focused.  It reminded several aides …of his response to Hillary Clinton’s stunning comeback win in the New Hampshire primary in 2008.”

    Just something to chew on…   

    • Gregg Smith

      Good stuff, thanks.

      • JGC

        De rien. (French for “You’re welcome. No problem.”)

    • DrewInGeorgia

      I bet The First Lady put her foot down. I’m sure neither she nor The President were happy that Obama had to spend their 20th Anniversary ‘debating’ a man who can’t be held accountable for what he’s said he’ll do because he’s never actually said what he’ll do.

    • gonkers

       Romney’s strategy is clear… portray himself as a moderate and lie when he has a big audience… and let his flunkies “correct” the record when no one’s around to hear it. 

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Anyone know what is up with the site?

    • DrewInGeorgia

      Seems like Disqus is having a meltdown or a mod has completely lost it. Several times when I have logged on it says I have replies, but when I check they are non-existent. Also comments seem to be repeatedly vanishing for no apparent reason.

      • gonkers

        Researched Disqus last night for system issues… and there were none.

        Here’s a bit of insight into moderator options:

        http://help.disqus.com/customer/portal/articles/466238-moderating-your-community
         

        • DrewInGeorgia

          I read through the info in your link and found nothing relative to the recurring issues here. If there are no known bugs currently then all of my past woes, as well as everyone else’s, are the result of excessive and unjustifiable moderation as opposed to Disqus issues. If that is the case I want to know who has moderation privileges on this forum. The link you provided has info on sites that you are moderating via the Disqus Dashboard. I know I shouldn’t assume but I’m guessing that not just anyone can become a Moderator of this site as opposed to moderating their personal site. If there are a handful of Rogue Moderators of the OP forum it would pretty much explain all of the insanity I’ve seen since Disqus became OP’s forum software.

          • gonkers

            I only posted that those moderation options because might explain the bizarre occurrences here if an inexperienced mod was at the helm.

            Yesterday I could post fine… but if I tried to edit, I’d get a system error… and when I reloaded the page I’d get a “post was flagged” notice…. then the post would disappear.

            Such occurrences plus all the posts between Friday noon and 6p might yet turn out to be an undocumented bug… and God knows Disqus SUCKS. But it also might simply be a mod who knew nothing about their options.

            Either way I believe WBUR owes its forum members an explanation and an assurance it won’t happen again. And WBUR should have an EASY TO FIND TOS so we’re all clear what the rules here are.

          • gonkers

            I’m not worried about my own posts. I worry most about my old friend Gregg Smith who’s been banned here who knows how many times. He wrote back in 2011:

            How can you be banned three times in a day? I get banned for weeks at a
            time. I can change my email and moniker and it works a little while then
            nothing works. I then comment from my studio computer which has a different IP address. When
            I’m banned there I switch names again until that doesn’t work. Then I go to
            my neighbors house. By the time I’m banned there the first computer works
            again and I start over.

            As a hacker he’s found endless ways around being banned. But it’s still not fair should he be banned again!

          • DrewInGeorgia

            NOT a hacker (benevolent), a Cracker (malicious). The proper descriptor could also likely carry its more common usage in this case. Sorry Gregg but like the Ref that can’t bought or bullied I just call em’ like I see em’.

          • gonkers

            Oh crap! I just figured out how Gregg gets so many “likes” to his posts!

            PLEASE WBUR fix this bug!

          • DrewInGeorgia

            Nah, I’m pretty sure he gets the ‘likes’ legitimately. Just ask Still, Worried, nota, Moda, or William. You don’t have to be rational or reasonable to have a fan club, just look at Rush, O’Reilly and the Beckster.

          • gonkers

            True… one doesn’t need to be a registered member of this forum to cast votes. That doesn’t discount  the IP change.

            I hear Disqus offers a “dislike” option.  

            I wonder how that would work given the holes in the Disqus voting system.

          • DrewInGeorgia

            The Beta version that was tried out here for like a day or two had a ‘dislike’ feature. I was hoping it was going to be adopted because I was curious to see how it would work out. I mentioned this in a comment earlier on this board but it vanished into thin air.

          • Gregg Smith

            Dude, I don’t get banned. I comment from one IP and I don’t even look at likes. 

          • gonkers

            Dude… those ARE your words. You’ve already admitted it.

            Why do you feel you need to be dishonest about all your bannings from this forum? I’m sure you’re not the only one.

            As for having more than one PC with different IPs… again, why do you feel the need to be dishonest? Who but someone trying to beat one  system or another looks for their client IP?

          • Gregg Smith

            Please, you are talking ancient history, years. We’ve been through it, they apologized and it was affecting everyone. You’re lying… again.

            I described your MO a while back. You start out with the infamous “Nirvana” post, the next thing you know you’re hounding everybody, creating false battles over false premises and declaring false victories. You start complaining to the Moderators and begin to think this is your blog. You take it upon yourself to do your own moderating. Bark, bark, bark. And you’re nasty.

            It’s no wonder you continue to have trouble and are banned frequently still. Meanwhile, the moderators love me (hey guys!) so I don’t get banned.

          • gonkers

             So you now admit you WERE banned on numerous occasions even as you deny it? “Dude, I don’t get banned.”

            There was NO apology. It was a POST not a banner and it was soon removed. It appears to have been a hoax. But then rewriting history is something you do well.

            Now back to the topic… the week in the news.

          • Gregg Smith

            I have been banned, I don’t  get banned. You wouldn’t understand, it’s a nuance  thing.

          • gonkers

            Sore spot city!

            I know you hate the Nirvana post because it neatly sums up the utter failure of everything you believe in… yet refuse to reconsider… and you reset that it people apparently agree.

          • gonkers

            I guess readers might want to know why you believe Rush is the most credible source of news… you don’t believe NPR is credible, and yet you’re here 24/7 posting at an NPR forum? That desperation is evident in your posts below when you were trying to “hack” your way back. So much for for your claim you do NOT use other IPs. I supposed that, too, is a “nuance” thing… like claiming not to banned yet admitting to countless bans.

            “my studio computer is still blocked no matter what name and email I use. The same is true of my neighbor whose wireless connection I can access from my house with my laptop..”

