You want to really help the economy? Get some in congress willing to work together first. Until then nothing will get done.

Romney will have a big impact on the economy of the very rich. They will become very very rich

Or elect someone who can lead Congress to work together. That would require a genuine leader.

@HS, learn your civics. The president is the head of the EXECUTIVE branch. Congress is the LEGISLATIVE branch. The president can not and should not be able to force them into anything.

@Hungry you bought into the talking points. Romney's specialty was borrowing other people's money, buying a struggling company, and turning a profit (which he then skimmed). His specialty was NOT turning businesses around. Arguing that it was is like arguing the wars make money, just because the economy tends to be more active in the beginning.

If you just take the premise that a candidate/President can't "help" the economy, I think it's fair to say that a President can "hurt" the economy throught economic policy. Just bear with me. If the President endorses Congress to willingfully overspend our GDP and continue without a budget, encourages additional debt spending while encouraging/endorsing/enacting new policy and restrictions on how businesses are run in our country, and fail to create a sense of confidence through stability in economic policy- then it can HURT the economy.

It's been said a lot that Presidents don't create jobs- which I agree with. The only way a President can "create" jobs is by creating additional government jobs, which are a net loss in our country's income. Think about it, if it's a government job created then your taxdollars have to pay that person a wage and benefits (maybe a pension) so it costs you more and takes more from taxes to support a government job. They don't create anything(goods or services) that supports the economy.

One other rambling moment- I thought about it this weekend and came back to the conclusion that maybe 90% of people in the US are not zelots and really want the same thing- a job, a growing income, good schools, good prospects to make more of themselves, personal freedom to choose for themselves what they want and do things as they want- not a big brother state giving/telling them what to do, and a stable/better place for their children to do the same. It's only in the measures taken where we really differ. An example- I've got a really liberal friend, whom I disagree with on politics very frequently, but we get along great and at the end of the day we do fundimentally agree on how we want to live. So I think that it might be better to spend our time and energy finding ways we are similar and work together (oh my- bipartisan) to figure out a way out of this mess. My version is to cut government spending, cut the military budget (they have an annual increase built into their budgeting- just cut that out and maybe 1-2% per year for a few years[while getting rid of many of the wastes of government procurement and contracts]), rebuild our taxation system to more of a representative- Fairtax system, and equalize those cuts/changes with 50% going to pay off/reducing new debt and the other 50% going to lower taxes to create a job growth environment.

To REALLY fix the economy, we need to do the following:

1. Stop having politicians lie to us, and tell us that they can do it painlessly. They can't!
2. We MUST cut spending DEEPLY, regardless of who it hurts. We just can't afford to spend 40+% more per year than we are talking in, as we are now.
3. We can't afford to cut taxes now. In fact, we need to modestly raise income taxes on the wealthy, tax capital gains at income tax rates (this is how Romney and Buffet pay a low effective tax), but also add a minimum federal income tax of 10% on the 47%, who currently pay nothing to running the government. I don't care how much they make, the wealthy, and I am not even close to one of them, cannot support everyone despite what Democrats like to think.
4. Put those income tax increases directly to paying down our national debt.
5. Brace yourself, because it will be painful, but doing this will ultimately make things VERY good again if we are solvent.

If we don't, we will ultimately go broke (I know, we already are), nationalize our debt (the equivalent of a country declaring bankruptcy, and saying "we are not going to pay"), and the world's economy will REALLY collapse. Then, everyone, who called the "Great Recession" a depression, will get a first-hand, close-up look at a REAL depression.

The problem with polls is that they tend to reflect the uninformed status of Americans. I think most Americans will be surprised how quickly the economy will rebound if Romney is elected. Business people and companies are chomping at the bit to have a "pro business" administration and things will take off very quickly. If Romney is elected, look for businesses to start spending, hiring, and expanding very quickly. They will know that taxes and regulations will no longer be punitive toward business.

Of course, it is the media's job to try to convince voters that it doesn't matter who is elected, which is what this "news" article is all about. "Gee, if neither one can do anything about the economy, I might as well vote for the one who is most likeable." Don't kid yourselves. Obama is doing a LOT to stifle the economy!

tempusfugit1

Look at Spain, then, @Starderup, because that's where Obama would take us.(With global taxation via the UN !)

What is the population of Spain compared to the population of the United States? What is the GDP of Spain compared to the GDP of The United States? Texas alone has a larger GDP than Spain. How can we compare ourselves to Spain? Maybe we need to educate Romney supporters that the US is more like the EU?? China? Japan?

This is a "downer"article, tring to infer it won't make a difference who is elected POTUS.

No... Its a good example that CONGRESS has more of an impact on our lives than the President. Read Article 1 section 8....

Having said that and with the "LACK" of a detailed economic plan and I change my mind every single day from Romney, it's clear Obama is the best choice of the choices that are available.

You guys and gals missed the boat again.

The mess we are in was brought to us kindness of the banksters and the military / industrial complex. They are the puppet masters pulling congresses strings. Remember they bought and paid for congress. NO matter who is elected their hands will be tied and they powerless. Neither candidate is a horse trader, there for nothing will be done by either. Congress plays a tit for tat game and neither knows how to play.

hungrymongoose

That's what Romney did in the private sector all his life. He took failing "economies" (engines, nuclei, hearts) of businesses and turned them around to be successful again. That was his specialty.

Actually Romney's company bought underperforming companies, borrowed the max available so the partners could take their cut of millions of dollars each, then filed for bankruptcy, leaving thousands out of jobs and their pension plans empty. Then you and I, the consumers and tax payers are left to pay the bill for the bankruptcies and the federally protected pension plans these laid off workers were still entitled to. This man and the company he founded are living off of gov't in the most disgusting way, because they are using our bankruptcy system to make huge fortunes, then condemning the poor for asking for food stamps to be able to eat. This man has no business being president of our country and I can't believe anyone would think such an unethical person is a good choice.

Its not a question of who will DO more. Its who will do LESS. Dumping obama will result in less fear and uncertainty for those businesses that are hunkered down. Its the paralysis, stupid.

The Rack and Ruin plan is out there. Cut taxes for the rich, raise taxes on the everyone else, and spend more on the military than was spent during either the Vietnam or Korean Wars.

Romneyhood has said he will cut capital gains taxes, which will help the middle class. Umm, guess what? Half of Americans own just 0.5% of the stocks and bonds. Romneyhood is lying again.

There is no way I will vote for a serial liar.

Mitt Romney tells 533 lies in 30 weeks, Steve Benen documents them

When did it become the President's job to fix the economy? Seriously? Wasnt their job supposed to be to Military Leader, Head of State, and representative to the world? When were the job duties changed to "Mess with the economy?"

