LOL @ correction fail. Just so not. And its also not a question, its a statement.

That was an amazing moment. Obama was clearly in pain for 90 minutes. He didn't want to be there without a teleprompter and it showed!!!

obama can't even do a debate. Romney crushed him big time and more people changed their mind to vote for Romney then to vote for obummer

cc - You've mispelled the president's name. Focus on what you learned in grade school.

Mike how did I misspell obama name, i didn't put it correctly at obummer. I have no respect for him so he doesn't deserve to have his name capitalized. Now Romney I will use CAPITALIZED letters.

Bob, you are obviously a true believer in "The One", and you buy the liberal spin on every issue. Point of fact, the deficit-doubling statement was debunked by factcheck.org only by making the mind-bending assessment that Obama's first stimulus package, which he and the Democrats rammed through a House and Senate controlled by Democrats, was attributed to Bush because it came during the time frame of Bush's final budget year!
As for Politico, and others evaluating taxing proposals, you have to realize that Republican tax RATE reduction proposals are evaluated as if the economy is static. In the real world, the economy responds to the "pressure" of taxing policy. That's how a tax RATE reduction produces a tax REVENUE increase... because the economy expands and in the additional economic activity more taxes are paid [REVENUE] even though the taxing RATE is lower.
For some unfathomable reason, Democrats and liberals [but I repeat myself] do not understand this basic economic fact.

This whole discussion is ridiculous because NO one has any idea exactly what will happen regardless of who is elected. I say, do your homework, research, and decide who you think is the best candidate. That's all any of us can do cause none of the promises are EVER kept.

Bob you drank to much kool ade

Romney should of called out obummer on all of his lies that he has told over the last 4-5 years that never came true but he promised with his change. Instead of change now it is entitlement. When you have almost half the United States of public welfare, it is time for a big change vote him out.

Mr. Zanakis, One will question your facts when you attribute the quote to the wrong U.S. Senator. It was the great Daniel Patrick Moynihan that said “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.”

I think you are confusing cuts to rate rates with cuts to taxes.

Were you watching a different debate than everyone else? You are certainly not a moderate if you think Obama did great. Even Matthews said he lost - along with all the other leftist media pundits. My comment was not a talking point, only the truth. What policy did Obama explain that Romney didn't show not to be working?

You make me laugh. Romney showed he understands the issues and problems we face. Obama was clueless. You definitely must have been watching a different debate. Even the Lib Huffington Post this morning actually admitted Romney wiped the floor with Barry. Can't wait to watch Ryan and Biden. In this case - Ryan should sit back and let Joe make a laugh of himself.

even his fellow democrates said he was terrible. He failed because he didn't have the bubble around him saying how wonderful he is created by media. Last night it burst and he had to face the hard cold truth his policies are not working and the country is in terrible shape and he has no real solutions. Can't wait to see how he explains the cover up in Libya in the foreign affairs segment

Jessica what debate were you watching. Romney did an excellent job when obama couldn't hold it together. Romney cares about the citizens of the United States, unlike obama who only cares about muslims in other countries

Sandra Lupo says. Any moron who owns a car knows that gas has gone up 101% in the past 3 plus years. >>>>

Whew! so glad I'm no MORON, since I KNOW that the FACTS show the price of gasoline increased from $1.60 per gallon when Bush took office in January 2001 to $4.40 per gallon at its highest during his term. this was under GWB’s presidency, but it’s not as though either president controls OPEC and the global market.
Question for you, Sandra, can you do anything other than call your fellow commenters MORONS and call the POTUS A MORON?
As usual, name calling merely weakens your opinion.

(AP Photo)
(CNSNews.com) – The average price for one gallon of unleaded gasoline has increased nearly every month since Barack Obama was inaugurated in January 2009. At that time, when George W. Bush was leaving office, the price was $1.78 per gallon. Today, three years and one month later, the average price is $3.64.

In addition, according to the average price data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, prices (in nominal dollars: not adjusted for inflation) peaked during Bush’s second term at $4.09 per gallon in July 2008 and then fell to $2.15 in November, when there was an election, and fell further in December 2008 to $1.68 per gallon.

When Bush entered office in January 2001, the price was $1.47 per gallon. (It peaked in Bush’s first term at $2.02, in October 2004.)

Under President Obama, prices have not fallen below $2.05 per gallon since April 2009, and the highest average price, so far, was $3.93 in May 2011.

Bush was a leader seen the issue with the gas price and worked to get it under control because it was hurting the average citizen. Obama doesn't care that the gas prices are hurting even more because the amount of people who don't have jobs.

As Aaron Belkin (Huff Post) explained, " GOP strategists decided to launch a messaging war against President Obama, blaming him for the high price of gasoline. According to New York Times, GOP argument is when Obama took office in 2009, gas was $1.89 per gal. The price per gallon now is $3.52, so it must be Obama's fault. But as I teach my undergraduate students, it is easy to make statistics lie. And you can bet as the GOP unleashes its attack dogs on the White House, they'll do just that. What they won't tell you is that under George W. Bush, gasoline increased from $1.60 per gallon in January 2001 to $4.40 in July 2008, a jump of 275 %.
When the economy crashed, prices decreased temporarily, in part because economic meltdown suppresses demand. When Obama took office in January, 2009,economy was at its low point, as a result the price of gas was at a low point as well. As economy improved, the price returned to its pre-crash baseline.
GOP deceptions are based on forgetting that:
1.the low, 2009 price was simply a reflection of the economic meltdown they helped cause;
2. before the crash, gas was more expensive under Bush than it is now
3. rising gas prices rerflect economic rebound.
Republicans torpedoed every attempt to wean the country off oil dependency, the only long-run solution to higher gas prices/global warming. " aaronbelkin.com

Well 12Ukid, as I teach my graduate students, most college profs are lacking in common sense. For example, you cite a change in gas prices as being misleading, well, what about GST Steel, that wasn't misleading, it was lying.

And well, like I pointed out 30 years ago, math teachers are engineering students that couldn't handle the calculus, and as I point out now, professors are liberals because they can't actually make it in business. There seems to be something about common sense that just escapes them.

I just love the comments from the delusional one that only 4 months ago was a retired teacher from the City of Pittsburgh and was bragging about their great pension that they were living off of and how great obamacare is as they don't have to pay out anything for their meds now. Wonder never cease.

There's my shadow, old cc, with her delusional ideas again. Poor dear, I do keep her in my prayers. A mind is such a terrible thing that she lost.

such lies that comes from one person is way overboard, but I do pray for your soul

Gas prices were up under Bush. I changed jobs because I was paying close to $4.00 a gallon so it is not Obama's fault. Listen to what Romney said. He will lower taxes; change deductions (does not know which ones) and this will cause businesses to hire and revenue will increase. That along with cuts in programs will get the budget under control. However my problem with that theory is we have had tax cuts and job creation was still sluggish. What is Romney's plan if jobs are not created....high deficits? Do the math, you need to increase revenue and cut spending plan and simple. As far as healthcare he plans to keep everything except the mandate. Well it is the mandate that helps pay for the healthcare. Then at one point he said he would leave up to the states that his plan is only for the states. Higher state taxes??? I would like to ask Romney if he is so good at job creation why was Massachusettes #47 when he was governor. I believe he is not carrying Massachusettes. If you want to see what Romney is capable do a search on the web for his record in Massachuettes. He did not raise taxes but raised every possible fee. Kind of like our Governor who has not raised state taxes however my school taxes are going up. Double talk.

Joan for what 6 weeks gas went to 4.00 and dropped to less than 1.80 when obummer took office. Gas since obummer been in office has gone up to almost 4.00 and hasn't come down in price. Gas just peaked over 5.00 in California and will be our way shortly if he remains in office.
Unemployment might of dropped but I doubt it is because of jobs. It dropped because people are not receiving unemployment anymore and no longer are counted.

We need obama gone.

No, not all the US debt is to China, just $3 trillion.

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-cycle/48769073#48769073

This is your independent payment advisory board Romney didn't call it a death panel he used the correct term
IPAB's unelected members will have effectively unfettered power to impose taxes and ration care for all Americans, whether the government pays their medical bills or not. In some circumstances, just one political party or even one individual would have full command of IPAB's lawmaking powers. IPAB truly is independent, but in the worst sense of the word. It wields power independent of Congress, independent of the president, independent of the judiciary, and independent of the will of the people.

This is your independent payment advisory board Romney didn't call it a death panel he used the correct term IPAB's unelected members will have effectively unfettered power to impose taxes and ration care for all Americans>>>>

Yes, he did say "an unelected board" (several times), proving he's wiser about how to present things compared to Sarah Palin.
"Romney is referring to the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a panel of experts that would have the power to force Medicare cuts if costs rise beyond certain levels and Congress fails to act. But Obama's health care law explicitly prohibits the board from rationing care, shifting costs to retirees, restricting benefits or raising the Medicare eligibility age. So the board doesn't have the power to dictate to doctors what treatments they can prescribe.
Romney seems to be resurrecting the assertion that Obama's law would lead to rationing, made famous by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's widely debunked allegation that it would create "death panels."
Associated Press

Sue T:
(also courtesy of Associated Press reporters)
"China continues to be portrayed by Romney and many other Republicans as the poster child for runaway federal deficits. It's true that China is the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt, but it only represents about an 8 percent stake. And China has recently been decreasing its holdings, according to the Treasury Department. Some two-thirds of the $16 trillion national debt is owed to the federal government, with the largest single stake the Federal Reserve, as well as American investors and the Social Security Trust Fund."

once again we got one that is putting sentences from different articles together and then posting these words as their own. Only in America from no less a democrat

"OBAMA: "Over the last two years, health care premiums have gone up — it's true — but they've gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years. So we're already beginning to see progress. In the meantime, folks out there with insurance, you're already getting a rebate."