            “How can you be banned three times in a day? I get banned for weeks at a time. I can change my email and moniker and it works a little while then nothing works. I then comment from my studio computer which has a different IP address. When I’m banned there I switch names again until that doesn’t work. Then I go to my neighbors house. By the time I’m banned there the first computer works again and I start over.”

            “”I can quit worrying about black helicopters and stop changing my name to Me, MeOnceAgain, Ggerg and Gg.”

          • Gregg Smith

            This is amazing or I wouldn’t reply. What exactly did you dream up this time? I mean besides the notion that I claimed NPR was not credible. Or that I ever claimed Rush was the most credible news source. What do you mean by “hack my way back” and why do you think I use multiple IP addresses which I don’t? Why does your stalker self even care? Do you really think “readers” care? I have not been banned in years when virtually everybody was banned. I haven’t had internet in my studio for many moons. I have no idea where your delusions come from but I would like to know how you can get banned 3 times in a day. 

            I am glad On Point fixed the bug and apologized so very long ago… for most of us anyway. I remember ultrax, nurohazard and of course Gonkers but what am I forgetting? There was another recent one and many old ones. Remember that time when you hacked yourself 30 likes in an hour? That’s when I found your hacking website you hacker you.

          • Gregg Smith

            I remember, it was “Cryptomorph”.

          • Gregg Smith

            I don’t blame your lame ass for pulling this trash.

      • gonkers

        Forum Kristallnacht!

        • gonkers

          Let’s just hope it doesn’t turn into Forum Nacht der langen Messer!

    • JGC

      Disqus is vacationing in Cancun and we are all now trapped in the Mayan apocalypse 2012.

    • gonkers

      There’s a report in a thread below that the post count could have been as high as 450…. and I documented it’d dropped to 330 or so. So perhaps 120 posts were nuked.

    • Steve__T

       I think that our continued back and forth over heated Disqus and caused a moderator meltdown we made over 200 replies in less than a half hour and continued well after the show was off the air. Just a guess, they could not read that many post fast enough and just started deleting every thing posted after about 12:45 that was the time of the last reply I could find.

  • gonkers

    Newt was just on NBC trying to “explain” how Romney’s Voodoo Economics will increase revenues….

    58 billion a year from economic growth

    37.5 billion from gas/oil royalties..  (750 billion over 20 years)

    Nothing more from lowering rates and reducing deductions on the rich.

    THAT’S IT???? 95.5 billion more revenue a year?

    Given our dire straits… 16 trillion in debt… and trillion dollar deficits, Romney is running for office on a joke. That 95 billion is about 21% of current INTEREST payments on the debt. And assuming NO interest building up, it would take about 167 YEARS to pay down debt.

    • DrewInGeorgia

      The only thing I want to hear from Newt is how soon his Modular Moon Colony will be ready for deployment and when he’ll be departing.

      • gonkers

        What boggles the mind is that the far Right can keep repeating the tax cuts = revenue boom lie for 30 years and get away with it.

        We know the True Believers on the Right will believe anything. We see here every day, despite the numbers. they even will deny to the last breath there are any revenue losses.

        The bigger mystery is why haven’t Democrats driven a nail in its coffin of the Right’s Big Lie yet?

        I think it’s political cowardice. They’re afraid if they expose the lie the Orwellian Right will accuse them of class warfare… or being tax & spenders. 

        • Steve__T

           No not so much as cowardice but complicity. The Dem take money to STFU and they do. Our whole political system is a wash in money and corruption and they vote to keep it that way the few who try to bring light of this or law to combat it are out numbered and shot down.

          You have to realize there is no Right, Left just the TOP.

          ” We are the rich;
          we own America;
          we got it God knows how,
          but we intend to keep it”

          Fredrick Townsend Martin

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          For this one instance it shouldn’t boggle the mind, Gonk.

          Dancin’ Dave Gregory hosted the program Newt was on.

          Of course, that there is always a chair at MTP for Republican losers and their loser ideas says more about Dave Gregory than it does about Democrats. The half-life of GOP loserness in our mainstream press is akin to the lifespan of a fruitfly.

  • DrewInGeorgia

    I got to watch the O’Reilly vs. Stewart debate last night. It was very informative and much more straight forward than anything we ever hear from any of our politicians. It is absolutely worth watching regardless of individual ideology, link provided below.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nN6jbfgIIE

    • Gregg Smith

      Thanks, I’ve been wanting to watch it. I’d like to see more of this. Glenn Beck debated Eliot Spitzer, I missed that one too. Rush Limbaugh v Bill Clinton would be good.

      • DrewInGeorgia

        I really enjoyed it and that is an interesting match-up you propose. I forgot to mention in my above comment that there is some profanity but nothing that should really offend anyone.

    • JGC

      Thanks, I’ll be sure to watch.

      • JGC

        Oh it was fun and entertainingly combative until the part about O’Reilly’s father with a colitis disability. My niece, who some of you know about from previous postings, has a disability in this area.  She is currently covered by the Obamacare 26 and under plan, but what will happen in a couple of years?  Under the Romney plan, you are able to keep continuance of coverage but only if it is maintained without a break..Really,  I know that the company that is maintaining my niece is just waiting for a 24-hour break in coverage to drop her, and everyone else in her situation.  We know this.  How can Mitt Romney run on 100% coverage when he parses the language to leave out most of the people who really need the health insurance?

        • gonkers

          Romney’s game at this point is to lie and seem reasonable when he has a large audience… then let his flunkies “correct” the record later when no one is listening.

    • Steve__T

       Thanks for posting that was time well spent.

  • pete18

     

     

    Since Discuss, in its great wisdom, has narrowed my response box down to a
    single column, I thought it might make more sense to carry my reply to Gonkers’
    “taking the no tax pledge must be unconstitutional” topic, which is way down in
    the nether regions of this thread, to a new subject box:

    Gonkers: 

    “Court rulings ignoring the Preamble DO NOT NEGATE IT.

    Your argument is as silly as claiming the Ninth Amendment has no meaning
    because the courts ignore it.

    The Preamble states THE PURPOSE of the Constitution.
    That PURPOSE WAS RATIFIED BY THE STATES JUST AS THE REST OF THE CONSTITUTION
    WAS.”

     

    Me:

    Putting things in caps doesn’t make them any more coherent or germane.