To say that government jobs are a net loss to the economy is a misrepresentation of facts. What do the government employees (at all levels) do with their income? They spend it in grocery stores, laundries, cafeterias, garments, gas stations, credit cards, mortgages,etc. They probably have little left to pocket or put in a savings account. This has a multiplying effect. Why do you think northern Virginia and Maryland are pretty well off compared with the rest of the nation? Look up previous recessions under Republican or Democrat administrations and you will realize that the amount of government employees was increased as part of the recovery effort.

@Bruce your entire post is an opinion. Here's a fact for you:

In 1964 the Cuyahoga river started on fire for not second, third, or fourth time. In fact, between 1864 and 1964 no one knows how many times it happened, but most people agree between 9 and 14.

As a result the EPA, a not-very-business-friendly agency, was given teeth.

Why wouldn't every president be "business-friendly," you ask? Because historically, businesses are spotty on their own friendlyness. It's an unfortunate fact that in 100 years of commerce, businesses in Ohio weren't friendly enough to keep a river from starting on fire, or killing everything in the river (or in Lake Michigan, which wasn't just Ohio's fault).

Here's how our legal system works:

1. No law

2. Someone gets screwed

3. Finally a law gets passed

Maybe businesses should focus on being friendly. In the even that fails, they can just try to reign in their megalomania.

We ain't got no wheel mo more. Can't have gainful employment without a wheel. Sons-a-bitches outsourced our wheel. and left us ah walking! I don't care who the president is, we ain't gonna do no good until we get our wheel back. Now, aye Gwad, looks like Romney means to steal our shoes. That is, those of us who yet have shoes. Gonna leave us all barefooted and walking.

Obama/Ben have chosen to print dollars. This decision effects the entire global economy not just the US. So as the dollar weakens due to more dollars printed US consumers can buy less with that money. This AM some countries are seeing their exports get hurt because of the weaker dollar compared to their currency. This decision to keep int rates low has severely impacted nest egg investment for anybody but mostly seniors that depend on that money for their retirement. When seniors no longer can get a fair return on their investment they fall into poverty and thus ago on good stamps as many seniors now are doing. The avg SS benefit is 1100.00/mo so you can see how much that Fed decision to keep int rates very low has hurt seniors and thus the economy.

Another factor is trade agreements. Obama has not pursued improving those agreements or making new ones, but China has 25 new ones. We got two that Bush started. Why have trade agreements been ignored? Ask Obama.

The US is a part of the IMF. I believe based on our size we contribute about 20 percent of monies needed to shore up monetary policy around the globe. So when Greece faltered years ago, the US has had to commit billions to that fund to help them pay their servicing on their debt. That is money taken out of the good use and just throwing it down a black hole.

Obama is very pro increased regulations. It is a money revenue decision, but it severely limits economic success in ANY country. Many emerging countries have far fewer regulations and can set up businesses at the blink of an eye. As an example here in the US, once upon a time immigrants came to the US to be taxi drivers. So they saved up money and bought their own taxi(s) and thus began a business. Today in NYC only a million dollars allows that to happen anymore. I am not joking. The day of stay-at-home mom starting a cookie business from her home is over. That requires a commercial kitchen. If you want to cut hair at your home that is over as well.

A president sets a tone which is pro business before all else to increase the top line and make all boats float. The other, as we have now, believes that government should control business and should give out the charity instead of looking to the private sector to help there by their own desires.

Yesterday, liberal Tom Brokaw said that his rich friends said they would pay more IF they knew the money would be well spent. Unfortunately it won't be and herein lies the issue. The US government spending grows typically around 8 percent a year. We can't even control increasing spending let alone cut spending. You can see that Europe cannot cut spending either because like the US they love to grow government spending.

This is why I am against more taxation. It is like the family that makes 50,000 and now makes 100,000. They should be in good shape going forward BUT only if they keep a reasonable spending level. Look at many of your top sports stars, celebs that somehow managed to rip through millions. It just isn't that hard to do when you promise more than you make. Rich people need to service a debt as well and if they can't they lose everything. It happens all the time.

There is one main economic issue in the US.

The government is spending far too much money that should be used by the people to create wealth. This trickle down (from government to economy) doesn't work.

A smaller issue, but related, is that they are putting up too many barriers to entry, the rich (big companies) continue to have an advantage over those wanting a slice of the pie.

I have nothing against Obama and I voted for him last time but we found out that he has no idea about how business works and he does not know how to read financials which is very important. Both candidates say just about anything to win votes but the reality is when we have a business man who understands how business works he/she will be able to make the "better" decisions regarding how to create jobs.

hs321-Or elect someone who can lead Congress to work together. That would require a genuine leader.

The only thing that could get the current bunch in line is an old-school elementary teacher with a big wooden paddle. That's about the maturity level we're dealing with here. And no, the president is not there to be congress' babysitter- he's got his own job to do.

This is the year for real change !!!!!!!

!!!!!!! RON PAUL 2012 !!!!!!

theboys, You need a huge lesson on civics and government. The President/VP does not print money or set interest rates, the FED, which is a private bank, does. The Interest rate is set for loans, not savings. BTW, Tom Brokow is NOT a liberal, he is a registered republican, however he is a responsible conservative.

"It's surprising because they're [voters] are right."

So it's surprising that people have a grip on reality??? Neither President can be my bookkeeper, but if I had to decide, I'd go with Romney because he'd make me filthy rich and teach me how to hide all my wealth where they won't be taxed.

And that's all that it comes down to, folks. Neither President can help personal finances, considering they're not the ones who told you to buy that nice house you couldn't afford, rack up cc debt or take out $100k in student loans. And they can't force you to stay home and cook because its cheaper rather than going out every other meal. Besides, it not like the President has all the control on the money. That's the responsibility of Congress. Too bad the House is so focused on women's uterus and making Obama a 1 term President rather than doing their effing job.

Raddave, thats exactly why we need Ron Paul, who is responsible for fed finally being audited. He has constantly opposed the fed and its many evils, I have no doubt he will as President, be able to get rid of its reign of tyranny once and for all.

Ron Paul is nothing but a republiCON, running as a libertarian.

IF YOU ARE ILLEGAL IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA you have a better chance of a successful life than if you are a legal citizen.

Bob1/28:

You guys and gals missed the boat again.

The mess we are in was brought to us kindness of the banksters and the military / industrial complex. They are the puppet masters pulling congresses strings. Remember they bought and paid for congress. NO matter who is elected their hands will be tied and they powerless. Neither candidate is a horse trader, there for nothing will be done by either. Congress plays a tit for tat game and neither knows how to play.

I agree with everything you've said, except "Congress plays a tit for tat game and neither knows how to play". Congress plays the game expertly well, for themselves.

As long as politicians keep the masses fighting, disguised as whose party will do the best job, the American public will continue to get the shaft.

The only solution to changing the destructive course we are on, is to force the operating laws of politicians to change.

Who the hell really thinks that it's congress or the president that drives the economy?

All we need is a congress and a president to get the hell out of the way.

Romney-2012

Who the hell really thinks that it's congress or the president that drives the economy?