THE FACTS: Not so, concerning premiums. Obama is mixing overall health care spending, which has been growing at historically low levels, and health insurance premiums, which have continued to rise faster than wages and overall economic growth. Premiums for job-based family coverage have risen by nearly $2,400 since 2009 when Obama took office, according to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. In 2011, premiums jumped by 9 percent. This year's 4 percent increase was more manageable, but the price tag for family coverage stands at $15,745, with employees paying more than $4,300 of that.

When it comes to insurance rebates under Obama's health care law, less than 10 percent of people with private health insurance are benefiting."

You didn't write that, so what's the source?

that came from one of your articles that you posted on here as your own. all you have to do is take each of your sentences and do a search for it and brings you right to the article from every line you post and you come up with 10 different articles. i put in " ", as you do as you never site any of your work and try to pass off as your own

NE12Ukid posted "Romney is referring to the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a panel of experts that would have the power to force Medicare cuts if costs rise beyond certain levels and Congress fails to act. COMES FROM ARTICLE http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-romney-truth-debate-article-1.1174495
But Obama's health care law explicitly prohibits the board from rationing care, shifting costs to retirees, restricting benefits or raising the Medicare eligibility age. COMES FROM ARTICLE http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h8-59cSVraXgkCpqJfUugxUjqMXA?docId=273bdad10d854291bc4a5e7767102e8b

Romney seems to be resurrecting the assertion that Obama's law would lead to rationing, made famous by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's widely debunked allegation that it would create "death panels." COMES FROM ARTICLE http://neighbors.denverpost.com/viewtopic.php?p=2688702&sid=505e86cc1dce67dc40c7b9bd046414ab

EVERY THING YOU POST ON HERE IS A MIXTURE OF ARTICLES THAT YOU PUT TOGETHER TO MAKE YOURSELF SEEM SO SMART YET I FIND SO COMICAL

OMG, you really ARE delusional, I got those quotes from Associated Press release, and I clearly so stated.

Joe, all that proves is how many GOPers bothered to do the meaningless "poll". :-)

Neither candidate was very IMPRESSIVE last night, both made factual errors (some definitely on purpose), and seemed to be some outright lying, but this IS politics....
NPR did a decent review:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/10/03/162263539/romney-goes-on-offense-pays-for-it-in-first-wave-of-fact-checks

Changing after ONE debate? That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard yet. There is much more to consider, 47%, going back on everything he (Romney) originally stated and changing his position, and as far as gas prices, Bush was an oil man, c'mon now

Joe I've been watching news shows all day and many obama supporters were jumping off his bandwagon from all over the country and joining Romney side.

Better than the Romney supporters who were jumping off bridges last week after the "47%" videos hit the internet. LOL

Totally agree Roy

Amen James.

No it wasn't even, obama couldn't of ran out of there fast enough with his head between his legs. I can't wait till the Ryan/biden debate, as biden will be putting his foot in his mouth and Ryan won't have to say anything.

Lzz Jed, your impressions of Romney have been created by what you have heard in commercials or from other Dem sources. Have you done ANY research on the guy?? Dig deep, take a close look and you will find that Mr. Romney is a great man with a big heart who cares deeply for the ENTIRE country, not just the political class and elites. It is Mr. Obama who is beholden to many of the leftists and special interests in the country. Since when is "privatization" a bad thing? Well, if you continue to listen to the lame stream media and the Dems it is ALWAYS a bad thing. In reality, I would challenge you to name ANY AREA of this country that couldn't be run better by a private business. You certainly can't cite any government program as being "successful". Heck, at this point, we have to be up to about $4 Trillion in "great society" programs from LBJ and Co. that still have not "worked"... You are EXACTLY backwards with your opinion and statements regarding Mr. Romney. There is NOTHING wrong with demanding accountability and efficiencies from government. If only we had elected Mr. Romney 4 years ago, we'd be out of the current economic malaise that Mr. Obama has continued to make worse.

Jed,
The government does nothing as well as the private sector.
And Obama has spent four years lying his a** off. He broke every promise he ever made, had walked all over the Constitution, and thumbed his finger at the middle class.

The change Obama gave us was for the worse.

I completely agree, we do not need another rich businessman (Bush) in office. Romney has no idea who middle class America is. He was never there, silver spoon if you know what I mean. Obama came from meager means and worked to be where he is now. I believe core values, the way you were brought up, and family values are very important as to how you handle ANYTHING, including political office. Romney is a rich businessman and has no idea what the middle class, and certainly the poor need.

KMB - you have got to be unaware that Barack and Michelle are multi-millionaires, so if you are against rich people, you should be against Obama as well. Obama is out of touch with economic reality. He has never worked a day in his life and has only been a rabble-rouser calling it a community leader. We do not need a lecturer in office but someone who understands the economy and is able to articulate what the problems are and what he plans to do. I'm for Romney since Obama has squandered his time in office and proven that being a community organizer is not sufficient background to be POTUS.

only lies i heard were coming out of obummers mouth and he messed them up also.

Rick Pfeuffer

10:55 am on Thursday, October 4, 2012

Lzz Jed, your impressions of Romney have been created by what you have heard in commercials or from other Dem sources. Have you done ANY research on the guy?? Dig deep, take a close look and you will find that Mr. Romney is a great man with a big heart who cares deeply for the ENTIRE country, not just the political class and elites.

You know him personally?
I know what he SAID on the now infamous "47%" videos.