    I didn’t say the court’s lack of interest meant the Preamble had no meaning,
    I said it meant the Preamble had no relevance to your argument. The Preamble
    does not make the power to tax mandatory, nor does it define what “the common
    defense,” “general welfare” or the “blessings of liberty” are. It only talks
    about them as guiding principles to the Constitution. It is the articles that
    describe the specific powers and limitations of the federal government and the
    different branches. That is why the courts don’t look to the Preamble as a
    decisive factor in adjudicating constitutional powers.

    What is considered good for the 
    “general welfare” of the country has always been defined politically.
    That’s the voters’ territory. The courts won’t go near such matters because
    they are completely subjective issues.

    • gonkers

      Caps… never heard of EMPHASIS? Feel free NOT to use them.

      First…. my post was written AS A QUESTION. You do know the difference between that and a declarative statement… right? I’m still developing the argument.

      The Articles don’t exist in a vacuum. The Preamble sets the intent, those guiding principles… of our government. As guiding principles they should guide the use of powers in the Articles.

      One of the powers… the FIRST the framers mentioned was

      “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

      The Constitution is pretty economical on language and such a restatement of principles from the Preamble is meaningful.

      Your argument is the Constitution gives no guidance on whether Congress MUST tax general welfare is like saying there’s no mandate Congress MUST tax for defense or to carry out ANY of its duties in Article 1. Most of those duties REQUIRE spending. I can see this as a mandate to tax… or borrow.  

      And I never said there was some absolute definition of general welfare. It’s clearly left to each generation to define… though perhaps Scalia might argue the Constitution is dead and he has a monopoly on Original Intent.

       

    • gonkers

      You’re evading my alternative question that illustrated the point I’m trying to make.

      I already asked if a congressperson took a “No New Defense System” pledge… would that interfere with their constitutional responsibility to defend the nation?

      So what if a congressperson took a “No New Taxes AND No New Borrowing” pledge…

      Would that not interfere with their constitutional duties? Or are you going to fall back on “…there is no constitutional requirement for sound judgment…” argument?

      Where’s your red line where sabotaging the finances of the government DOES interfere with a congressperson’s oath of office?

      Here’s that Oath:

      I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

      It certainly seems that these pledges to third parties CAN interfere with the only Oath that SHOULD matter.

      • pete18

         

        “And I never said there was some
        absolute definition of general welfare. It’s clearly left to each generation to
        define…”

         

        Exactly, that’s why your constitutional
        /oath of office argument carries no weight. Since there is no absolute definition
        of “general welfare,” as opposed to an article that is described more exactly
        in the Constitution, like “free speech,” it can’t be something a court can
        determine the adherence to.  And that’s
        not my “fall back argument” that’s my spear leading the charge.

         
        If you’re suggesting that a voter might
        determine a politician’s lack of loyalty to his oath of office based on this or
        that pledge, you’d at least have a plausible argument, but there’s no way it
        would ever become a court issue of constitutionality.  This is even truer because we are talking
        about a pledge rather than an actual voting record. A promise can’t carry
        anything that can be weighed as being constitutional or unconstitutional because it is not an action. Politicians break
        promises more frequently than they fund raise. Think George H W Bush as case in
        point.

         

        I think there are all sorts of red
        lines where politicians sabotage the government’s responsibility to the people,
        but mine are much different than yours. I think creating

        an unbalanced budget and a debt of over
        16 trillion dollars is over that line, and I think raising taxes rather than
        cutting spending first is over that line.  

         

        These are things that elections decide
        and why what’s at stake next month is so important.

        • gonkers

           P18 wrote: “Exactly, that’s why your constitutional
          /oath of office argument carries no weight. Since there is no absolute definition
          of “general welfare,” as opposed to an article that is described more exactly
          in the Constitution, like “free speech,” it can’t be something a court can
          determine the adherence to.  And that’s
          not my “fall back argument” that’s my spear leading the charge.”

          But I have raised the issue about oaths to third parties interfering with aspects of the Constitution that might NOT be so subjective as “general welfare”. I asked whether a pledge against any new weapons systems would conflict with the duties of congresspersons in defense areas.

          I ask again so what if a congressperson took a “No New Taxes AND No New Borrowing” pledge…

          Would that not interfere with their constitutional duties that required spending?

          I think the answer is OF COURSE IT WOULD. The private pledge would conflict with the public duties they swore to uphold. Would this ever become a constitutional issue as opposed to a political issue?

          Probably not but who knows. Who thought the personal right to own  a gun would be found in the Second when militia members were MANDATED to own their own guns. I believe that “right” is invented… and see the right in the Ninth. But neither party wants to deal with the open ended concept of Natural Rights protected in the Ninth… and the social conservatives on the Right have been trying to bury the Ninth long before Bork’s Ink Blot comment.

          My point being the concept of constitutionality is more in flux than we might think. If there was a liberal oath Dems took, I’m sure we’d see the Right  developing this issue first as a political issue… then pushing the envelop that it was a constitutional one… if only for political reasons.

          As for debt… a topic for another time.

  • gonkers

    To WBUR mods… ban me if you have a clear conscience. But we On Point fans deserve better.  

    Here’s a copy of post removed from the board… flagged as up for review:

    “Bruce94: I think the count was well above 400. I took time to look
    up some job stats including estimated impact of the American Jobs Act if
    it has been passed last year, thinking it would add something to the
    conversation in light of today’s BOL release, but was promptly nuked. I
    don’t understand this since I’ve never received this treatment before
    now and I’m not familiar with protocols at other sites. Can you
    explain?”

    Over 100 posts were nuked on Friday.

    The post above is one of the few that “survived”… it’s still up as “flagged”. Yet it’s has been censored for over SIXTY HOURS. Does anyone see ANY reason why that post was even flagged
    for review???

    Sorry On Point… unlike others here, I LOVE the show. But if  WBUR can NOT run a decent forum… it should not bother offering one to us OP fans. If there’s a DISQUS Bug… we’d understand. We KNOW as forum software it sucks. Just LET US KNOW WTF IS HAPPENING.

    What we can’t stand is not knowing the rules for the forum… why posts disappear without cause, and why users are banned and never know the reason why.

    If the Disqus software doesn’t make it possible to explain the above or tell individual forum members what they “did wrong”… THEN DUMP DISQUS!!!!!