All we need is a congress and a president to get the hell out of the way.

Yeah, and let the ethical banks and peace loving military industrial complex completely take over. Rolls eyes.

Although, they've done a pretty fair job of it already.

What is needed is a leash on congress. You don't show up for a vote and don't have a good reason, like you're sick, you don't get paid. You're salary increases are determined by the economy. Economy sucks, well so does your salary. No gifts, payolla, from lobbyists. You're bank accouonts are monitored and unusual deposits must be explained. No non-US bank accounts. Right now our government is owned by the hightest bidder and this has to stop.

If the people are unable to get Congress to change their own governing laws, what is the people's recourse?

2,000 page tax code, 2,000 pages of laws and regulations, 2,000 page Health care bill, and you wonder why small businesses can't compete with the big guys who can afford someone to take advantage of the bureaucracy instead of being smothered by it like small business.

The President and Congress can play a role, they can make things harder or easier, and they can set up whether the risk is worth the heavily taxed reward.

There are 73,600 pages to the US tax code today.

there were 67,500 on 2008

there were 45,00 in 1995

there were 16,500 in 1969

Clearly we don't have a tax problem, we have a spending problem.

Obama definitely hasn't helped our finances. The smart thing to do would be to give Romney a chance. Four more years is a long time to wait for the change we have been needing.

oh yes, Mitt Romney really helps business... but only if it benefits him. Read this, and enlighten yourself before you vote for a Myth:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829

oh yes, Mitt Romney really helps business... but only if it benefits him. Read this, and enlighten yourself before you vote for a Myth:

The Rollingstones? Really? Why don't I just pick up an American Communist magazine while I'm at it. The Rollingstones doesn't employee anyone who knows jack sh!t about economics, and even less about job creation and running a business.

So my fellow Republicans I'd like to offer you an opportunity to spell out your plans to move this country forward without using the typical Republican talking points...please give me specifics. I don't want to hear about a "5 point plan" because that's the "big picture". For instance:

1. When you cut taxes on the rich (those making more than $250,000.00 a year) will you be shifting the tax burden to the middle class and below? If you say no...where will you make up revenue beside massive spending cuts? If it's spending cut, please specify which programs you plan to cut!

2. Are you going to force the military into to buying weapons systems they aren't even requesting? Unnecessary defense spending, especially when the military isn't asking for it, is bankrupting this country. Fighting two wars, one we didn't ask for, is bankrupting this country. Did Republicans think about that before we went to war in Iraq? Not only did we lose money waging that war...we lost human lives on a lie! What are Republicans doing to fix that one glaring problem?

3. Are you going to remove all financial regulations instituted after the great "Collapse?" What are you going to do when the financial industry goes back to its predatory practices and causes another collapse?

4. Are you going to cut Medicare and Medicaid? How about going after Medicare and Medicaid fraud? The money you recover on fraud or waste will pay for Health-care reform. Those that commit the biggest fraud are those in the medical industry. Why not police the industry - health care should not be about profit - paying for a service yes and some profit - but not solely about or for profit? Throughout history we have seen that profit drives corruption and fraud.

5. After seeing the multiple benefits of Health-care Reform...should you actually repeal the law...what do you propose in its place? How do you plan to cut down inflationary health-care cost? Insurance costs? How do you plan to protect the American people from greedy pharmaceutical companies?

6. If you don't like the health care insurance "mandate", why aren't you pushing to end all insurance mandates, i.e. auto insurance, home insurance etc? It's the same thing. Better yet, if you're never in an accident, why not establish a law that gives a percentage of our money back because we didn't file a claim? In the end, insurance is just giving money away.

7. Are you going to end Social Security as we know it? Why? Why not go after those committing Social Security Fraud? Why not put Social Security in a lock box...you can't use those funds other than for the welfare of our aging society?

8. The biggest enemy of small business is big business. What is the Republican Plan to help with small businesses? Reducing taxes? How about getting our products overseas? How about applying tariffs on imports or in lieu of tariffs, how about enforcing trade agreements and reducing the trade imbalance? How about regulating businesses like Wal-Mart, Kmart, etc., in such a way that they have to buy America before they buy China, Taiwan, Japan or Korea?

I have many more questions and concerns...and Republicans provide very little in answers or substance....other than a so called 5 Point Plan!

When one candidate promises a mathematically impossible tax plan that would break our economy, I am more concerned about who will not screw it up more.

You can not lower the rate for ALL and make it up by eliminate deductions for SOME. The math just isn't there, lowering the rate effectively makes the revenue you recover from the eliminated deductions lower as well, and to even come close to making up that 20% cut Romney/Ryan have promised you will have to target deductions that the MOST people enjoy. Romney and Ryan have pretty much promised they will balloon annual deficits adding to our nations debt with the largest cut in revenue the US has ever seen.

As long as our debt keeps increasing the value of the American dollar and its economy will always be uncertain, If you are serious about the reality of mathematics, we will need a balanced approach, by cut spending and raising revenue....

Obama 2012

There may be doubt about Romney being able to help the economy, but there is certainty that Obama can't help. Fours years and we are worse off as a country than before Obama took office.

Individual STATES , their ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS, and RE-EDUCATION

will get folks jobs in this abysmal GLOBAL economy.

That's a reality.

^ not a factual statement,

Data that republicans used to hang Obama with back when it agreed with them says that Obama has recovered every job that was lost under him from a recession that he didn't cause.

At this point Roseanne Barr is starting to look like presidential material.

"Wealth Redistribution" will never work and that is Mr. Obama's campaign platform......PERIOD.

Time to vote out Mr. Obama and send him and his Progressive Cabinet Members and Czars back to Chicago.

Maybe Mr. Obama should have FIRED Mr. Biden at the DNC and replaced him with either Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, Ms/Mrs Cuttless, Mr. Bixelrod, Mr. Canary, or even Rev. Wright. Wait, don't want to forget Billy Ayers or George Soros.

Redistribution of wealth from the porr and middle class apparently appeals to you more. Romney definitely supports that - and trhe Ryan budget lays it out.

I presume you are wealthy - right? If not - a vote for Romney is a vote against your own best interests. Ideology at the expense of millions - a sad trade-off.

Socialism vs Fascism.. when this is the ideologies of the two "front runners" then there is no hope.

Give me any candidate NOT endorsed by the democrats or republicans.

Hello folks, we have a one headed two party system serving their masters, Wall Street and the banksters/Federal Reserve. Politicians don’t control our economy, the Federal Reserve and their fractional reserve banking system control our economy. And it is doing what it is designed to do, bankrupt economies. Have you noticed that all countries with a central bank are bankrupt.

Any person playing the Democrat Republican blame game have tunnel vision and allow their partisanship to put them in a box with only two choices, Democrat or Republican. That folks is called narrow minded thinking.