KMB wrote Romney has no idea who middle class America is. He was never there, silver spoon if you know what I mean.

~~~~~~~~~~

Ahhh, but his mommy said she and his daddy were on welfare.

Anti-Robot Party?

No Mike, I'm definitely not anti-robot. What I am is someone telling me how many jobs they've saved when it's actually a robot doing the function.

Sue, the bail out was for the UAW. Since most homebuilders are not unionized, no Obama bailout for them.

First of all, Obama was handed this mess 4 years ago, agree? Second, he was not born with the silver spoon like Romney, if you're aware of his history. Third, I don't think 4 years is enough time for anyone to fix the mess that was handed to him. I think there is an upswing presently and I want to see where it goes before we hand it off to another rich businessman like Bush, who also never recognized the middle class. Supposedly the middle class is the pulse of the economy.

Sue Bradley,
“One million industrial robots currently in operation have been directly responsible for the creation of close to three million jobs… A growth in robot use over the next five years will result in the creation of one million high quality jobs around the world.”
http://www.ifr.org/robots-create-jobs/

Further, the market research firm Metra Martech wrote, “In world terms three to five million jobs would not exist if automation and robotics had not been developed to enable cost effective production of millions of electronic products from Phones to PlayStations.” The report actually covers several markets in the automotive, electronics, food and beverage, plastics, chemicals and pharmaceutical industries and focuses on countries like Brazil, China, Germany, Japan, Republic of Korea and USA. The complete report is available at http://www.ifr.org/uploads/media/Metra_Martech_Study_on_robots_02.pdf.

Sue I agree and that is why I would never purchase a car from either Chrysler or GM. Ford is the only one that did it on their own and from now on I will purchase Fords.

*Romney's battle cry at the end. Sorry, my comment was about as coherent as that debate. :)

"He gets my vote for foreign policy and reduced military spending though I do not really believe him feeding off of people's fears with his battle cry at the end there"

Erin-Do you feel the same knowing that the cut to the military budget will cost local civilians and military members jobs?

Erin foreign policy and military cuts are you joking the middle east is exploding countries want to destroy us and his answer is to cut military spending. What will we do when we are attacked in this country again throw rocks at them. How did he handle the slaughter of our ambassador and 3 other Americans nothing got on a plane and went to Vegas. Then for days sent his mouth pieces out to say it wasn't a terriorist attack when all of the evidents says it was.

Yes, I am aware that any spending cuts to any program is going to result in a loss of jobs. I think an economy that relies on military has been historically proven to result in disaster over and over again.

Let me ask, should government create jobs? Wouldn't we all agree that government is uneccessarily enormous and that this is an inefficient way to boost the economy? Haven't the past two wars proven to be disastrous for our economy? Can and should the government directly create employment that our citizens are completely reliant on? That kind of future scares the crap out of me.

@ Erin,

the defense cuts are based on congress approval of the budget and recommendations based on the POTUS. Then, the secretary's of the branches along with the secretary of defense (all of which appointed by the POTUS) make the decisions of how the cuts will go. This is not just one base....this is one base in your backyard, this is one base that is one of the most cost effective bases in the country. Where other bases pay for upkeep on the runways and other services the Feds dont pay for it in this case...So it actually saves the county money....and also local jobs and adds to the local economy.

My original question to you was based on your blanket statement ""He gets my vote for foreign policy and reduced military spending". I am not asking you about your overall military opinion and or view on the wars in the middle east. I am pointing out that your statement has effects on the local level and on a national level that saves money across the board. You will not see every base go...but, dont you think it should be cost effective?

I'm not sure what medication you were on during the debate, but it definately affected your judgement. I am not a Romney nor an Obama fan, but this was a very decisive Romney win.

What medication I was on? Really?

I was referring to the Obama Kool-aid

Seeing as how you are not a fan of either, why don't you check out this video above explaining the debate commission.

Do you think Americans are being spoon fed their candidates? Do you think that our candidates are pretty much going to give us more of the same? For example, Romney literally said that he was going to repeal Obamacare, and then said that everything good is in his super secret healthcare plan and then said that healthcare plans should be implemented by the state. So we have everything that we want from Obamacare, nothing that we do not want, no plan at all, and a romney federal plan. I think that is pretty clearly deceptive, and though giving the people fairytales to make them feel better may win glorified high school level popularity contests, this does not amount to a 'win' in my mind.

I would like to see the people given more than two choices rather than being spoon fed their political candidates.

Erin we have a lot that I don't want from obamacare, especially the part where I'm going to have to be paying for peoples healthcare besides my own, my families and the people that work for me.

obama care should be the same price for everyone and everyone paying for their own healthcare. Can't afford it oh well then pay obama's tax that is going to be tossed on you income tax if you don't buy it.

I am so sick and tired of deadbeats getting everything for free and others are out there working hard and yet are going to be stuck supporting others.

@cc We are already paying for everyone's healthcare. Nobody is denied healthcare ever and many are not able to pay.

There are things in the healthcare bill that I am uncomfortable with as well. I wish there was more transparency and public education/debate, etc.

People getting assistance, the large portion of those people, are not deadbeats. I would never make that assumption or judgment.

Hey, Romney said the uninsured can just go to the emergency room.
Just like the students can just get college money from their parents.

Erin there are still people that are denied healthcare because they are just over the welfare limit. The only choice they have is to go to the emergency room or pay out of pocket. I have a friend in IL that has MS and lucky his Neuro works with him on monthly payments or he would be in deep trouble. He get his meds in samples as he can't afford to buy meds. He doesn't go to emergency room either as they can't do anything for his illness. In 2 years he is eligible for medicare but till then it is all out of pocket for him and he has been trying to get medical on his own and they want close to 800 a month, yet his income is 1250 a month on Social Security. Does he pay his mortgage, utilities, food or buy medical insurance that he will have to wait a year to use because of pre existing conditions. Your the expert as you are posting so what is your advice for him

Look at Obama's first term record, and Romney's record as governor. Who's approach to you agree with the most...go from there. Ignore the spin.

If I understood your comment correctly - IMO... the assigned truth is our own responsibility as we were all created equally with the freedom of CHOICE! The law of conscience isn't written on paper but fashioned into every individuals heart and comes to LIFE when we remember our free will and make the CHOICE of One Nation Under God and not a president in and of himself! A pool of people are meant to swim together and not just stand by while the other half drowns...we are our brothers keeper ...my CHOICE is not to watch my brother drown.

Could not agree more Sue T. This was actually causing me to laugh last night during the debate while they insisted that they differed so greatly from each other as far as domestic policy. Their records are very similar.

Obama has no clue because he is not a leader he thinks he can community organize every problem this country is having and it is not working time to try a new approach

He is not my candidate. I don't have a whole lot of faith in either, but I don't understand how anyone could be pleased with that debate.

The point is perception is flawed and consistently different per each individual. I will be going through the transcript of the debate later, but I am not going to applaud a man who said that he would repeal obamacare, keep everything that people like, cut everything that people don't, implement a plan of his own, and also not implement a plan at all and leave it up to the state. I am not going to congratulate a man who said that states can best handle their poor but slammed Obama for allowing states to decide best how to handle their poor on an experimental basis.

This was not a coherent, successful debate just because Romney tried his darndest to be aggressive for once. If that is your idea of a debate win, applaud the real hero...Romney's debate coaches who taught him how to shovel manure in an appetizing manner. I choose to not consume poo regardless of how pretty it smells.

Concerned Citizen you hit it on nail on the head. She goes on and on and says the same thing over and over like a broken record. Too winded to make a good writer.

Ha. Well that may very well be true. I will be the first to admit that I am long winded.

@cc and Concerned Citizen

The Patch has a particular policy against personal attacks. Attacking my writing abilities, my choice in education (by calling me a 'career student'), calling me naive/hack/immature etc...These are all personal attacks. I have never and will never personally attack anyone on this site.

We are not enemies. I am going to sincerely ask that people on here refrain from treating me as if we are enemies. I would not comment on your personal choices or what you do with your life, please do not comment on mine, especially in a derogatory manner.

I will not respond to direct questions by people who refer to anything about me in a personal and derogatory manner. So don't bother asking. It does not upset me, but it does not add to the conversation, so I cannot think of a reason to defend myself or respond at all.

I am not going to argue with you. I am contesting the fact that some on here say there was a winner to this debate. I have clearly shared two of the reasons why I do not feel that Romney "won" the debate. Romney lost on substance; Obama lost on style.

Every news station and paper that I have read has said that Romney won the first debate by 46% Romney did win the debate, obama couldn't run fast enough out of there with his head stuck between his legs.

Wait...... there's cake?

could go for a piece of strawberry short cake. In fact got a cake going in the oven now and strawberries defrosting now.

Who are you talking to?

He/she is talking to me.

Erin I'm not sure what they are teaching you and what your goal is in life but I hope it is never president of our country I'm not so sure this country could recover from your 4 years in office.

I am in class. You will have to wait a bit.

_If_ you want to discuss. If you are going to start throwing out petty insults I am not going to bother responding.

Just for some perspective and context...

This year, the United States government has spent more on its military than any other country in the world. In fact, the United States spent more than the next 13 largest military spenders COMBINED. The United States spends nearly 5 times as much as China, the second-largest military spender.

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

So according to my assessment, there is plenty of room to reduce the size of the United States military and still have, by far, the largest, most well-equipped, most well-trained military in the world. Even if China doubles their military spending, the United States STILL more than doubles that.

Food for thought...

The last time I checked, National Defense does not mean International Offense. Sadly, International Offense has been the policy of choice since World War II.

Perhaps countries abroad do not dislike the United States because its people are free. Perhaps countries abroad dislike the United States because the United States government is continually meddling in their affairs. There is a term for this; it is called blowback.

Thanks Matt for the good info!

@Proud, see Matt's comment. That is exactly what I was going to say.

So you are ok with knowing that the Military Cuts will effect local Pittsburgh residents civilian and military? In the terms of them losing jobs?

Matt, Erin spin it around however you want the only thing that keeps us safe is a stonger military not a smaller military. Go gather your rocks if the military cuts goes thru you will need them

@ Durf, Yes. That is the unfortunate result of an economy dependent on its government (aka military). Imagine if this were to go further and we had even _more_ ppl dependent on the military for their livelihood with the economy in even _worse_ shape. That really scares me.

@Proud, Draw a line. At one end of the line is rocks. At the other end is the massive increase in military to the massive military that we already have today. There is a lot of room inbetween those two points, right? Matt brings up an excellent point when he brings up the difference between National Defense and International Offense.

Erin,
Again, you inexperience or naivete or just lack of common sense is exhibiting itself. An economy that does not have a strong defense collapses. Defense spending is not in itself the cause of a robust economy but without security no economy will thrive.