    • Gregg Smith

      Who doesn’t love On Point?

      • gonkers

        Who doesn’t like On Point?

        Probably someone who has no appreciation of professional news and current event programing… someone who actually believes Limbaugh is more credible and a better source of news than NPR.

        Which forever raises the question… since that’s YOUR position… why are you obsessed with posting at an NPR forum? So you can regurgitate Rush’s infallible wisdom to the rest of us? So you can enlighten us with Orwellian Math that after irresponsible tax cuts LESS revenue = MORE revenue? 

        • Gregg Smith

          I love NPR and On Point. I have even been a guest on the Charlotte station. I’ve listened for decades. Just because they are not as credible as Rush doesn’t mean I don’t like them. 

  • Gregg Smith
    • gonkers

      It certainly does… it show things went to hell after being REJECTED by the People Bush was imposed on the nation by a far Right wing court and instituted policies the American People did not want or ask for… like irresponsible tax cuts that sabotaged debt paydown… or his reckless deregulation of the sociopaths on Wall Street that ultimately crashed the economy. 

      • Gregg Smith

        Just look at those shrinking deficit numbers from 2003 when the tax rates were lowered to 2007 when Dems took over Congress.

        • gonkers

          So you’re back to your LESS revenue = a revenue boom nonsense? Of COURSE you are.

          First the “unified” budget numbers in the chart ARE DISHONEST. Only ON-budget numbers show the true state of the budget.

          The REAL numbers show that the TRUE Clinton Surplus only totaled about 90 billion before Bush sabotaged debt paydown  before much debt was even paid down. If we correct for inflation Bush’s on-budget revenues only finally exceeded Clinton’s last year ONCE… a mere 70 billion in 2005 dollars. ALL OF THE OTHER YEARS WERE BELOW CLINTON’S LAST YEAR. That is PATHETIC.

          If we just look at income tax revenue in constant dollars THEY NEVER EXCEEDED CLINTON’S LAST YEAR.

          You keep making the idiotic argument that if revenues ever rebound… even if it’s SEVEN YEARS later… that somehow is “proof” no revenue was ever lost. The taxpayers of your town should get a refund for whatever money they wasted providing you an education.

          It seems EVERYONE but you KNOWS tax cuts LOSE revenue which is why Bush is on record saying the cost would be… if memory serves… about 1.4 trillion… and even the most simple projection of FLAT Clinton revenue into the Bush years shows big revenue loses. We should know revenue does tend to grow.

          Your “logic” is akin to Little Greggy stayed back for 7 years but FINALLY graduates to 8th grade at age 18… therefore there’s NOTHING wrong with Little Greggy.

          • Gregg Smith

            A half trillion is a half trillion. It’s an increase.

          • gonkers

             Like I said… your “logic” is akin to Little Greggy stayed back for 7 years but
            FINALLY graduates to 8th grade at age 18… therefore there’s NOTHING
            wrong with Little Greggy.

          • Gregg Smith

            And when do you suppose revenue will once again reach the 2007 level? I might be wise to live in the present.

          • gonkers

            2007 is the present?

            Current or Constant dollars?

            Bottom line… as Laffer said… if tax rates are too LOW they will fail to capture enough revenue.  2007 PROVED that. Revenue then should have been hundreds of billions HIGHER.

        • gonkers

          Ah gee… NOTHING to say about all the $1.4 TRILLION in debt BUSH ran up in his last year? Wasn’t that the reason you posted your deceptive chart? To “prove” it’s all Obama’s fault?

          • Gregg Smith

            Bush’s last year was 2008, genius. Republicans last budget was 2006, smarty pants. Half of TARP is on Obama, dufus. Look at the numbers now.

          • gonkers

            Last I heard Presidents are inaugurated late in January… not Jan 1. So you’re trying to make an argument WITHOUT actually using daily debt numbers? And are you trying to say Bush didn’t leave Obama an imploding economy?

            It’s always amusing when you pretend the Clinton handed Bush an economy “in freefall” even though I’ve proven over and over the numbers were pretty good… though there was a slowdown. The Bush recession started in March 01, not fall 2000. Yet underplay the TRUE imploding economy Bush left.

            But then you can’t but see the world except through the Orwellian Right Limbaugh filter.  

        • gonkers

          Gregg’s making the typical Orwellian Right argument if revenues ever crawl back from the sea of red ink created by irresponsible tax cuts, there was never a sea of red ink.

          So what was the CLOSEST Bush came to having a true balanced budget during his BEST year? That was FY07 where he still had a -342,153 on-budget deficit. Clinton left with a on-budget surplus of +86,422 billion. That’s a roughly a 420 billion difference.  

          In the mind of the Orwellian Right… this PROVES Bush’s tax cuts created a revenue boom.

          How much debt did bush pay down? ZERO. He created about 5 trillion in new debt… 1.4 trillion just in his last year.

          Color me impressed.

      • Gregg Smith

        “… Bush’s frantic spending came in FY09…”

        Alrighty then.

        • gonkers

          I await YOUR breakdown that the Treasury numbers LIE… that Bush did NOT run up 1.4 TRILLION in his last year.

        • gonkers

          Since I know you hate to do research here are the official debt numbers from

          http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

          09/30/2008    10,024,724,896,912.49

          10/01/2008    10,124,225,067,127.69

          01/21/2009    10,625,053,544,309.79

          Bush ran up about 500 BILLION in new debt just in FY09. He ran up 100 billion in new debt JUST IN ONE DAY between the last day of FY08 and the first day of FY09.

    • hennorama

      Is your point that deficits obviously occur during times of massive economic collapse that occur while simultaneously fighting 2 wars that were waged without the normal, prudent step of raising taxes to pay for said wars, but were instead waged while decreasing taxes?

      If so, you made that point very well with this chart.

      Or is your point that there were lots of part-time jobs created during the last employment survey period, putting more people back to work? 

      Or is your point that you don’t like the fact that lots of jobs were created?

      Or is your point that part-time jobs are the type of jobs that are the most likely to be created when employers are unsure about the demand for their products and services, and want to hedge their bets by just tiptoeing into the hiring pool?

      Or is your point that this is part of a “conspiracy?”