The partisans will defend their box to the death even if they don't agree with their leaders because they put themselves in the box and painted themselves into a corner. They are now rigid in their thinking and puppets or sheeple to their religion party. They can't possibly be conservative about one subject and progressive about another because that would make them a traitor to their political religion, when many of our choices fall on one side or the other. In their mind it's willful hypocrisy for Democracy. Politics is religion to these people and fundamentalist anything never ends up well. When you go too far to the left or too far to the right, you know what you've done? That's right, you've gone too far.

Thank you TrustVerify.

The sheeple don't even realize who is leading them to the slaughter, but they'll go willingly.

This is the new mantra among "reporters" in the corporate media, that the president can't really do much about the economy. They are covering for the politicians of both parties who do pretty much the same thing: cut taxes and regulations on businesses and the wealthy and cut social programs (like Medicare and SS) that support the middle class.

Both political parties are owned by corporations and the wealthy (like the media). They don't give a rat's ass about most americans, they are just there to serve the rich and corporations (pretty much the same thing).

In other words, they transfer wealth to the the rich from the middle class.

So of course things don't be better (except for the 1%), they get worse.

It's baloney that the president can't make the economy a lot better for most people. Look what FDR did, he lowered unemployment significantly and the new regulations on business (glass-steagal) and other New Deal era policies made possible the huge jump in living standards for millions of americans in the two decades after WWII.

The idea that the president can't really do much is just another lie the media is telling you in defense of so called "Free-market" capitalism.

Domestically the responsibility lies with Congress, but when the problem is global even Congress cannot make things better. That said, an ideologically gridlocked Congress (like the last one - devoted to making Obama a one term president) was CERTAIN to make things MUCH worse.

Had the stimulus been TEN times bigger there might have been a chance of a quicker turn-around. Now it will take a decade. Thanks Congress!

Problem is we are still stupid enough to vote for Tea Party Members.....

OHGuy - An even bigger problem are the folks who insist only the other party is to blame.

We are in a debt crisis that has been ignored for too long and failure of our present economic system is now inevitable. What we need is a leader who can best deal with the recovery on the other side of that failure. America is still in for the worst of it and neither candidate can stop that free-fall. I believe, however, that we can recover even from our dollar becoming totally worthless. Leadership will be crucial and it can't be the type of leadership that we have had these past 4 years that only continues to take us further into debt and rolls out more worthless paper dollars.

America's best resource is her people and their entrepreneurial drive. America's success has been a combination of freedom for this economic energy to succeed teamed with Biblical wisdom that allows the system to work right as we properly recognize and honor our Creator and His ways. This will be restored in our nation, but we will go through a very dark time to get there. We must have a wise business leader who can deal with this crisis and, as a people, we must turn back to our founding principles and to the God who inspired them.

We are the largest economy on Earth. Growth would be higher now if we had done a small 2nd stimulus as proposed by Obama. More infrastructure spending would have helped take up the slack in construction industry and could have been financed with some of the lowest interest rates in our history (0% on 10 year T-bills is what we pay for new money now).

While European demand has hurt some of our companies earnings, most are flush with cash just waiting for our demand to increase.

Back in 4th quarter of 2008, our economy shrunk at rate of -8.5%. With stimulus passed in 1st quarter 2009, this downward spiral ended in 3rd quarter 2009. We had growth approaching 4% in 2010. Then, the stimulus money ran out (as planned) and Tea Party takeover of House doomed a 2nd, smaller stimulus that would have kept momentum of growth high enough to reduce unemployment to under 7%.

Now, we are at 1.3% growth in 2nd quarter. We would be at 3%+ with passage of Obama's 2011 proposals (AJA and infrastructure).

The $700+ billion first stimulus increased growth from -8.5% to above 0% in 6 months and to nearly 4% in 18 months.

The problem is Congress, specifically the do nothing House. What have those teabaggers done nothing but grandstand, take hostages, do extortion, and get our credit rating downgraded.

In the over 400 days since Republicans took control of the House, the GOP hasn’t passed a single job creation bill, but has passed bills that would kill 7.4 million jobs.

House Democrats has proposed 31 different bills to create jobs since Republicans have taken over, and all of them have been defeated.

Here is a partial list of some of the job creation bills that the GOP has said no to (via: Democratic Leader Pelosi):

(30) In 400+ Days The GOP Has Created 0 And Tried To Kill 7.4 Million Jobs | Digg Topnews

Problem is we are still stupid enough to vote for Tea Party Members.....

Because the other party has demonstrated they have no idea how to do the job.

There is a 50 year study that shows that historically the Democrats are better with the economy. This is a state government study.

Taxes, Spending, Democrats better

Problem is we are still stupid enough to vote for Tea Party Members.....

Yeah, because:

1. Asking to spend less than we are taking in-

2. Asking to stop spending money like drunken sailors and wasting hundreds of billions of dollars a year-

and

3. Demanding fiscal responsibility and restraint-

are all such terrible ideas.

*SARCASM*

I am amazed at how many sheeple just pick up the "tea party is ruining us" talking point while having absolutely no clue what the tea party is all about. What is ruining us is what the tea party is trying to put a stop to.

I do NOT see anywhere in the POTUS' job description of "Jobs Creator" unless you are talking about Government jobs of the people HE hires if elected as POTUS for Cabinet positions, staff, etc. . It is Businesses job to create jobs. Not the governments. Unless you want ONLY governmental jobs. When you have tax cuts that favor the rich, instead of them creating jobs, they pocket the cash. Regulations work!!

If Amercia (Mittens America) shifts course, Mittens will ruin whats been moving along. You can't fix in 4 years what took 8 to break, sorry GOP. NO magic fix.

Mittens will start wars with Syria, and Iran. With both comes China and Russia. Hello Russia with your 5000+ nukes. Hello China with your 300-500 Million person Military force willing to defend the motherland. With wars comes unemployment. With wars comes more and wasteful government spending. Elect Mittens and Pauly Shore and amercia gets a Bush redux.

As Joe Biden says, "Just get OUT of our way!" What he was referring to GOPers is the jobs bills YOUR morons in DC have been holding hostage against PERMANENT tax cuts for the rich!! YES PERMANENT! Meanwhile the middle-class WILL HAVE TO foot the bill as a result if those tax breaks are allowed to happen! Not saying, just saying.

Skup - Thank You! That is the problem we face, its always the other sides fault. The sooner that we the American public stop the my side is better than yours, 8yr old on the school playground mentality, and actually be adults, admit both sides have fault (both are nothing more than one head of a two headed snake), and come together to demand real changes the sooner we will actually see changes happen. As long as we are divided nothing will happen. Both groups have fault in one way or another, and have favored themselves over what is best for the country, end of story.

IMO, I don't see either side really going to be able to do much that will help us, the middle class that bears the brunt of the taxes and supporting the country. Not until our politicians are no longer bought and paid for and we get someone who isn't just worried about reelection but will make the needed changes, some of which will not be popular but will have to happen. The game is rigged and it is not in favor of the what is best for America.