And what do you think of the huge deficit your boy has run up. I am about to retire, but you will be stuck with the bill.

Once you've paid off those student loans, get focused on the austerity necessary to pay off the 15 trillion in debt.

@John, And we are going to reduce that deficit by increasing military spending? How exactly does that work?

See Matt's comment about the difference between National Defense and International Offense and the size of our military in comparison to the rest of the world's top militaries combined.

Not my boy. I just want to honestly ask why people have such a hard time understanding that I am choosing between two candidates that I do not like? I wish we had more than these two dominant parties participating in these debates. I am picking who I think is the best of the two candidates that I am allowed to choose from bc of our faulty political system that I think is in serious need of reform. It is time for new ideas and more choices. Matt was very clear that he is picking neither.

Erin, your attempt to change the argument by changing your position won't work. I never said to increase defense spending. I did say that we need to be safe to have a strong economy.

By your logic though, to reduce the deficit you will need to reduce social security and medicare. Both individually are greater than defense spending.

@Erin,If you don't like either write in anyone you want - like Mickey Mouse, of Ron Paul, or Hugo Chavez...

Medicare spending is less by about 300 billion. Social Security and Defense spending are about the same. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258

But yes, these are the main spending concerns that will have to be cut back to actually reduce the deficit, which I also do not think will ever happen. Every president ever has increased Federal spending. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

You did not say that we should increase defense spending. That is correct. Romney very explicity said that we should increase defense spending at the end of the debate.

The PPACA is an attempt at reducing Medicare spending. We will see how that attempt goes. Social Security is something that we all (supposedly) pay into and therefore should be there for us. Most likely it will not be.

I am not changing my position...ever...I repeat myself so often (here and outside of this thread) that even I am tired of explaining myself. Of course, typically people do not have this hard of a time accepting that someone is dissatisfied with their choice of President. I don't really get why this is a difficult concept.

proud American, when there isn't anyone left to fight in the military, obama will next be calling in all that has a permit to carry concealed weapons to go fight against terrorist. All other countries have the draft and they serve 2 years. We are fortunate we don't need the draft as young men and women join the military but obama is destroying that also.

@ Erin, well my family and I are sorry you feel that way. I know hundreds of others in the local area do too.

You see your very lucky to live in an area with not just 1 or 2 but 3 Military Installations (all provide different services to the country and world). 911th Airlift Wing (scheduled to close) provides Cargo drops to locations and troops all over the world including CONUS and places like Haiti (earthquake relief). The base is scheduled to close based on the military budget which of course can always be trimmed. However, the 911th has proven itself to the AFRC as one of the most cost-effective bases in the country and has always been ranked at the top of the list for it effectiveness and efforts. But, because people dont look into numbers and if they are correct or wrong we are stuck in a situation where 1500 reservist and 300 civilians may not have a place to call employment. However, we are lucky enough to have Tim Murphy and others who are fighting to save the base not just for the local best interest but for the county...Why close something that is cost effective?

Its not just the people in the military who are dependent on it...its those who gain service in emergencies as well.

@durf. Yes, absolutely. The military and defense does good and has a purpose. I don't oppose the military. I oppose the military being used to secure resources in foreign countries under the guise of a "war on terror." I oppose many of the decisions that Congress makes in regards to using the military. If congress were to cut defense spending, and that directly resulted in the shutting down of a cost efficient base that assists in disaster relief, humanitarian efforts, and actual defense, then I 100% am opposed to that decision as well. I am not protesting against your cost efficient military base providing all of these good things, or any other base providing all of these good things. I imagine that the costs we are talking about are not directly related, but if they are, if congress took out a cut in spending on your home base to continue some international offensive, then shame on them. That person needs out of office right now.

@ Erin. Your facts are wrong again. If you go to the GAO WEB site, for 2012 total Social Security is $768, Total Medicare is $828, and total Defense is $609.

But again, I'm only a couple of years from retirement. This isn't my problem, its yours. I would like to help, so you don't have the burden of student loans and natiopnal debt, but obviously you don't want it.

Good luck paying it all back, I'll be sittin on the beach.

Ok John. I really do not appreciate how you speak to people, so I am going to politely and sincerely ask you to stop speaking to me so disrespectfully. There is no competition between us, rivalry, or negative feelings. I try to remain as opened to new information as possible, I understand that the more I learn the more my perspectives will change, and I really try not to mind being wrong.

We have numbers that disagree. I gave you my link, how about you give me yours. I am on the GAO website now and am unable to find the spending for 2011. I am not sure what you are trying to prove exactly but lets say medicare spending is 100 billion more than defense. What does this mean to you? Because everything that I have said remains unchanged regardless, so I really don't want to go back and forth on this unless your position would be changed by this difference in figures.

The deficit has increased. Spending has not increased. Spending is not the only factor in the deficit. Here is a really good analysis of spending increases per president. It is long, and you really have to read the whole thing, but I will understand if you do not want to take the time.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/

@Erin-

as you said " If congress were to cut defense spending, and that directly resulted in the shutting down of a cost efficient base that assists in disaster relief, humanitarian efforts, and actual defense, then I 100% am opposed to that decision as well".

When you have time away from your books you might want to look into what is going on in your local area...take care...

Durf I look into so much every day when I should be spending time with my books...I just want to be clear that I am pointing out that those who make the fund distribution decisions are separate from those who cut funds to extraneous military endeavors. This is why I said that we might be talking about two different (or many different) sets of funds/instances/etc.

But you are right. I should look into this further. I should look into everything further. I would suggest that you do the same as I suspect that those who you think are irresponsible distributing funds might be the same ppl saying that we should not cut military spending. But no, I am not willing to vote for additional funding to the military that is larger than all of the top military forces combined, even if that means shutting down a base within these borders, but as I said, I suspect the two instances are not directly related. They could be. I will look into who distributes military funds and where those funds come from (not an easy task).

Update: So far I have found articles saying that the 911 Airlift Wing is closing due to defense cutbacks. My issue here is this is one base in one state and those cuts were to all of defense which includes our international measures. Critz and Altmire have both signed legislation to stop the removal of some important carrier. So we have congressional democrats and republicans fighting for this base.

Awesome. I have yet to find who is making the decision of where these cuts are coming from. This is the bad guy. The guys and girls who decide that bases within these borders should be shut down but does not roll back from the international offensive in the middle east.

@ Erin,

the defense cuts are based on congress approval of the budget and recommendations based on the POTUS. Then, the secretary's of the branches along with the secretary of defense (all of which appointed by the POTUS) make the decisions of how the cuts will go. This is not just one base....this is one base in your backyard, this is one base that is one of the most cost effective bases in the country. Where other bases pay for upkeep on the runways and other services the Feds dont pay for it in this case...So it actually saves the county money....and also local jobs and adds to the local economy.

My original question to you was based on your blanket statement ""He gets my vote for foreign policy and reduced military spending". I am not asking you about your overall military opinion and or view on the wars in the middle east. I am pointing out that your statement has effects on the local level and on a national level that saves money across the board. You will not see every base go...but, dont you think it should be cost effective?

Well, I don't really mean to be rude at all, but regardless of whether or not you asked me directly about my opinion on the middle east, it is a huge factor in my comment about cutting military spending so it is getting mentioned.

"I am pointing out that your statement has effects on the local level and on a national level that saves money across the board. You will not see every base go...but, dont you think it should be cost effective?"

I have already told you that I am aware of effect on a local level. I am trying to get to the bottom of who decides which bases go and why.

I am confused. Are you saying that these bases are all cost efficient and that my statement about cutting military defense spending will actually hurt us financially? I mean there is a difference between "cost efficient" and "revenue creating." I suppose I could see how losing these jobs might actually create more govt spending through assistance to the now unemployed.

So back to the distinction between international offensive and national defensive. My statement is a blanket statement bc govt (an often inefficient beaurocracy that makes decisions based on their own pocketbooks rather than yours) makes it blanket spending. So who handles the specifics? Aren't beaurocracies fun? We are so removed from the actual decision making.

We have a severe problem if our President is promising us that he will cut spending to the military and pull people out of the middle east, africa, etc and that is not actually happening but instead unelected officials are cutting cost efficient bases without the approval of congress. Huge problem. I would not be surprised (which I have said a million times before in my comments about foreign policy and military spending), but it would be a huge problem.

I am spelling that wrong. I knew that I was, and it was driving me insane. *bureaucracy

Ah now I did read this before. Defense cuts have not actually happened yet for this year. Congress could not come to an agreement so Obama threatened that if they did not come to an agreement on spending, they would cut equally across the board.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/07/military-personnel-programs-exempt-sequestration-073112/

So back to a foundational question. Is this base actually being cut bc of defense spending cuts? Is this a result of 2011 spending reduction? And are we taking into consideration the two wars that we entered into that required an increase in spending in after 2001? Shouldn't there be a natural spending decrease as the Iraq war has ended and we are (supposedly) pulling out of Afghanistan? These things all relate, and you are right to make me consider the local effect of spending decreases.

And I just found Obama's request for the core defense program spending is an increase of 5 billion while overseas contingency is reduced by around $40 billion. And this is from an article saying that we should not cut overseas contingency operations based on defense spending versus all of the nondefense spending (which is nonsense).

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/04/the-fy-2012-defense-budget-proposal-looking-for-cuts-in-all-the-wrong-places

@erin, yes no changes take place until everything is finalized...thats why Murphy, Altmire and other local leaders, including military and veterans affairs are fighting the decision.

" Faced with austere budget times, the Air Force is refocusing and reducing the size of its forces to comply with the president's new defense strategy and the Budget Control Act's requirements to cut $487 billion from the defense budget over the next 10 years"

http://www.302aw.afrc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123288654

I asked the question at the start, "So you are ok with knowing that the Military Cuts will effect local Pittsburgh residents civilian and military? In the terms of them losing jobs?"

erin you choose your candidate before you even started on the patch and have done everything in your power to try to convince everyone that obummer is the best candidate which has not worked. All it does is prove how much of the obummer koolade that you drank from his make believe lemonade stand.