      • Gregg Smith

        My point is Bush can’t hold a candle to Obama regarding debt. Notice the shrinking deficit from 2003 to 2007 while wars and tax cuts were raging. Doesn’t that cut the legs out from under your argument? My point had nothing to do with the unemployment rate. But I’m happy to go there if you like.

        • hennorama

          Wow, what a shocker!  Pres. Obama, who entered office in the midst of the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression, AND 2 wars, has presided over enormous deficits.

          What a surprise!

          You point to “…the shrinking defict from 2003 to 2007…” as if these were good things.  They were still DEFICITS, and accumulating further debt.  And this was during a time of economic GROWTH, not collapse.  Even in 2001, when we had the 9/11 event, US GDP was still higher than the previous year.  And these Bush deficits were largely due to PLANNED, OPTIONAL events, i.e. the 2 Bush Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security, and Medicare Part D drug benefits.

          US GDP dropped from its peak in 2008 Q2, declined precipitously at the end of 2008, and took 2 1/2 years, until 2011 Q4, to finally surpass the 2008 peak level.

          Is not as if pres. Obama planned this stuff, yet that’s the implication of many comments and remarks.

          So yeah, duh, there have been big deficits.

          The total number of jobs lost from the pre-recession peak until the February 2010 bottom: 8.8 million.  More jobs were lost in the Great Recession than in the previous four recessions COMBINED.

          So yeah, duh, it’s been a long, slow slog to recover employment.  And yeah, duh, lots of people who lost their jobs have needed to get government support for food, housing, medical care, etc., which has led to increased spending for this support.

          So of course, it’s TERRIBLE that the unemployment rate declined and lots of people went back to work.

          Get real.

          • Gregg Smith

            I would not be here debating if I didn’t believe a couple of things you find unthinkable. Yes, I do believe President Obama planned this stuff. He said he wanted high gas prices. He said he wanted to bankrupt the coal industry. Rahm Emanuel said the banking crisis should be exploited. Obama has decried the Constitution dictating what government cannot do and thinks it should tell government what it must do on behalf of the people. It sounds peachy but it is an abomination to everything the Constitution stands for. Obama promised to fundamentally transform America. He’s well on his way and a couple more Justices would be game, set, match for America.

            No, the notion that this can still be blamed on Bush is laughably absurd as the link I posted clearly shows. 

            And not only that, while we’re at it, I also believe there are legions of Radical Muslims intent on an Islamic caliphate who are gaining a foothold in the new Middle East. Our embassies are being breeched and and our diplomats are being murdered and we apologize to the murderers for a silly video. Civilization is at stake.

            We are not only more divided than ever, we are pitted against each other by Obama’s rhetoric. The rich vs. the poor; old vs. young; black vs. white; religious vs. secular; Democrat vs. Republican: men against women. It’s terrible.

            This isn’t a game to me. I’m not taking some stupid partisan stand. The evidence is right in front of our eyes. I am truly disgusted with what Obama has done to my country and scared to death of a second term. 

          • hennorama

            Thank you for your reply. I respect your viewpoints but clearly disagree.

            For example, you write:

            “He said he wanted high gas prices. He said he wanted to bankrupt the coal industry.”

            Pres. Obama did NOT say he wanted higher gas prices. Nor did he say he wanted to “bankrupt the coal industry.”

            Those are inferred conclusions you and Mr. Limbaugh and others have drawn from his words, but he did not SAY those 2 things. Also, the interviews those conclusions were drawn from were from before Pres. Obama was elected, not during his Presidency.

            As I’ve said repeatedly in the past, assessing blame or giving credit to any particular President is an absurd waste of time, as it is virtually impossible to accurately measure the effect of any particular policy or set of policies. Combine this with the fact that policies do not abruptly start and stop on the day any President is inaugurated or leaves office. One can see correlations, but rarely causation.

            When discussing the deficits, it is clear that they are one of the ongoing consequences of the Great Recession (GR). Yes, the actions of both Pres. Bush and Pres. Obama have impacted those deficits, both positively and negatively, but the deficits’ magnitudes are primarily the result of the GR.

            I understand your point about Pres. Obama’s stated views (again, from before he was President) on the Constitution’s being a sort of negative statement in that it primarily discusses what government cannot do, rather than what government should do. This is a legitimate point of view, as is yours.

            And yes, it is indeed terrible that Amb. Stevens and other Americans were killed in Benghazi. The lack of proper security there is shameful.

            Radicals and terrorists are certainly not new, nor is it new that some desire a caliphate. But all of this is not “civilization in the balance” or anything close.

            The march of freedom continues, both here and around the world. The world continues to get smaller and closer and more democratic. If you think otherwise, you have little faith in the power of ideas.

          • Gregg Smith

            Yes, he said he wanted high gas prices. Lots of liberals hold this position. Obama said he would rather they be spread out over time but he said it. Do I need to find the video? And please, why bring Rush into this? It’s cool, just silly. I actually think all by myself. I don’t recall Rush’s take. But, as I said, think what you will. He also made reference to bankrupting the coal industry through cap and trade. And yes it was during the campaign, that’s the point. How are gas prices? How’s the coal industry faring? 

            It wasn’t just lack of security. Security was denied. 

            I don’t want to beat every point to death but my criticism is heartfelt. I don’t think the President is irrelevant to the pitiful state we find our selves in.

          • gonkers

            Ah gee… if your opinion is “heartfelt” that automatically makes it… true?

            Given the insanity of our world, a belief that’s “heartfelt” is perhaps the LOWEST standard of validity for any belief I can think of.

            But then I’m wasting my words on someone who actually believes right wing propagandists like Limbaugh are  honest and credible.

            As I’ve said many times before… the road to hell is paved with True Believers.

          • gonkers

            G wrote:  “Obama has decried the Constitution dictating what government cannot do
            and thinks it should tell government what it must do on behalf of the
            people.”

            What the heck you talking about??? There’s this odd frame going round that the Constitution created limited government that focuses on the “limited” and ignores that the Constitution was also designed to EMPOWER government. So it’s perfectly reasonable to expect government to what it’s empowered to do… and guess what… some of that, like promoting and proving for the general welfare is OPEN ENDED.

  • Gregg Smith

    To the hacking troll who calls himself Gonkers, Nurohazard, Ulrax, Cryptomorph and other various names, I notice most of the “likes” for your comments are from “guest”, especially if it’s only one. Why is that? Only rarely are they named.