And for the article it is an effort in futility as the POTUS may have some influence he really doesn't do much as it is Congress that has more control and more over if we are competing on a global scale that influence can be even less. Either side going on about these talking points is for the most part wasting their breath and lying. Yes like I said there is some influence but its not just one person and anyone who claims they will make jobs or policies that favor job creation (meaningful middle class pay or higher) let alone expect it to just happen in a short amount of time is full of it and the whole argument should be ignored or called out for what it is, a lie.

But like I said until we make the game fair again and stop the corruption there will be no changes that are meaningful and most likely we will get further kicking of the can, that at this point, doesn't have really anyway left to go.

Like I've said before, America, It is time we finally stand together and do what is right for our country and in all honestly neither one of these men are the right choice and we shouldn't be forced to put up with poison 1 or 2 anymore. We deserve a choice that isn't tainted by quest own personal gains, political donations, or far wingnut ideals. It is time we actually get a choice that wants to do what is right for this country.

I wish Republicans would give up the B.S. rhetoric. During the first two years of the Obama Presidency we had a "do something" Congress. The last two years we've had an obstructionist Republican Controlled House of Representatives who have gone out of their way to defeat any Democratic measure at any cost, regardless if it was right for the country or not, so long as it meant that Obama would only serve one term.

When you go against the country, that's treason. Those Republicans who blocked growth, wanted this President to fail. They wanted this country to fail, so they could say....we told you so - is treasonous. If Republicans want real change and to be prosperous again I have two things for:

95% of all Republicans are rich not because of Republican policy...because of Clinton Policy.

If Republicans want 4 years of stagnant growth, a stop in the recovery, a global slowdown....vote Romney...because the policies he will follow are those of G.W. Bush and that's what got us here in the first place!

Now for the Religious stuff, or should I say Malarkey...stop. Remove religious beliefs from the legislative process...Religion deserves no role or part in law making. Common sense, "moral and ethical" ideas about man and/or woman deserve that role i.e.:

Should we kill, hurt or in other words harm, another "sentient" human being?

Should we steal?

Should we lie?

Should we this or that..........bottom line, it's all about morality and ethic's, not religion!

Faith is...personal! "Personal" meaning you cannot force your views on me and I cannot force my views on you, directly or indirectly. "Personal" meaning, the only way you know my wife is going to have an abortion is if you're invading my privacy. There's an old adage...what you don't know, won't kill you. So keep your nose out of my business and your faith out of our country's legislation.

Skeptus....

Look at Spain, then, @Starderup, because that's where Obama would take us.(With global taxation via the UN !)

This is a "downer"article, tring to infer it won't make a difference who is elected POTUS.

WRONG! Not much skepticism here in Ohio anymore...should have been in Lebanon Saturday!

Skeptus - you apparently know little about the global economy....southern Europe is having problems - northern Europe is booming - still the highest standard of living in the world. Those economies have high taxes, unions and national healthcare policy - yet they thrive!!!. If the President takes us there - bring it on!!!!

THE GOP ECONOMY - The economy in 2007 had tanked - BEFORE he took office. Thank Mr GWB and Republican "trickle-down" economics for that. The bubble the GOP had been inflating since Reagan burst. We lost millions of jobs during the GOP's reign starting already in 2005 - more in 8 years than any time after the depression, the stock market virtually crashed (down to 6800) banks were failing everywhere, the auto industry was about to lose another million jobs, we were in two wars we weren't paying for, Bush had just bailed out the big banks, house values had plummeted and the mortgage market froze with millions "under water".

In general - President Obama has been a leader in improving our situation here greatly - 5 million plus jobs have returned and unemployment has dropped to pre-crash levels, unemployement is under 8%, houses are selling again, mortgages have loosened up, the stock market is over 13,000, business orders are up and rising, the auto industry has come back with a vengeance (GM is #1 in the world), unemployment in Ohio fell from 11% under Bush to under 8% under President Obama, steel is coming back too. It has been a tough time for many - and the fantasy of home ownership has changed to reality - your home is where you live, not what makes you wealthy.

The President DID make a difference - stimulus money (Paul Ryan asked for it - so did Eric Cantor and Michelle Bachmann) kept stores open - weak but limping along, the rebound of the car industry has employed millions again and restored some areas of the upper midwest, recovery in many cities is real - like here in Charleston SC, and industrial orders are up. 5 million new jobs helped us bring the economy back to life - and though not booming, it is doing much better.

President Obama's initiatives provided stability where there was none, security and a sense of progress for those who were considering giving up. Legislation to guaranty access to health care, equality in pay, equal rights for ALL Americans - even gay people, protection of voting rights, care for Veterans returning from the Bush wars, respect for this country restored (Bush had tanked that too), President Obama did it - even in the face of incredible obstruction by the GOP.

What has Mitt Romney offered us? TALK, offshore investments, sending jobs offshore, contributing as little as possible to the budget, MORE TALK, flip-flopping - first for then against so many things - it's clear he stands for nothing. Except money. He likes money, and wants to be president cause his daddy didn't get there. He would be for beheading old ladies like me if he thought it would get him elected. Karl Rove would do it. So would Limbaugh and Hannity. For now - they are happy telling lies - not little ones, but huge whoppers! They are banking on the American public being dumb enough to forget what they said just a couple of months ago....

Skeptus - Romney will fix only those things that make him and his buddies wealthier. Also - if you want another war - Romney & his neo-con pals will give it to us.... He is too weak to lead himself. He was immensemly unpopular in Massachussetts, which is why he did not run for a second term there.....

4 more years - Obama/Biden!!!!!

Presidenet Obama came in while we were losing 7-800,000 jobs per month....

\

Agree. How about they all get the hell out of the way and let the market do it's thing? The politicians get involved and all goes to hell in a handbasket.

I think people forget that it is the POTUS and Congress that put us in this mess. We pay our taxes, they spend our taxes plus a whole lot more.

That being said, it is time for a change....American and the world has lost confidnece in our current POTUS. So much hope for the Hope and Change but alas Obama has turned out to be just another politician looking out for his cronies. Very sad and disheartening.

DB Akron, I agree a president can "offer" policies, etc., but ultimately, it is Congress who needs to take the bull by the horns. And I honestly don't think we see that very often. They're too busy standing their ground on a partisan basis, by and large. And I do mean both sides.

For at least once would one person concerned with the truth please define the Policies, that given the force of law are now affecting the economy? The 'policies' are non-existant in so far as Congress has blocked every policy of the President that the Business Community has failed to derail?

Congress's neck need to feel the rope!

Yes, Congress is the key, but they respond to the president. The president is a singular voice for people to vote for a general direction.

The Democrats taking over all of Congress in 2007 was a response by America to change direction from what Bush was doing. That meant an increase in Budgets and Deficits.

In 2008, America ran to Obama and cemented a move in the Democrats policies. You can't blame them because the economy nearly fell apart altogether. History will show that Bush 43's TARP stopped the system from collapse.