Since your the expert on obummer, how much has all of michelles shopping trips cost after hours in malls cost. Not only for secret service but for employees to be in the stores so she could purchase things. How much has all their vacations cost, how much did it cost to fly the family dog on it own Air Force One to meet them on vacation. How much does it cost for him to golf 5 days a week???? We already know that it cost over a million to take michelle and 40 personal friends and family to Spain for a day at tax payers money for a 4 day trip, that isn't costing the price of using Air Force One, and other military jets to protect the jet.

If were going to cut Military spending the first spending should be no more Air Force One for any of the obummers, they can take commercial flights like the rest of America.
How much did obummer spend on the RV to drive his butt around so that he can campaign that us tax payers paid for. He did not need 14 carat gold plumbing fixtures in the bathroom but that is what he wanted.

all erin has done is slam Romney and praise obama like he is a saint and yet she can't decide who to vote for, give me a break

Let me be clear. I am not having difficulty deciding between Obama and Romney. Obama gets my vote in that competition. I am having trouble deciding between Obama and another 3rd or 4th party candidate bc I am worried that I will be throwing away my vote.

Please show me where I have "praised Obama like he is a saint." I really do care about these things, and I would sleep a lot easier if I had the kind of faith in Obama that one requires to believe in a saint. This thread was about the debate last night, and I have stated repeatedly that I thought both candidates lost on that debate as a result of coaching that panders more to the audience than to the actual quality of the debate (what is said). I hate the NDAA. I wanted Guatanamo closed. I would have loved more transparency on the PPACA which I support bc we have a broken system that I cannot think of a better solution for. I think two dominant parties with a sinful amount of money behind them (billions on campaigns when that money could alleviate hunger...everywhere..rebuild countries...it is astounding) is unfair to this country, but I am not sure what to do about it. My thoughts and opinions will change from time to time because I am learning daily, and in order to learn I have to be willing to adjust my positions.

CC, this is the last time I am going to explain this to you. Please stop making these hyperbolic, derogatory statements about me. We are not each other's nemesis.

cc will never stop, this is her life. At least she appears to have finally learned how to spell the President's name.
Next week's lesson: Capitalization.
LOL

I really liked how it was set up as well. When it started I exclaimed to my boyfriend, "Finally a PBS run debate!" The primaries were a circus. I think Jim Lehrer did the right thing in letting them have their say. I didn't always love what was said and was disappointed in the info that I received from that debate, but isn't that always the case with these things?

I like that you pointed out that the candidate's records need to be the basis for our vote. (One of the reasons why I do take issue with Obama...NDAA...hate it. the PPACA and student loan acts...necessary bandaids but not a solution to the problem...This is why I cannot say that I have any particular conviction for or faith in Obama which people have a hard time appreciating bc some think that you have to be 100% for or against...sigh).

Erin,
People think you are 100% for a candidate when you are his biggest apologist and defend everything he has said or done (until that last post, I had to read it twice, you actually take issue with Obama! GASP!)
I am certain that there are a lot of conservatives that WISH there was a stronger candidate than Romney. I don't annoint him or defend everything he does. You have done just that with Obama for some time now.

I give Lehrer credit too.
Too bad if Romney wins, Jim and Big Bird will be on the unemployment line.

Don't worry NE12UKID, Romney can always hire Jim as press secretary, and I'm sure Big Bird can fit in the Adminstration somewhere. Maybe we can put him in charge of the National Park system.

Heidi, although I disagree with you about the India comment, as Romney certainly didn't say that (even though the various companies he has been affiliated with have done just that), I applaud you for sticking by your candidate. He (Romney) will certainly have some uncomfortable questions to answer about where the money will come from, no one can deny that.
But even as an Obama supporter (who is not a hypocrite, like others who bloviate endlessly), you have to admit that Romney was far more prepared for the debate last night. Whether or not he can keep that momentum remains to be seen, but at least for one night, his star certainly shined brighter. Both of them twisted things to suit their needs, as all politicians do in a debate.

(Bonus points for the Admiral Akbar reference, by the way)

Well Heidi, Obama has done one thing that all other Presidents combined have not done - he has spent more money. He has increased the National Debt more than all other Presidents combined. He has sold ut our children, who will have to live their entire lives in austerity to pay it back, and the economy has not improved one iota despite his spending spree.

Romney simply called him out, which is what no one did before. Obama's lies, disregard for the Constitution and incompetence have caught up with him.

@Concerned Citizen...I want to be clear...I support Obama come hell or high water. (I'm merely beginning to believe that both hell and high water are on the way.) Romney never said anything about India. Romney DID say "Jobs are my first priority." The other comment, about India, is what I WISH Obama would have responded with, because it's a fact. Sorry if this was unclear. ;)

Heidi,
Isn't it great being an American. You can follow one man no matter what his record, his lies, his propaganda. Like David Koresh, or Jim Jones, or the "Chosen One."

It shows a lack of understanding. There are people out there who want to kill us. We can fight them on their turf, or they will fight us on ours.

And by the way, the Constitution basically mandates the Federal government to do two things: regulate interstate commerce and DEFEND the nation.

saying one thing and doing another is not restricted to one party. Do any of these sound familiar?

Cut the cost of a typical family's health insurance premium by up to $2,500 a year
Allow Medicare to negotiate for cheaper drug prices
Close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center
Seek independent watchdog agency to investigate congressional ethics violations
Expose Special Interest Tax Breaks to Public Scrutiny
Allow five days of public comment before signing bills
Re-establish the National Aeronautics and Space Council
Reduce the number of middle managers in the federal workforce
Reduce earmarks to 1994 levels
Negotiate health care reform in public sessions televised on C-SPAN
cut the federal deficit in half by the end of his first term

Sue, none of the lemmings will have FACT to refute ANYTHING you just said.

Maybe the most intelligent post on the Patch. Not just today, but ever.

Yep. All of those things are true and many are a reason why I take issue with not just Obama, but with congress.

My vote for most intelligent post is going to James or Matt though. ;) (Jk, of course. We should be learning from each other, not competing or attacking).

Amen again James. I wish I had your kind of courage to put my vote into a candidate that I believed in. Illogically across the board, I am scared to do it. Crazy I know.

And absolutely to the plantation/feudal system. I have this conversation all of the time. I consider typing up these examples of societies that have been in the exact position that we are, made the same choices, had the same amount of civil unrest, and failed. A massive standing army that is stationed throughout the world is the opposite of what this country ever wanted as the founding fathers knew (from England's example and before) that it was a failing system and encroached on people's liberty rather than increased it.

So thank you for responding and responding so much better than I could.

I think you missed the point entirely.

So you then think that what has happened to us was justified? Terrorism was justified? Your post is much different than Matt's, and you posted yet never answered my question. Do you think we DESERVED terrorist acts to happen?

Your post has some good points, but you risk not being taken seriously by even bringing the whole "1% vs. 99%" statement into the mix.

James - I'm a veteran myself and I agree completely. The Military Industrial Complex (a phrase coined by a Republican president) is dragging our country down.

This is hilarious. Romney lacked specifics? Obama couldn't even answer the questions! Romney was much more specific than Obama was coherent.

Mr. Karas, Are these "taking points" or are you confident in your statements about economics? Several Nobel prize winning economist disagree with you. Take Milton Friedman for example. Several Presidents also disagree with you ---- Kennedy and Reagan for example.

@seen - you seem to fail to recall that it wasn't a full eight years. The democrats took over in 2007 when the unemployment was at 4%. They had control of the money being spent. Obama keeps saying he inherited a mess - yes he did, but he was part of the reason for the mess!

Both parties have turned it into an art form, and if you can't see that you are blind. It's the norm for politics in America.

Bush has been gone for four years get over it

That's not even remotely close to being true. Forbes magazine (which is not a "liberal" publication) lists Reagan as the biggest spender of the past thirty yearsm followed by Bush 43, Bush 41, Clinton and then Obama
That's right, President Obama has spent the least of the past five Presidents.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielmitchell/2012/05/24/mirror-mirror-on-the-wall-which-president-is-the-biggest-spender-of-all/

Mike, more hocus-pocus. The article is interesting, but even in it the author draws different conclusions based on different assumptions. But let's lay all assumptions on TARP spending, inflation factors, percentage increases, etc aside and look at the real numbers.

When Bush left office, the national debt was $10Trillion, he had increased it by $4.8Trillion over 8 years, but Obama has increased it by $4.9trillion in 4 years and the national debt now exceeds the GDP, and the GAO budget estimates for the next four years has it increasing over 1 trillion dollars each year and will hit 20trillion by the time Obama leaves office if he is reelected.

You can spin it, but eventually somebodies got to pay it back

And while we're at it: Obama promised if the stimulus bill, $800 billion ( or about 1/3 the total revenue on the federal gov't) was passed, unemployment would not increase above 7.5%. It hasn't dropped below 8%.

If he actually had a clue how to create jobs, he could generate revenue and eliminate some of the debt. But 4 years of bad policy hasn't created jobs. $800 billion in spending, much of it for partisan efforts to jump start failed energy companies demonstrates a total lack of business sense. Time for a change, or we have no hope.

Unemployment dropped below 8 today!

Mike - what a coincidence that the White House issues numbers claiming the unemployment rate magically fell below 8 percent right after Obama gets taken to the cleaners by Mitt. Figures lie and liars figure. Today's Post-Gazette Business Section on page C-14 states that unemployment benefit applications ROSE to a seasonally adjusted 367,000. Weekly unemployment applications ROSE last week by 4,000 from the previous week's level of 363,000. And, the previous week's unemployment number was revised UPWARD from the original reading of 359,000. These numbers are from the Labor Department. How is it that UE applications rise while Obama says unemployment percentage falls? Because people have stopped looking for work and fall out of the calculation. UE is really unchanged and is probably closer to 14 percent or more if the Obama administration would tell the truth.

I wouldn't get too excited about that 7.8 % Mike. We need to add 150K jobs a month to maintain the rate of unemployment (due to people entering the work force) and only 144K were added. The drop in the rate resulted from adding in 600K people who took part-time jobs in July/Aug/Sept. While I'm glad to see people back to work, most families can't survive on part-time take home pay; although it is something.

Where will the great Conspiracy end?!?!?!???

Yes lets get rid of all of Bush's tax breaks no more tax breaks for the poor, no more tax breaks for middle class no more tax breaks for the Rich. Everyone pay their fair share of taxes. No more breaks on College Tuition, No Earned Income Credit for the Poor. No tax break on paying medical (well that won't hurt anyone except people that have pre-existing conditions for them self or a family member.

Then when they do Military Cuts they also need to cut out Food Stamps, Cash assistance and all the other programs that comes with Welfare. Then we need to quit schooling illegals and giving them a free ride in the United States and ship them back home.

HA HA HA! Good one, seen2much. Was that Ryan leading the pack?

To cc: Exactly how will taxing the rich help the middle class and the poor? The rich do not keep this money under their mattress. Their money is invested in thousands of businesses across America. These businesses are making products that people want to buy and creating the jobs that we need.
It may sound great to the uninformed, but how does it make sense to take this money out of these businesses via higher taxes “on the rich” and take that money to Washington to be re-distributed by the political class to their buddies and those who help get them re-elected?