    • gonkers

      Coming from the person who confessed to posting here under countless names, posting using 3 IPs, even as far as reregistering 3 times in a day… your comments are amusing.

      Perhaps if you said something that actually made sense instead of just revomiting whatever Limbaugh said, lurkers and guests who visit might agree with you more.

      • Gregg Smith

        Did you have a hard time distinguishing Gregg from Ggerg all those years ago? Or did you not understand who “me” was as I told who I was? I use one computer and am never banned on it, how many IP’s do you use Mr. hacker troll? Are you banned right now and hacking your way back? Just how did you hack up those 30 “likes” in an hour that day?

        • gonkers

          Rewriting history again? You’ve already confessed to EVERYTHING I wrote above. You admitted you have two PCs with different IP and even tried to post here after being banned using your neighbors wifi network. And you’ve confessed to using plenty of other names here like MeAgain or somesuch. Who can keep track.

          The highest like count I ever saw was 24 for the hoax apology. If I ever got 30 I’d love to know what I said… cuz I’ll say it again and again. I’m gratified to get 12-15. 

           

        • gonkers

          Trying to pin down this “30 likes” post you claim I wrote then in an hour created  30 likes for.

          Still can’t find this alleged post but I did find a reference of you falsely ACCUSING  me of some such post last November during a time when I’d actually left the forum out of frustration. You never apologized then and you’re back here spouting the same garbage.

          As with your politics you never needed real proof to believe something. No doubt your false accusations were “heartfelt” even if they were baseless and delusional. At least when I quote something YOU wrote… I KNOW it was you which makes it amusing since you often deny what YOU wrote.

          Which brings up a telling difference between us. I feel my beliefs should to conform to the facts which is why I can retract even debating you. You need the facts to conform to your beliefs which is why you’re all bluff and bluster.

          Find a good shrink Gregg. It’s not healthy going through life an extreme partisan where every thought and every breath is obsessed with fantasies of infallibility and nobility for your side and demonizing the other side. In the US both parties are braindead, dysfunctional, and can’t be trusted. The best of the two only represents the lesser of the evils. 

  • Russell Noftsker

    A close up satellite view of maps.google.com at 42.552519,-71.34411
    will give you clues to how that imagery is acquired.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Hmmm.  Interesting. 

      OK. I get it now just a sat. photo a plane going by.

  • Steve__T

    I getting real sick of this crap you let these two Gregg and gomkers go back and forth, leave their bickering up as legitimate   post and when someone try’s to post something positive you delete it!WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!

    Well delete this. I’ll still keep posting.

    • gonkers

      You’re, of course, correct. I prefer substantive debates with my main interest tax policies and debt… and I have absolutely no respect for those who use Orwellian math and logic to pretend tax cuts are a free lunch, don’t result in revenue loss, or create revenue booms. Their case is ALWAYS made of smoke and mirrors. This isn’t religion… the numbers refute this nonsense. But to some this IS religion and they’ve inoculated themselves to hard numbers and logic. I also admit that after 18 months of one person repeating those lies and distortions here 24/7 I probably ran out of patience 17 months ago. It’s made all the worst since I should know better than to waste time debating braindead dittoheads who have self-sabotaged their intellects. I also have no tolerance when they lie about what they’ve already written here for all to see. Sometimes I do let my contempt show. Sorry about that. I should probably leave. It’s not healthy.

      As for WTF is wrong with WBUR… who knows. This is not a functional forum. I have high expectations for a forum attached to a show I love. But then the forum structure here isn’t conducive to debate. People get beat up for their nonsense and can just repost it in the next forum as if nothing’s been refuted. Disqus is hard to navigate… and full of bugs. We don’t need a crazed moderator nuking posts atop it all.

  • Steve__T

    This is something all who post here and all who think that the debates were fair and balanced between the only two candidates. Let me tell you now it’s a farce and the American public has been duped for years. Brought to you by Major corps and the Democratic % Republican parties without their permission. Open your eyes and use both your ears.

    http://www.democracynow.org/2012/10/3/ahead_of_first_obama_romney_debate

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Obama sucked because Jill Stein wasn’t on the stage? That is a new one.

      Obama actually didn’t suck more than usual– he was the same old Obama if you ever watched one of his ‘rare’  pressers.

    • gonkers

      The original defect is in the Constitution which created the dynamics leading to our two-party political systems. As a Progressive I can vote FOREVER and never get representation for my beliefs.

      As the Constitution set in cement the politics of 1787, the current presidential debating system only further sets in cement our dysfunctional and braindead political system.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Vince-Warde/100000320833428 Vince Warde

    Well, well – right after the disastrous debate, the administration has “good” news because the unemployment rate is “the same” as when Pres. Obama took office.  The only problem is that it isn’t.  Counting people who have given up, the rate is 10.5%.  Adding those who can only find part time work, it is a shocking 17.45%!  Details can be found at: http://reasonedpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/10/unemployment-rate-is-78-yeah-right-why.html

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Not even the liberal media could spin the horrible jobs numbers.  However, they did eviscerate Jack Welch.   However, Jack Welch won the debate because he went on  a bunch of shows and laid out facts about the weakness of the economy– no conspiracy theories.

      Why would the Fed pump billions of printed cash into the economy if we weren’t in deep trouble?

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Jack Welch won a what? Debate?

        Welch is fighting for the role of Donald Trump here: A feggin crackpot who has “a hunch”, and has no numbers, and is too much of a pussy to say anything except “I’m not making accusations, it just looks odd”.

        When I do that nobody invites me on all their stroke shows.

        When Jack Welch does, people like you take leave of their senses.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           TF, do you believe the BLS reporting last Friday reflected a significant change in the economy for the better?

          The last time the economy added over 800,000 jobs in one month was 1983.  The GDP growth rate in that month was an annualized 9%.  Today we are stuck at 1.25% GDP growth.

          If you think things are roses — Ben Bernacke disagrees with you.

      • Gregg Smith

        And now Gallup’s chief economist the the numbers “should be discounted”. Somethings fishy.

        http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/10/why-gallups-chief-economist-says-the-big-drop-in-the-unemployment-rate-should-be-discounted/

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           Interesting.  Thanks for that Jimmy P note.