What then occured, was Democrats putting their heavy hands on everything, increasing spending more, regulating some companies to failure and others to Federal money where most money now has gone overseas or to high risk American based companies that many have gone bankrupt.

In 2010, American said enough of the spending by putting Republicans in charge of the House.

What America has to decide is if they want to maintain the current status quo to give the currently frozen Obama lead Democrat direction more time, or move back toward Republican Ideas.

Rich

The 'policies' are non-existant in so far as Congress has blocked every policy of the President that the Business Community has failed to derail?

Really?

You have Frank-Dodd. You have the ACA. You got over $800 Billion in Stimulus. Obama got everything he asked in his first two years for except the Carbon Market, Union card check and the dream act.

Since 2011, he requested More Stimulus, but that is going nowhere because NEITHER party is willing to propose another Bill like that because the CBO says it really didn't work very well.

Every proposal to do anything includes a tax increase to pay for it from the Democrats. Every Proposal the Republicans puts on record takes money from some other program that they see as being not used, wasted, or unnecessary.

Now, if you take the logic of my previous post, The Republicans were put in congress to STOP the current Democrat direction. They also ran on changing the direction to which, they passed 290 Bills in the House in the last 2 years. Most of which Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader has tabled in Senate.

Harry Reid for his part insisted on bills that would continue on the Path as outlined by Obama, and then is running in front of the cameras to say how hard they have worked, and that the republicans have done nothing. When cornered about the 290 Bills, he simply makes the disingenuous claim that the republican bills are a continuation of republican "failed Policies" and will not consider them. So much for working with the Republicans who held a mandate from one of the largest gains in the house in history.

DB, you must be kidding. The Republicans will not approve any of the democrats propositions because they either do not cut spending or there is no way to pay for them. I mean, who cuts spending just because there is no way to pay for it?

(Satire intentional.)

When Bill Clinton increased taxes on the rich (who had received huge tax cuts from Reagan in name of trickle down) and expanded the earned income tax credit in 1993, Republicans howled that it would ruin the economy.

In actuality, our economy grew at 4% rate and 20 million jobs were created. Four balanced budgets also resulted from this change in tax policy from 1997-2001.

Bush cut taxes in 2001 (especially generous for rich) and we have not been even close to a balanced budget since.

Right now, the rich are investing money in 0% 10 year Treasury bonds. To tax them more now will not hurt economic growth at all. They can easily borrow at very low interest rates when their business's sales increase enough.

That more Americans do not realize that government policy has an impact on growth is due in part to Republicans lying about stimulus working to produce jobs and economic growth which it has.

Our growth rate now is almost 10% higher than in 4th quarter 2008 (-8.5%). Stimulus worked to prevent the Great Recession from becoming a Great Depression.

Thanks Pres. Obama

shaak

Right now, the rich are investing money in 0% 10 year Treasury bonds. To tax them more now will not hurt economic growth at all.

This statement makes absolutely no sense. Investing in the T-Bills means they will get the money their money back. Investing in T-Bills is them telling you that they expect the economy to tank.

To collect taxes, you must first have an income (except real estate taxes). 0% on a T-Bill means they will be earning nothing. IF they are parking the money in T-Bills, then that means the fed is using the money for something, i.e., the money is still accomplishing something.

DB Akron - Taxes are not tools for social engineering. They should be set at the minimum level the government needs to operate and left alone.

DBAkron

US T-bills are considered the safest investment on the face of the Earth.

What this tells me is that the rich have excess money which they can afford to safely park in T-bills. Thus, they could also be taxed at the rate they paid 18 years ago without slowing economic growth.

Skup

But the Republicans have been lowering tax rate for the last 30 years. The top 1% earned 10% of our nation's income in 1980. Now, they earn 24% of our nation's income. This huge transfer of income is mostly the result of redistribution of income due to changes in tax rates for them.

Obama wants to return rich to 1993 tax rate which resulted in economic growth of 4%, 20 million new jobs, and 4 balanced budgets during Clinton's 8 years as President.

shaak322 - I didn't say they were right either.

BTW: The economic growth in the 90's was a result of the dot com boom not Clinton's tax policies.

Skup

How many jobs were created in .com boom? The Clinton prosperity was broad based extending even to non-college graduates.

Are you really trying to convince us that 20 million new jobs were in .com industry? Lower budget deficits resulted from Clinton tax policies. Alan Greenspan told Clinton that with lower budget deficits, the Fed could lower interest rates. Lower interest rates led to higher home building activity and home equity loans led to higher consumer buying of cars, furnishings, and appliances, as well as home remodeling projects.

This expansion of consumer sales was the major factor in economic growth. That .com helped growth is indisputable, but I would venture to guess it didn't even produce 1 million new jobs out of 20 million total.

shaak322 - The vast majority of jobs generated during the 90s were a direct result of the dot com boom. Either by jobs added directly to dot com industries or by the consumer spending from profits made off of the dot com fueled stock market. Are you really trying to convince us a tax policy led to that kind of growth?

The dot com boom set the stage for our current recession. During that time there was an air of financial invincibility in the stock market being driven by the absurd amounts of monopoly money being generated by the dot com boom. There was plenty of money to go around for all involved. So what does the government do? Repeal Glass-Steagall and create too big to fail banks. The rest, as they say, is history. Both parties went into with $$$ and votes in their eyes. The only person I know of to speak out against was Byron Dorgan the Democrat Senator from North Dakota.

DB

You couldn't be more wrong in your statement regarding the effect of the president on the economy.

All those things you listed are the bailiwick of congress with the majority of those burdens falling on the house.

Congress determines how much money is put into circulation and the money now being created by banks and other lenders happens only because of congress's approval despite the fact that it is constitutionally illegal.

Congress determines what and how money is spent; essentially, they give the executive branch a shopping list and X dollars. Granted the POTUS has a certain degree of leeway under certain circumstances, i.e., emergencies, but it is congress that controls the purse strings.

The POTUS has no control over taxation, tariffs, etc. He most certainly can make recommendations, none-the-less, again, it is congress that is in control of such matters.

Even in the act of the POTUS signing treaties and trade agreements, congress must approve those treaties and trade agreements before they become part of the "Law of the Land".

You have, rhetorically, slid the responsibilities of congress onto the shoulders of the POTUS wrongfully.

IMHO, you are an anti-Obama, republican shill who believes you can make a difference in the outcome of the upcoming election. And , who knows, maybe you can, but I doubt it. But I do think quite a bit less of you for your ideological bias and your less than truthful twisting of the basic civics regarding the responsibility of the various segments of government.

DB - lowering taxes as we did under GW Bush certainly did not improve the economy. We "trickled" right down the rabbit hole....

Romney invested million on Chinese oil and a company that invested heavily in Iran. His decision-making is only influenced by his wealth and desperate need to win at all costs - even if it means lying all the way.