The politics of “class warfare” and the demands to make someone else pay is a far cry from what created the world’s largest and most successful middle class and made America the envy of the world. The political re-distribution of wealth creates less wealth and damages the poor and the middle class the most. To fall into this trap means that you have only a larger government and more multiple multi-nationals with extensive lobbyists and tax breaks. (GE for example) Is that really what you want?

Bob Howard, I was just making fun of what seen2mch wants. I know the rich do not keep money stuck in mattresses as they do invest their money to make more money. I have a business and employ over 50 people so I know how economics works. It is the democrats that want Bush Tax Cuts gone but only to the Rich. Bush tax cuts helped lower class, middle class and yes the rich. If they take the Tax Break from the rich, then they should also take it from the poor and middle class after all shouldn't we all be paying our fair share in taxes, especially with how obama loves to spend money.

I take offense to you swearing on here. It was an awesome debate and you are calling "I'm not sure why I just wasted 5 mnutes of my life reading these comments, but I did. One thing is clear. PROUD AMERICAN and CONCERNED CITIZEN are what most bloggers call trolls, but I prefer the term douchebag." Some might say the same about Erin being a blogger troll and her long winded argument for obama and all the crock she is posting in her long winded speeches that could be said in 2 or 3 sentences.

Yeah! No swearing! This is the area for bad spelling, misrepresentation of the truth and pointless babbling!

Swearing is down the hall, third door on the left.

CC, you had a comment in which you called someone a moron and a "blood sucking hound." That comment was just as offensive and last time I looked, has yet to be taken down. Really I would disagree with this poster. Proud is offensive and rude to a lesser degree than you. You should have at least been included on that list.

Do you know what a troll is? It is someone who comments only to spew anger and make other people angry. They bait and trap people into getting extraordinarily angry while offering nothing in return for entertainment.

You yourself have told me that I am intelligent and offer well thoughtout interpretations and sources rather than just copying and pasting in order to be deceptive.

But now I am a troll? Show me one post in which I have been disrespectful, insulting, or intentionally tried to make someone angry in any way.

Show me one.

She also brings up an excellent point. You would not speak to me this way if we were in person bc it would not be tolerated. I don't condone violence, but it would not happen. Here you are allowed to anonymously post whatever kind of insult you like without repercussions. I accept this as a natural part of online communication, but you not only accept it but participate in it.

Riley no one has called Erin names like you have called me and concerned citizen. If Erin can't handle the heat of a debate don't get in it. You are right I am entitled to my opinion but I don't need to be called a douchebag because Erin doesn't liked to be challenged.

Erin everytime your beliefs are challenged is another person right to freedom of speech and their own personal opinion. You can use that challenge one of two ways it can either make you a stronger person or a victim. And if I was having this debate in person I would still challenge you in the same way I have here. When I was young I may have sided a little more with you. But once you go out and experience real life you learn the differents between fantasy and reality.

Yes Erin I know the definition of what a troll is and I will post it for you also from dictionary.com

troll1    [trohl] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to sing or utter in a full, rolling voice.
2.
to sing in the manner of a round or catch.
3.
to fish for or in with a moving line, working the line up or down with a rod, as in fishing for pike, or trailing the line behind a slow-moving boat.
4.
to move (the line or bait) in doing this.
5.
to cause to turn round and round; roll.

Both Concerned Citizen and Proud American have posted more truth on here and have back up the facts. You post your beliefs and opinions and then you want every one to pat you on the head and say good girl. Not everyone has your opinions and your beliefs and as far as your still undecided about the election, that is far from the truth in all of your writing, you have never said anything good about Romney, so do you expect people to believe that you haven't made up your mind who your going to vote for. That took the cake when this article came out and to say that Romney didn't do good in the debate was insane, but that is your wisdom that you have. You have also slammed people in your round about ways, that you think your so sly in doing with your winded sentences.

Okay. When people say "troll" referring to a person who is commenting on a thread they are not talking about the correct definition of the verb "troll." In this case it is a noun that means someone that just enjoys starting fights and being very rude and angry on comment threads.

CC talking about me:
Ed m just like what you post has no barring on the truth either as you quote articles written by democrats and we know that they are all lies. same with ne12ukid and all of his other alias that post half articles that they like to print part of the article with other parts to make it look important but when you actually go read the article it isn't exactly the truth what they have copied and pasted.

Erin in the only one that has actually printed articles and how she interprets them

CC you also said in another post that I was one of the only intelligent people on the thread. But now I am slamming people and offering no facts? Prove it.

When you have to explain what a troll is, defend respectfully speaking to your fellow community members, and the conversation goes to talking about Michelle Obama's shopping trip...The conversation is over. Probably long passed.

Erin, you should know by now, disagree with mrs cc and you get a multitude of her posts claiming all sorts of imaginary things. She follows me around the PATCH so much I call her Shadow, and it gets crowded sometimes with all her imaginary friends and their imaginary lives and habits.
I just add her to our prayer list, and she can talk about THAT when she and all the voices in her head get together at Frisch's, LOL!

I guess the terms of service on Patch don't have to be followed if you are liberal or disagree with Erin Connors. Douchebag? Okay. I guess namecalling is what you do when you can't win the argument. I don't care, though. You can call me what you want. At least I'm not a puppet, and I know a fact from an opinion.

Hey, you stay classy, Riley.

Can't win an argument, call someone names. This site is almost as big a joke as Erin Connors' opinions.

Stay Classy, Riley.

erin i said you back up how you interpret articles but did not call you intelligent, at least you try to be.

ne12ukind seems that you are the one that follows me around the patch, as I don't go looking for you but you seem to always find where i'm at. Like I posted first on this article but then you had to follow me where I go. Your a troll that needs to go adopt some cats, then again they would run from you.

like there's a subject anywhere that cc DOESN't post on! LOL.
Hey Shadow, how about the football article, yes you were on there way before I was, but you were posting ABOUT ME. You're obsessed, lady. You even posted multiple times about going out with friends and spending your conversations about me and my posts on Patch. ARe those real friends or just imaginary ones? LOL

blah blah blah blah that all you ever do. All you do is pick and choose your sentences from different articles and then try posting them as your own. Just as you did under the ml name now your doing the same under me12ukid, your a joke

Sad when one can't tell a verb from a noun.

Everybody is getting off the subject and are now attacking each other back to the subject Obama fell flat on his face. Time to stop beating a dead horse.

poudAmerican, that is Ne12ukids way, as it follows me from post to post. As soon as I make a comment on any post within an hour I'm being attacked by it. It is pretty bad they don't have a real life and keep changing their name because they get called out for being bitter. I do feel sorry for all the student that this person taught and can pretty well guess how it talked to students and their parents. I wouldn't be surprised if parents asked to have their children removed from this person's class.

cc, you are truly delusional. My "classes'? Who's a teacher?

Ne12ukid, you need to go see your doctor, they have new drugs out for people with Alzheimer’s and dementia

I saw MY doctor, didn't need to show him ID either. No such problems as you rudely say, which is not funny because some people suffer from those things.
When did you start claiming that I was a teacher? is this a new fantasy of yours, or just another to add to the list of your previous strange comments made as if you know me at all.
On second thought, nevermind, I don't really care what your delusions are, I just wish you'd quit posting them on PATCH and bothering others with your fantasies.

Stephanie, I don't care about how he did in the debate, its four years of misery for this country, an insurmountable public debt that keeps growing with no attempt at controlling, and policies that pay cronies but don't create jobs that caused me to abandon him and give someone else a chance. He simply isn't getting the job done.

Stephanie Davis
2:02 pm on Saturday, October 6, 2012
Agree that Obama did not perform well in the debate, but I still think he is the better candidate.

Yes, Obama was not at his best for sure, but I agree with you Stephanie. While Romney did a better presentation than many expected he still pushed forward too many false comments and half truths to cause me to change my mind on him. Two more debates to go.

Actually, Like Obama, Clinton ignored repeated warnings, did not get Bin Laden when he could have and Bush suffered 9/11 as a result.

Now I'm a guy who who really wanted to see Obama succeed, but he has had his chance, and his policies simply aren't working. Instead of uniting America, he has kowtowed to the extreme left wing of the dem party and driven me out of it.

Clinton also had information on terrorist attacks coming to the United States and Bin Laden and what did Clinton do about it. NOTHING. I agree someone has his head up his butt, obummer as he isn't doing anything except putting our country more in debt by the trillions.

You and John belong to a party that for the past 2 days has been angry that the unemployment numbers went down but claim your biggest reason for not reelecting Obama is the state of jobs and the economy. So which is it? Do ya hate Obama so bad that you pull for the economy to be bad? After all,your parties members of congress would never do anything like deliberately tank the economy and vote against any measures to create jobs by repairing our countries crumbling infrastructure,would they? Republicans running around saying theycheated and fudged the unemployment numbers to help sway the election. This from the people who had the hanging chads in Fla.in 2001 to steal that election and this year with their voter suppression laws to disenfranchise people who typically vote for democrats to help sway this election. It would be laughable were it not such a serious subject .

This country is not a company. President Obama is not our boss. If he were, we could not fire him. We have a complicated (overly so) government made up of federal, state, and local branches that all have to cooperate and make decisions for the bigger picture. We are free and independent citizens, and as you say, responsible for our own lives. Not Obama nor Romney can wave a magic stick and make gas prices that we obtain on the international market any cheaper or give everybody a job. Go ahead. Crown the guy who lied about every single policy that he has run on as the "winner" of a debate. Or maybe crown him for flat out lying about his opponent's policies. Give him the power to add more printed money to an even larger overseas contingency fund so that we can stranglehold the international market even further. That is how a "business man" would make his money. Buy up the failing companies, utilize the resources, sell it to the highest bidder. We are a government. We do not have the right to buy up other countries for our own profit...Except bc we are a government we cannot even buy. We go in with guns under the guise of spreading liberty/stopping commies over and over and over. And we know it. And we don't care.

But go ahead and vote for the guy who yells out historically inaccurate battle cries at the end of his debate. crown this man the winner because he yelled the loudest and made eye contact with his opponent. We are mostly likely screwed either way.

Erin
1. the Government is acting like our boss telling us we have to buy insurance or pay a fine. Also what we can eat or drink or how we can raise our kids. We should be responsible for our own lives but more and more freedoms are being taken away. And if you can't see the boss thing was just being used as an example I apologize if it was to deep to understand

2. Oil and gas prices would get better if we stop relying on foreign resources and use our own. Seeing what it is doing to the economy and how the high cost is hurting the average American he should be working on this issue instead he putting money into failing bankrupt solor companies. How many more Americans have to die for foreign oil.

3. the reason Obama lost was not because of lies because he couldn't defend his failed economy. The only one who keeps on printing money is the Obama administration to bail out failing companies