          Even the numbers BLS reported aren’t that good because they are mostly part time jobs but it is such an outlier it wouldn’t surprise me that someone made a ‘mistake’ and gets corrected — after the election.

          Did you see the report that at least two BLS economists are Obama campaign contributors?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Wow gonk

            I’m not charging conspiracy but I believe healthy skepticism is always warranted with the government .

        • gonkers

           If you actually read the original blog piece the author never questions whether the numbers are honest. He questions the usefulness of the current unemployment rate methodology. I agree. It’s always been a flawed measure because it’s relative to the workforce as opposed to those employed. 

          • Gregg Smith

            I read it.

      • gonkers

         Look… IT’S ONE MONTH. The unemployment rate measure may be inherently flawed. I believe it is. I prefer absolute numbers employed.

        And let’s be real… there’s no way to go from 10% unemployment to 5% without going through 7.8%.

        So if the theory is that the numbers in a flawed yardstick were faked for “political reasons” what’s the point since there’s one more number coming out BEFORE the election. For this “ploy” to work the November numbers would have to be the same or LOWER. But what if they go up? To cover that up requires a larger TWO month conspiracy.

        Bottom line is Jack Welsh is an ass. He’s been the King of Outsourcing. He’s admitted he has no proof of any conspiracy…  but he won’t retract. He appears to be just another generic Obama hater.

         

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           I think you missed his point.

          He wanted the airtime to point out that the economy was weak and he created some controversy to get that airtime.  I saw him on at least 4 different shows to make his point.

          Some in the media were trying to spin this as evidence that we are out of the woods.  Not even Krugman used the 7.8% number on Sunday because he knows it is bogus.

          He never mentioned Obama when he went on those shows — he stuck to economic data.

          • gonkers

             If there was some pro-Obama conspiracy at BLS it could more wisely be run in a way that wasn’t dramatic a month before the election… with the risk it all fall apart a few days BEFORE the election.

            The unemployment rate yardstick is a flawed indicator of what’s going on in the economy. I don’t expect it to always make sense. But let’s remember that the new Job Truthers are also using BLS numbers. 

             

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            OK I agree with you but what is a job truther?

    • hennorama

      Get real. This is more nonsense.

      This blogger cited asserts “The issue is that the workforce has shrunk by over 5 million workers since 2009 – instead of growing as one would expect in a healthy economy. These are people who have simply given up and are not counted in the commonly quoted U4 unemployment rate. Many of these workers will reenter the workforce if there is a recovery – so they really have to be factored in.”

      What a load of nonsense – that everyone who has left the labor force “…are people who have simply given up…” and “…will reenter the workforce if there is a recovery…”

      Has this genius never heard of the word “retirement” or “demographics?”  As I have stated before (I dislike citing my own comments, but this is warranted IMO):

      “There are myriad reasons that workers leave the labor market:

      1. From having a job to out of the labor force:

      retirement
      maternity
      illness/disability
      enter school/training
      household care
      laid off and see poor prospects

      2. From being unemployed to then leaving the labor force

      discouraged
      all of the above

      The Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR) has been declining since the year 2000.  This decline sharply accelerated during the Great Recession.

      LFPR is mostly influenced by long term factors – namely demographics and cultural changes.  LFPR is only weakly procyclical.  In other words, the LFPR changes are also related to the business cycle, but the strength of this correlation is much smaller than the long term factors above.”

      SOME people who have left the labor force would indeed return to it if there was robust economic growth, as happened in the 1990s.  But recent surveys have shown that about 2/3 of respondents who have left the labor force do NOT want a job, for the reasons listed above.

      The assertions this blogger makes are silly, as are his conclusions.

      Here are the actual labor force numbers, showing how the labor force has GROWN and the number employed has GROWN.

      MONTH       LABOR FORCE  EMPLOYED WORKERS
      Jan. 2009   154,236,000   142,187,000
      Sept. 2012  155,063,000   142,974,000

      Source: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost      LNS11000000
      Source: http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet LNS12000000

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         Why has there been an explosion of those on SSI disability?

        Every one of those ex-workers are removed from the workforce.

        Once on disability, only 2% EVER re-enter the workforce.

        • hennorama

          Here’s the “explosion” of disabled workers receiving Soc. Sec. Disability payments for three time periods:

          (source: http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/currentpay.cgi )

          MONTH DISABLED DIFFERENCE % CHANGE

          Jan 2009 7,442,377 — —
          Sep 2012 8,786,049 1,343,672 18.05%

          Jan 2001 5,052,895 — —
          Sep 2004 6,128,722 1,075,827 21.29%

          Jan 2005 6,219,666 — —
          Sep 2008 7,299,821 1,080,155 17.37%

          Yep. That’s right, Pres. Bush II had similar “explosions” of disabled workers.

          Surprise!

      • Gregg Smith

        You are making a valid point but it does not explain the horrible Labor Participation Rate. Look:

        http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000/

        • hennorama

          Actually I did discuss the changes in the Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR) 2 days ago in this same thread. It’s largely demographics. Baby boomers retiring, etc. Of course, the economy impacted the LFPR, too.

          If you use the link in your post, but change the starting year to 1960, you’ll see the dramatic rise coinciding with 2 major changes:

          1. Baby boomers came of age and entered the labor force
          2. Women entered the labor force in large numbers

          There was a peak around 1990, then it went mostly sideways until the massive economic boom of the late 1990s, finally peaking in 2000.

          There’s a dip after virtually every recession, but the trend continued upward until 2000.

          2000 coincides with baby boomers beginning to retire en masse.

          Check out my other post, as there is more detail and source material. It was posted BEFORE the wipeout of a bunch of other posts.

          This is an interesting article too:

          http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3252

          • Gregg Smith

            Again, valid points but this is extreme. The Obama economy is the main driver.

          • hennorama

            “The Obama economy …?” What does this term mean to you?

            Do you think that Pres. Obama somehow controls the economy? Or any President for that matter? This is not true, of course.

            If it means that you attribute the current slow growing, slow job creating economy to Pres. Obama, you are mostly mistaken.

            The Great Recession had only ONE precedent – the Great Depression. And like the Great Depression, the Great Recession’s impacts were deep and are long-lasting.

            On top of this, we have the demographic tsunami of baby boomers retiring, and going from working and paying taxes to retiring and collecting Social Security and paying fewer (and sometimes zero) taxes.