You used to have some principles DB. Do you support Romney? Wow - truth really ireally not important any more, government can tell us all what to do with our bodies and partners, and push us to a government religion - but not protect our rights or our economy? Is that going to be the sole domain of ur new oligarchs? Wow....a fine line between where we are going and fascism...

Why should I give your Republican Party a chance to fix something they created in the first place?

We've had 33 months of steady job creation? It may not be at the rate you're looking for or for the pay your looking for, but this not an endemic situation - this happening throughout the world. So I guess the next obvious question is this, instead of obstructing growth, why doesn't the Republican Party start showing some leadership? Before you say it, electing Mitt Romney is not the leadership answer!

"Well we know for sure Mr. Obama hasn't done anything to improve the economy..." I love these matter-of-fact statements. How can you be so sure his policies haven't kept the economy from crashing twice as hard?

Well we know for sure Mr. Obama hasn't done anything to improve the economy...

... except for the fact the economy has improved over 4 years. :)

I love these matter-of-fact statements.

I call them lies. Simply saying something untrue is a lie in my book.

Well jeff if call think borrowing 6 trillion dolllars in 4 yrs. is improving the economy, or a wasted trillion dollar stimulus, or a 3 trillion dollar healthcare package that is only going to get more expensive.GM bailout money going to brazil to for a new autoplant. And our economy is growing at 1.3%, which is slower than laster year.

Well jeff if call think borrowing 6 trillion dolllars in 4 yrs.

You don't even know how to spell let alone get your facts straight. Arguing with a dumb troll just makes someone as dumb as that troll. Welcome to ignore. :)

Yeah, let's just turn the economy back over to the party that crashed it to begin with. THAT makes a lot of sense!!

What we need is a president that will NOT say "I WON" when someone offers a suggestion/bill to improve the economy and create jobss. We need a president who will listen to ALL members of congress as they just may have a solution he does not have.

What part of a current unemployment rate at 7.8% being below what the unemployment rate was when Obama started, don't you understand? You must really like living in your dream world, your lies, etc. Republicans never offered or presented, and let me quote, a "viable" solution, when it came to presenting new ideas or legislating for the people of this country. It was always a token gesture...so that your Republican Party could tell people like you, yeah we tried to work with the President...but he wouldn't work with us. As always...just continue to believe in the the "Party' lies. Vote Republican because you don't like the idea of a half black / half white man in the highest office. You are what you are and to be a Republican is what it is...a failing, ultra christian conservative, racist party that has lost it's identity and is afraid of it's own shadow!

MK, my friend unless you are a millionaire, one day YOU will need a handout. Even if it's Social Security. So don't bite and criticize the hand that feeds you.

@Sally in Chicago

Uhmmmm, Silly Sally can you explain how Social Security (a program paid into by both the employee and employer) can be construed to be a "handout"?

Would you classify a 401k or other retirement program in which you the beneficiary puts monies into, a Government "handout" as well? If you do, then you most likely agree with Rep Pelosi's stance that the Government should confiscate ALL retirement accounts and distribute those monies appropriately.

In addition to proper Voter ID checks, we should require at least a minimal IQ level before we allow people to vote...most likely you would be precluded!

They military is the biggest welfare drain on the economy. When the current military costs are added to things like wars, the costs of caring for Veterans, and costs of servicing the debt from previous military costs, the military takes up over 50% of our budget.

That is where the cuts are needed. Why do we need a $2 Billion dollar bomber that can't even stand up to rain? The F-22 has been in service long enough that we have fought 3 wars in that time, but it has never been deployed. Why do we need it?

The Federal Pie Chart

@Independent Reasoning

How is SS a handout?

1.) The money was not saved, it was spent on programs (good or bad) on the behest of those same people. All that is left are IOUs or NMSs.

2.) Say 1 was not true (but nobody denies that it is) the amount paid in is small to what is paid out. This is why that imaginary fund is going broke so fast.

So I'm wondering when the Proletariat will take arms against the Bourgeoisie?

Look Democrats or Republicans....Social Security doesn't need to be reformed or touched in any way. Lets take a closer look. Social Security revenues usually exceed expenditures. When this happens, unused revenue is invested in special series, non-marketable U.S. bonds. What this means to you as the beneficiary, that Social Security Trust Fund finances the U.S. government's deficit spending. For example, in 2007, the Social Security taxes and interest received over all of the benefits paid was upwards of 2 trillion dollars. The excess revenue went to deficit spending. Why. You should want to know why? So here is the simple math...leave Social Security alone, it doesn't need any reform...it just needs be left untouched...in fact put a lock on it so that none of the excess revenue can be used to pay for deficit spending.

A vote for Johnson is the same as a vote for Obama.

Yes if you don't like Romney vote Gary Johnson, he is the clear choice for those not liking the Romney/Ryan ticket. Spread the word, we liberals need to stick together. I want Gary Johnson's likeness on every pack of smokes, lottery ticket, and package of government cheese, get the word to our flock! Gary Johnson for President.

Robert,

It might not seem like it, but there are millions of Republicans who are voting against Obama-Biden and for Romney-Ryan. This is because the best opportuninty to unseat the undynamic duo is Romney. Being we are still headed to a financial cliff, we really cannot afford 4 more for 44.

GJ is a much better choice than RR or OB.

I have a GJ sign in my front yard, and I put 100 door hangers out around my neighborhood. Help get the word out. As mentioned above, there is no law that says you must vote Democrat or Republican. So far they have been hanging on by selling people on the idea that you are "throwing your vote away" if you vote for somebody else. Guess what, you are throwing your vote away if you vote for somebody you don't believe in.

Energy Policies! You might as well be speaking Chinese!

Each election campaign since Adams has been about three things 1) having horse to ride on, 2) promising a horse to ride on and 3) riding on the horse to the election, after the election that horse get put pasture never to be heard again.

How about that horse you rode in on!

The Chinese need some advice, which is to not spend or invest heavily on military defense, but rather invest in China. China can increase its power beyond measure, by investing in energy producing equipment. This is based on the USA's energy/cost curve vs. economic growth, according to baseline established in the 100 years up to 1976, and to avoid the same curve since the Reagan Era. This not a strange or obscure observation, but the fact that all modern economies depended on energy consumption, thus energy production, thus high tech energy products and efficiency offer the way to the future. The 'energy is all basis', also tracks utility technology toward bigness and large concentrated facilities, then doable but nearly always losing modern efficiencies due to transmission. (Efficiencies and Capitalization were pivotal in the Edison Era, DC/AC vs. Natural Gas).

Today the loss in transmission (includes transportation) represents an opportunity created by new energy technology. The energy efficiency of natural gas delivered by capital intense pipelines is at maximum, whereas transmission from hydro power has the highest loss (between transmission and near use but wasteful utilization), whereas the high tech manufacture of energy equipment that eliminates transmission losses.