4. Romney has the experience to help make this country a profitable country even though you feel people who can make money are evil and terrible because they have succeeded. I hope someday with all of your education you are also successful and make money.

See, here's a perfect example. I didn't quote the liberal think tank, "proud american" did, I was simply pointing out that conservatives are right now happy with the KFF whereas before they were condemning them. You didn't even read it properly, you just attack, attack, attack. I'm not a liberal, I'm a conservative who switched to independent a few elections back because I couldn't stand the fact that the religious right had hijacked my party. You are so partisan that you can't even recognize nonpartisan anymore. Anyone who throws even a little criticism at your party must be labeled as the enemy and attacked as liberal.

Ha. Good luck trying to get that message across Mark A. You should check out Free Talk Live. (free podcasts on itunes or live streaming on freetalklive.com). I don't always agree with the message (I have a little more faith in a centralized government than the hosts on the show), but it always makes me think outside of the box and consider the world outside of the bought and paid for Republican and Democratic campaigns. Even when I disagree with the callers/hosts it is so freaking refreshing.

Now this will be followed with "Erin Connors (bc ppl always spell my name this way on here) you are a liberal, worshiping Obama as your savior." And I will say "No, but I will vote for the candidate at least pretending to want to keep us out of the worsening situation in the Middle East and claiming to want to lessen our overseas contingency fund (defense spending) bc a lot of our problems would be solved if we allowed other country's to participate in the international market as equals, blah blah blah."

oh and I also support social programs bc historically when wealth is unevenly divided and civil unrest among the lower and middle classes grows, violence is not far behind which could account for the federal govt growing and passing/attempting to pass legislation that censors the internet and detains american citizens without trial. I would like to delay this sort of thing as long as possible. Blah Blah, Erin Connors you are an Obama loving liberal.

Mark A. and Erin if you are both people are are responsible for a home ,business, or family etc. and can honestly sit their and say you are better off now then 4 years ago then you are living in a fantasy world full of sunshine and rainbows. The honest people on here are living in reality no job, high cost, run away deficit, their is not one thing that has stayed the same or gone down except wages.

I hate that pointless talking point campaign platform question. Just repeating it shows me exactly how successful political campaign managers are...But I am the same, if not better, bc I got increased federal grants for school (a cost that shouldnt be so high anyways but that is another conversation), but I recognize the high cost of school in the first place is a symptom of a broken system. I had a very nice paid internship over the summer that paid well bc of Obamacare and the increased regulations on medical companies and incentives for electronic record keeping/developing software that makes communication between hospitals and doctors for better care possible. Software used by Mayo, the best hospital in the country and Harvard one of the best medical research facilities in the country. So yes, for two reasons directly related to Obama administration legislation, I am better off, but neither is relevant to my vote or political ideology.

You do not read. This is not a "hooray for Obama who has magically fixed everything" conversation. I tell you this over and over and over and you just don't get it, so I am done. I told you why, with hesitation, that I will most likely vote for Obama, and why no way in heck am i ever voting for Romney. I want to see presidential campaigns not reliant on millions of dollars so that we can get some other candidates in there. Presidential campaigns are one of the most immoral acts of our time...right up there with war.

Erin I wouldn't call you an Obama loving liberal I feel you just haven't had enough life learning lessons to see what the real world is all about it is not something you read in a book you have to live it and experience it the good and the bad to understand what some of us are trying to tell you.

Reality Erin grants are wonderful but where does this money comes from the money the taxpayer pays into the system it is not Obama wonderful gift to you. It is a taxpayers gift the ones who are still working

Man, that is some entirely conceited nonsense. 10 years working, went back to school as an adult, blah blah blah. How would you like it if I told you that you don't have enough education to understand when you are being manipulated by lazy political rhetoric? I would not do that bc I don't know anything about you, and it is just wrong. Not to mention, there is no need to attack/discuss our personal lives when talking about government.

There is validity in education and life lessons, but when it comes to policy, government, international affairs, it certainly helps to have as much education as possible. I only have enough education to know that none of my positions are static and that I need to question everything as often as possible and that I need to stay the heck away from television news stations. Education is an essential part of life, and not separate. It is not "life" versus "education." The two are not rivals, just as I am not your rival, so please stop commenting on my personal life.

Wow. Your taxes are responsible for my grants, food stamps, medicare, social security, highway care, blah blah blah. Reality. The revenue created from your taxes is not responsible for any of this.

This is a really good blog with lots of hyperlinked additional information.
http://lewrockwell.com/rep3/inflation-is-a-tax.html

Or if you do not trust independent blogs go for wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_tax

Federal Reserve:
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/10-things-that-every-american-should-know-about-the-federal-reserve

Now those are good basic articles, but the libertarian perspective is often very panic stricken. This is a much better article from my favorite Economist (this guy is very credible), Jeffrey Sachs. The article is written for an educated crowd that has some understanding of these kinds of things, so I would read the first couple first (as I have laid them out). For real. Read them. It helps to explain why our taxes are not really paying for these things. Sachs is not a libertarian and is nonpartisan. This stuff is complicated. No doubt. But it is incorrect to say "my taxes are paying for this" and blah blah blah.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-need-for-stable-policies

Erin,

I really don't know where to start. Your ramblings have pretty much branded you as not just a socialist, but a communist. So, while your return to school has allowed you to buy the propaganda put out by the liberal left wing academic establishment, you've bought into it hook line and sinker.

But while your idealist youthful enthusiasm drives you toward this end, you must not have taken any history classes. Communism and Socialism don't work. The government fail.

You vote for Obama because you are totally dependent on the Federal government. I do pay taxes, so I, am in fact, supporting you. You should be appreciative and say thank you, but instead, you can't accept the fact that you cannot provide for yourself so you go on the offensive. So you leach off the taxpayer and try to rationalize it away.

You need to vote for Obama, because it is just the type of wanton out of control spending that supports you that Romney and Ryan are going to stop.

As for your nonsense about who's paying for your education. Well,

Erin congratulations for going back to school that is great I'm all for people getting educations regardless of any age and Jeffrey Sacks is here to solve all the world problems maybe he should run for president. Where do you think the government gets their money from a money tree planted in the yard of the white house. All money taken in revolves around tax in one form or another unless it is borrowed from China then it is their taxpayers. . Unless you got yours from the Obama administration printing it and doesn't have anything to back it with like tax money if we keep going along like this someday it will be worth less then monoploy money.

Well, I am in fact paying for my education. I do pay taxes. One of my majors is History with a focus on American government so I do a lot of independent work with the constitution, letters and notes of the founding fathers, policy study, and political theory. If I were a communist I would quickly be expelled from my own political party considering I often advertise Free Talk Live and other liberty minded news sources independent from popular media. Is 29 still youthful? I suppose relatively speaking it would be, but I think my idealism died long ago.

I also quit smoking yesterday so I cannot really entertain this kind of insane, ignorant nonsense anymore, as having everything that I have said and posted be so completely ignored that I am now being labeled a "communist" kind of pisses me off more than it normally would. the ridiculousness of this thread has now literally become bad for my health. Have an awesome day everyone.

@Proud, thank you. I really am tired of defending going back to school as an adult so I would appreciate not having to do that anymore. Our money comes from loans from the FED. They print it, so it is kind of like a money tree which is why it is so screwed up! (the fed is not a government agency but a private central banking system). Seriously. Check out those articles. This is a nonpartisan discussion, I promise.

@John, since you are paying for my education, should I just have my student loan bills sent to you? What is that address again? Jk. Because you are in fact not paying for my education or anything else that I do.

@Proud. Yes, you are absolutely right about the monopoly money. Agreed.

@ Erin, Quitting smoking is a good thing. I hope you able to stay quit. I have relatives that quit smoking and they were a bear to live with. However, I stand by what I said, read your own comments, you sound like a communist.

Now, having said that, I realize you are young and easily swayed. As Churchill said, "If you are not a liberal when you are twenty, you have no heart, but if you are not a conservative when you are 50, you have no brain."

Guess they could take the usual GOP action, deny deny deny.... LOL

Proud American, you couldn't of said it better. obummer can't speak without his teleprompter. He is so clueless.

Your post is nothing more than attempt to divert attention away from Obama's failed economic policies. His borrow and spend economic policy is what got us here to start with. His inability to grasp fundamental business economics has not created jobs. But he can borrow $800 billion for a stimulus, and give $500mm to his campaign contributors so they can take big salaries and bonuses and bankrupt their companies.

The ONLY politician in the country that had the ability and courage to come up with a plan to balance the budget was Paul Ryan. And you ask, "what if this doesn't work?!"

Nothing Obama has tried has worked, and he is promising 4 more years of the same!

Oh yea, I forgot to respond to a couple of your "Obama Playbook" questions:

Farm Subsidies are $20 billion a year. End them and you don't begin to make a dent in the deficit. Social security is $773 Billion. But if you want to pay more for food, and put migrant workers out of work, end the farm subsidies.

Oil subsidies are about $4 billion, but your guy Obama gave $21 Billion to "alternative" energy companies. Do you want to end those too! Medicare and Medicaid total about $733 billion a year.

How can you begin to compare the $24 billion of farm and oil subsidies to the $1.5 trillion in social security and medicare/aid?

Keep reading the Obama playbook, and you'll lose yardage every time you put the ball in play.

Joan it is plain and simple Obama took us backward time to try something else.

John Davis, I think Joan was actually stupid to quit a job because for a few short weeks gas spiked at 4,00 but then dropped down to less than 2 a gallon. Gas now is at 5.00 and above in California and you don't think those prices will be close to that soon. Cant blame anyone but obummer for it.

Obama's deficit plan cuts billions in subsidies to farmers
Article by: JIM SPENCER , Star Tribune Updated: September 20, 2011 - 10:26 AM

"WASHINGTON - The deficit reduction plan President Obama introduced Monday will kill a farm subsidy that paid nearly $10 billion to Minnesota farmers from 1995 to 2010. In addition, the president's plan shrinks federal contributions to crop insurance programs and a land conservation program in the state by tens of millions of dollars per year.

"We reform agricultural subsidies, subsidies that a lot of times pay large farms for crops they don't grow," Obama said.

The president was referring to so-called "direct payments" that go to farmers based on crops they planted in past years. The payments are automatic and don't depend on commodity prices or demand. Critics call the subsidies money for nothing.

"In a period of severe fiscal restraint, these payments are no longer defensible," a report from the White House said.

Advocates for Minnesota's farmers worry that the president is trying to poke a hole in a critical safety net."

http://www.startribune.com/business/130169158.html?refer=y

You can go finish reading about what obummer has done to farmers but then again you might not be able to understand the article.

cc: Maybe she took a job with Solyndra

John I wouldn't doubt it one bit.

Gas now is at 5.00 and above in California and you don't think those prices will be close to that soon. Cant blame anyone but obummer for it. cc>>>>

REPLY