            A difficult combo under normal recessionary circumstances. And the Great Recession was no “normal” recession.

            As I’ve repeatedly said, I believe there will be little overall economic difference regardless of who is occupying the White House in 2013. That’s due to the lingering effects of the Great Recession, coupled with demographics.

            There’s no magic bullet. Virtually everything that could be tried has already been tried.

            It’s gonna be low and slow – “The BBQ Recovery.”

          • Gregg Smith

            Obama’s policies have had a major impact on the economy, yes. Big time.

  • Gregg Smith

    Why does Hillary Clinton still have a job?

    • StilllHere

      Ambassador’s request for more security went unanswered. Tragic.

  • JGC

    Uh oh… from the Borowitz Report today:

    Canada Tightens Border as Romney Surges –  Canada announced today that it was tightening security along its border with the U.S. amid concerns that there could be a mass migration of illegal Americans after Tuesday, November 6th.  According to Randolph McTavish, Deputy Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, border patrols are on alert due to an “increase in chatter”  indicating a threat to Canada’s border might be imminent.  “We’ve been intercepting troubling comments from some very freaked-out people. Most of it has been on NPR call-in shows.”  Stating that the RCMP is patrolling every kilometre of the Canadian border, he issued this warning to Americans who might try to cross into Canada illegally:  “If you drive a Prius, you will be stopped.”
     

  • gonkers

    Gregg wrote elsewhere: “Obama’s policies have had a major impact on the economy, yes. Big time.”

    WHAT Obama policies? You’re here 24/7 claiming tax policies.. especially irresponsibly LOW tax rates are the magic bullet. Well we have that…
    all your precious Bush tax cuts are still in effect PLUS a FICA cut… so those tax rates are LOWER under Obama than under Bush.

    No free trade has been reverse. We have MORE free trade…

    There’s no surge in unionization. We have LESS union members.

    There have been no serious efforts at regulation with the exception of Dodd Frank which I consider to be a joke. Those dangerous derivatives markets are largely untouched and there’s no return to Glass Steagall.

    You LOVE debt to the point you defend Bush’s sabotaging debt paydown here 24/7. So we have plenty more of that.

    You hate revenue and in current dollars revenues are still below Clinton’s last year.

    All those parasites are still in the deregulated commodity markets sucking the life out of the economy.

    What’s not working are largely right wing ideas YOU support. So to explain that failure you double down on those nutty right wing ideas that broke the Treasury and CRASHED THE ECONOMY in the first place.

    What’s NOT been tried is a return to sensible tax rates that force the rich to reinvest instead of gamble… trying to pay down debt… getting Wall Street away from gambling into funding productive activities… getting the parasites out of the commodity markets to lower energy and food prices… more unionization so the benefits of increased productivity are more evenly spread through the economy… Federal jobs programs like the WPA, CCCs and CETA… Single Payer to finally cut health care costs… reversing free trade to bring the jobs back home… and a return to tariffs to raise revenue protect those jobs.

    • Gregg Smith

      Nice rant but I was talking about the “stimulus” rat hole, Obamacare, Dodd/Frank, no pipeline or offshore drilling,  $46 billion/year in new regulations and $6T of debt.

      BTW, I never claimed tax cuts were a magic bullet, hell I never even advocated them. I’ve been consistent on two points: 1) don’t raise taxes in this economy, and 2) after the Bush tax cuts revenue went up and the unemployment rate went down. All the stuff you make up about what I think are delusional as hell… but have at it.

    • Gregg Smith
  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Obama 2008: “If you don’t have a record to run on, you make a big election about small things.” 
     
    Obama 2012: “I support Big Bird” 
     
    The 2008 Obama was prophetic. 
     
    He is done. 
     

  • JGC

    My absentee ballot on its way for Barack Obama. 

  • JGC

    Wait a minute…Did I just hear Gov. Romney say something like “You need regulation; that’s why I’m going to cut regulation.”

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002296415298 Ahmad Hassan

    Our electoral politics does not help us make good decisions on domestic or global policies.  Elected officials are experts in one area.  On every thing else they are slaves to  “experts” and campaign managers.
    http://theoriginalamed.blogspot.com/2012/10/what-is-america-doing.html

ONPOINT
TODAY
Aug 22, 2014
Attorney General Eric Holder talks with Capt. Ron Johnson of the Missouri State Highway Patrol at Drake's Place Restaurant, Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2014, in Florrissant, Mo. (AP)

The National Guard and Eric Holder in Ferguson. ISIS beheads an American journalist. Texas Governor Rick Perry gets a mug shot. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

Aug 22, 2014
In this image from video posted on Facebook, courtesy of the George W. Bush Presidential Center, former President George W. Bush participates in the ice bucket challenge with the help of his wife, Laura Bush, in Kennebunkport, Maine. (AP)

The Ice Bucket Challenge: ALS, viral fundraising and how we give in the age of social media.

RECENT
SHOWS
Aug 22, 2014
In this image from video posted on Facebook, courtesy of the George W. Bush Presidential Center, former President George W. Bush participates in the ice bucket challenge with the help of his wife, Laura Bush, in Kennebunkport, Maine. (AP)

The Ice Bucket Challenge: ALS, viral fundraising and how we give in the age of social media.

 
Aug 22, 2014
Attorney General Eric Holder talks with Capt. Ron Johnson of the Missouri State Highway Patrol at Drake's Place Restaurant, Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2014, in Florrissant, Mo. (AP)

The National Guard and Eric Holder in Ferguson. ISIS beheads an American journalist. Texas Governor Rick Perry gets a mug shot. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
Why Facebook And Twitter Had Different Priorities This Week
Friday, Aug 22, 2014

There’s no hidden agenda to the difference between most people’s Facebook and Twitter feeds this week. Just a hidden type of emotional content and case use. Digiday’s John McDermott explains.

More »
Comment
 
Our Week In The Web: August 22, 2014
Friday, Aug 22, 2014

On mixed media messaging, Spotify serendipity and a view of Earth from the International Space Station.

More »
Comment
 
Your (Weird? Wonderful? Wacky?) Roommate Stories
Tuesday, Aug 19, 2014

We asked, and you delivered: some of the best roommate stories from across our many listener input channels.

More »
2 Comments