Manufacturing mass produced, low cost energy equipment that delivers with less transmission loss, directly where it is needed, with less infrastructure dependency, and for that matter better utilization of the installed base of infrastructure. The best technology is the one that can be used in multiple ways to solve more than one problem when it needs to. The screw-driver-nail-hammer is less effective than each used separately, but fits in the kitchen drawer better.

The question of defense translates to power and should address economic needs. There no likelihood that China will attempt a military land war against the Unites States, there is little need for China to invade bordering countries, or little likelihood to take back Taiwan with nuclear weapons. That being said China has out competed the United States in using America's own ideas about capitalism. However it remains big question to see if China will engage in wasteful, military spending for world domination following the America model, or if China will use mass produced manufacturing of low cost products (once another American Model). This will extend Chinese influence across the planet, as the low cost provider of solar based energy, wind energy in every other country of the world, every country that cannot possibly become industrial giant, cannot install heavy infrastructure, or cannot justify a capital intensive infrastructure that then depends on the waste inefficient use of energy.

There is a natural USA vs. China competition. The United States for reasons of internal entrenched power within the country can to continue to its energy-economic interest through the use of brute military power, using the guaranteed energy (dependency) need to feed its existing short-term needs (robbing itself of energy opportunities). China perhaps could make a different choice, by avoiding the unproductive wasteful military expenditures, and concentrating on its capitalization for the world market. The Chinese approach, pursued aggressively, could easily reduce the world's dependency on Middle Eastern Oil Countries, and spread its marketing influence across the planet, while simultaneously removing oil producing countries from the thrall of the US Military protection. The Chinese could achieve world economic stability by developing economic opportunities, whereas the United States will become the New Sparta, spending every dime of profit from increasing austere economy for more and more military hardware.

It more than just ironic that the United States is protecting the Oil Supply to China, a protection the offers the Chinese these alternatives for its future success. The US might make an issue of Chinese loans to the US Debt, but with the United States business community encouraging E-5 immigration/business loans, we have the left hand laughing at the right hand. Just before I laugh myself to certain death, consider what would happen if the business establishment in the USA decided to change direction and focused on the energy program above, mass producing alternate energy equipment, directing new construction to toward installing, maintaining energy equipment where pay back could be assured? (Jobs and Economy Booming Again?) How would the Chinese react to that? The Chinese's could just improve the quality of their products, beating the America production (ploughs) back to military weapons (swords) to defend against world domination by the Chinese.

The ancient war of Greece, stripped the country bare of even agricultural soils, the 300 perished valiantly, but never was the land restored. The United States spans continent, but unleashed we could strip bare the country for erosion with unregulated pollution poison the rest, then given 2,500 more years what would the country look like?

Troy -

That won't happen until we get Obama and his anti-energy policies out of office.

We need to develop every energy source we have to the fullest. This will produce jobs and revenue, both a plus.

Solar and wind are not ready for prime time.

Tammy, America is producing more oil than ever right now today. America is exporting gasoline now. How do you like those gas prices?

Solar and wind are the wave of the future. Germany is closing down all of its nukie plants and going solar. Don't think that just because the Chinese bankrupted Solyndra that solar is bad. If solar got the same subsidies as Big Oil it would be cheaper than Big Oil.

solar energy subsidies

People do judge the economy by the only measurement they know...their own. Is your house worth MORE now than 4 yrs ago? Are the taxes lower? Are your health insurance premiums lower? Is your coverage better? Do you still have a job & with higher income and benefits? Do you feel safer? Does everyone in your family that is able to work have a job that pays well with benefits? Are gas prices lower than $1.82? Are groceries lower? Are your utilities lower? If you answer NO to only one of these questions you are not better off than you were 4 years ago.

All we have as actual 'policies' for the past four years have been Romney's Polices! We could call Obama Policies as being from the Romney Era?

I don't think Romney was ever president or in congress so technically they would not be his policies.

Got a list of those companies... I'd sure like to know who they are.

One is the Carlyle Group. It is owned by GHWBush and Baker. They have $1.3 Trillion dollars sitting in banks. They have publicly stated that they will do nothing until some one else gets the economy going again. Only then will they invest their money.....in Brazil, India, and China.

Hey milsh#t;

"One is the Carlyle Group. It is owned by GHWBush and Baker."

Actually the Carlyle Group is owned primarily by David Rubinstein who was an adviser to President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat before he founded the Carlyle Group.

Just thought you'd like to know FACT over Fiction!!!!!!

Oh don't ruin miklkit's fun. It's obvious why he/she posts on here.

Too bad he/she is just a partisan sheeple with their head stuck up their arse. Good at posting links without knowing whether the links are factual or not.

Oh wait, its written/posted some wheres on the interwebs so it must be the truth.

It was the only way the poor thing could blame Bush again!

He does when he gives our borrowed money to the IMF to help shore up those countries.

bama has added 6 trillion already.

Yes we need to go "Forward" to more "Change" we can step in.

Do you really want to pay more taxes so that the really rich can pay even less? That is the Romney tax plan.

It is a mess, but it's a lot less messy than republicans left it 4 years ago, and a lot less messy than Mittens would leave it 4 years from now.

Unemployment peaked at 10% in 2009. It is now at 7.8% and dropping.

The Dow Jones is at near record levels.

The national debt is about where it was in 2006 and dropping.

We are coming out of the worst of bush/cheney's Great Recession.

U.S. Downgrade Seen as Upgrade as U.S. Debt Dissolved - Bloomberg

keep dreaming,

There is not much a president can do to create jobs. Presidents do not run the economy. In fact they do not run anything. That is why movie stars make good presidents. They are there to make you believe that you have a choice. They are there to hide the truth that you are all slaves. Unemployment is more of a function of money supply. With stagnant money supply, deflation threat, unemployment is hard to fix. This is because minimum wage laws, existing debt requires employers to pay a total of X amount. But money supply is X-I. Good luck. You cannot possibly employ everyone at levels that pays them enough. Weakest will go unemployed, bankrupt. This is the result of debt based monetary system. U3 is not an accurate estimate of unemployment. There are many people who have given up and do not get counted. Another way to look at unemployment is to count who is actually employed. Google for "Unemployment Kondratieff Wave" to see an employment chart.

We got out of the Great Depression by supplying the goods and services for World War II - not likely that we want to follow that path again, as it totally wrecked most of the productive economies on the planet.

The public is smart enough to know that NO President controls the economy - the only effect he can have is that of cheerleader. If he/she can make people feel better about the economy, that will have a small beneficial effect (and vice/versa.) If he/she can work with Congress to pass laws that encourage or discourage business, then enforcement of those laws will effect the economy (and the President's Executive Branch must enforce those laws.)

Congress can have a moderate effect on the economy, by establishing conditions that encourage or discourage it. Taxes and borrowing can boost some sectors while dragging down others.

The Federal Reserve can have the largest effect (mostly on the banking sector, which can spread out into productive business.)