CA has higher gasoline prices than most of the country because of its unique environmental regulations plus its high taxes. The cause of the California price rise IS a power failure at Exxon Mobil’s Torrance, Calif., refinery. The refinery has resumed normal operations, but supplies on the West Coast had already been tight as is usual this time of year and also because of a fire at Chevron’s refinery.

Well now that you've gone off topic too, anything else bothering you? :-)
j/k
As I stated above just a few minutes ago, (and at the start of this discussion) Romney did better than expected, but still too many points of question for me to sign up on his side.

You are right NE12Ukid I got off subject so I will be the better person and state the truth on the subject as the majority has stated in this country Romney won the debate

BETTER person? better than whom? ;-)

cc: Actually if you read my post correctly I did not QUIT my job I CHANGED my job which took me t a closer location. Sorry I did not spell that thought out to you. Before you call anyone stupid, look in the mirror. That is uncalled for. We all are entitled to our opinions that is what makes AMERICA!!!!! By the way to John Davis about the cost of social secuity, I paid into social secuity for over forty years. i work parttime and I am still paying for it. Same is true for Medicare and seniors are still paying medicare after they retire. I hope if you and yours are successful in eliminating these that you are raising children who will be able to support you when you are old. How much are the farmers paying for their subsidies and the oil companies paying for their subsidies. Concur with you completely on the waste of money on alternative energy.

So Joan you don't think companies should be subsidized to hire disable people? If companies weren't subsidized then companies like Giant Eagles, Wal Marts, Target and big corporations would never hire anyone with a disability. Disabled people have a right to work, but without the Government subsidizing, business would never hire them.

Is that why you hired disabled persons?

So you already provided health care for yourself and your employees, and had no changes to make under the new law, right?

adding, that's under "Obama-care", no tax credit if Romney takes ACA away.

Yes I know what they are saying but it isn't anywhere near 50%. It would actually be better for me to get under 50 employees and say your on your own for healthcare and for me to pay the penalty, but I would never do that to my employees. My employees are like an extension of my family. Since I am trying to grow my business it wouldn't be wise for me to cut employees.

cc wrote: If companies weren't subsidized then companies like Giant Eagles, Wal Marts, Target and big corporations would never hire anyone with a disability. Disabled people have a right to work, but without the Government subsidizing, business would never hire them.

NE12Ukid asks
Is that why you hired disabled persons?

Please share exactly what part of Obamacare caused your rate increase.

PatchFan2:
1. We now have to provide dependent care until age 26.
2. We now have to provide care for pre-existing conditions
3. We now have to provide for abortions/contraceptive care.
4. Additional mandated preventive care
5. Mandated coverage even for accident victims (if they have no auto insurance, for example)
6.Subsidize the low income mandated insurance

I'm sure there are other causes, just don't remember them. I know the college my daughter was offered a scholarship to attend used to offer insurance for $245 a year. they sent a letter telling us it was now going to be $2507 (Lenoir Rhyne in NC)

proud you are correct, people with preexisting conditions are going to be hit the worse. Sure your going to be able to buy insurance under obamacare but your going to pay double what a healthy person is paying and they have their stipulations on how long of a time you actually have to wait before your allowed to even use your healthcare.

A friend just lost her job. She went out for health insurance estimates. She has one pre-existing condition. Slee aprea. The prices she got were for $2,000 to $3,000 a month. Yes she can get insurance, but at a very high price.

Sue,
There is something wrong with your post. If your friend JUST lost her job, she qualifies for Cobra, which means she can get 18 months of insurance for the same cost that her employer was paying. Preexisting condition has nothing to do with it.

I agree John. But she looked at the cost of purchasing the insurance herself versus cobra and the quotes she was given were $2-3K. She opted to go on Cobra which is about $600 a month. The point of my post was to provide an insurance cost for someone with pre-existing conditions. It was not to discuss Cobra. The topic of the post above is pre-existing conditions.

Sue, tell her to get a certificate of credible coverage from her insurance company once she changes from cobra coverage. Under the HIPAA Act, this will eliminate the pre-existing condition situation.

Excellent post and so true! This is one of the reasons why I cannot call myself a libertarian or abandon the essential need for a centralized government (though it could be smaller with less dependency on the corporate world).

All you have to do is look at American industrialism. Industrialism brought cheaper more efficient ways to do everything but yet caused some of the most devastating poverty in our history. Cost of living should have gone down when the cost of production went down, but it was not so. Wages became significantly less, child labor became rampant, political corruption was intertwined with corporations to the point that private corporations literally became governments running their own towns, forcing everyone to buy from them exclusively, rent rather than own...Private corps literally were the big brother government that everyone is so afraid of...This is why Jefferson pushed for an agrarian society (he lost obviously).

I haven't yet figured out how we get corporate interests out of government especially with Citizens United. i would appreciate it if anyone else has reconciled the need for regulation but also the need for reduced government and reduced dependence on the military industrial complex. :)

Because we are still relying on foreign oil until we are energy independent it won't change. And stop with the enviromental crap the earth won't be ruined. The big boom of oil in McDonald, Pa. back in the 1800's didn't kill the enviroment their was wells in everyone back yard all over the city and we still have trees and green grass and everyone hasn't grown extra body parts. I grew up with well water and had 4 or 5 wells around us and their was 9 of us and not one of us has had any form of cancer. Each generation of an industry learn from their mistakes and that industry gets safer and better technology. In this area know what causes most problems with the enviroment is the housing plans cutting down every tree and stripping the ground to bare dirt to add concret which causes run offs and floodings . Don't see any enviromentalist out their picketing maybe because they live in these housing plans.

Read the article. It does not say anything about environmental issues. Nobody has any interest in making America energy independent. Our gas is shipped out. It makes more money. Costs more for us too.

Proud- love that the only thing you had to say about my post was about the throw away last line about the environment. I guess as long as McDonald is OK, we have nothing to fear, thanks for clearing that up. Ever been to Love Canal in Niagara Falls? Grass grows there too - wanna move there?

No thoughts on the main point of the article? You seem to think everything that happens is Obama's fault, does this cause you to rethink that?

You posted - "I don't think can survive another 4 years food,gas,clothing,cost for heating prices are out of control and now Obama Care seems to be hurting the average families budgets". Coporations and unfettered capitalism and greed have nothing to do with any of this? As the Wall Street Journal says, natural gas prices are at a very low point - should be good for the country, right? Our heating bills should be coming down, right? How has Obama screwed this situation up? Please explain.

Well...no. I am not ever going to back off of the military. I do not believe we are in any serious threat from these countries, and once again there is a lot of room between rocks and a military larger than all of the top 14 armed countries combined. There is a difference between national defense and international offense. I am not opposed to military nationally. So no, I will not back off of the military. I don't approve of congress and I do not approve of what the congress does with our military.

If we know that congress and private monopoly, multi-international industry is overly involved with each other, then why is it so hard to believe that congress is using the military to protect corporate interests? Do you honestly think that we are so huge simply to protect our freedom? Are we more free now than before the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? I don't like believing these things, but I think these are questions that we have to ask ourselves.

Proud American,

I agree with you, for 2 reasons. 1st, the Constitution only empowers the Feds with the obligation to provide for the nation's defense (and regulate interstate commerce) so IMHO can never subjugate defense to social security, medicare, medicaid, etc. and 2nd, the main reason our economy flourished for many years was the fact that every nation on earth understood that business here was safe. There was no risk in doing business in America. If we weaken our military we violate both premises.

John
Why is it that most of our business is already moving to other countries? Do they move to S. America or Mexico because of the huge defense spending there? I don't think all of our call centers moved to India because they feel safer there, Pakistan is pointing nuclear weapons at them from just over their border

Are you saying that if we cut defense spending that our industry will move away? Don't look now, they're already gone.

JS,

Industry is moving because of our oppressive taxes.

But people do like to do business here because it is safe.

If you don't believe me, I have a very lucrative consulting contract in Mexico I have trying to fill. but no one seems to want the job. And I'm not kidding here.

Erin would you rather we fight the WAR ON TERROR (words that Obama is afraid to call it what it is) here on our soil I guess 911 wasn't a big enough scare.

Erin lets hope and pray that it will never happen but a weak military opens a country up for all kinds of trouble and if it does happen on our soil don't be the one crying why us.

He is probably afraid to say "war on terror" bc it does not exist. If we are attacked on our soil then I imagine people will volunteer to defend themselves. In the case of 9/11 and Pearl Harbor those were direct retaliations of the USA meddling and occupation of foreign countries.

McCollum Memo/1 year before WWII(Google it and judge for yourself. I am just getting a quote that I copied from wikipedia. I have read it before. You can make up your own mind): ""It is not believed that in the present state of political opinion the United States government is capable of declaring war against Japan without more ado [...] If by [the elucidated eight-point plan] Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better."

Many of the suggestions (at least 3 that I can think of) made by the 8 point plan were carried out and Japan did "commit an overt act of war," so I personally find it hard to believe that we were not expecting this to happen. War is not pretty, dignified or fair. We know this.

As far as the future is concerned, if people ask our military for help, then those in the armed forces, or anyone else, should be told exactly what the situation is, given the option of going to war, and that war should be fought on the grounds of the people requesting the help.

ie: Signing up for the military should not be a contractual obligation to point and shoot with little to no information about why or what you are shooting. That is not fair to the soldiers.

@Erin can you tell me what countries we countries we were "meddling and occupation of foreign countries." during the start of WW2 and 9/11? If memory serves me right I thought pearl harbour was because of our oil blockade on Japan while they were invading mongolia? Bin Laden was out for us since Saudi Arabia said we could have bases there during the Persian Gulf war. Which he was upset with since he wanted to use his militia against Saddam....and the fact that we left Afghanistan when the Russians left...

So i am not sure where this quote comes from "In the case of 9/11 and Pearl Harbor those were direct retaliations of the USA meddling and occupation of foreign countries"

sorry, Japans invasion of Manchuria.

@ erin...."ie: Signing up for the military should not be a contractual obligation to point and shoot with little to no information about why or what you are shooting. That is not fair to the soldiers"

I, (NAME), 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; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Great for you Mark A. maybe during the Bush years like you said you weren't taking responsibility to make you situation better. And that is pretty low to say to all the unemployed people in this country that they weren't hard working and should be more personally responsibile you don't know their personal stories.

Mark there wouldn't be unemployed people if there were jobs, when did obama create any. He gave away money to companies so they would support him in the election with donations but they didn't create jobs.
I know many people that were hard working and lost jobs not because they were lazy, but because companies downsized, shut their doors and laid everyone off. I'm sure over the next year were going to see many more people laid off when small business try to get under 50 employees so they don't have to buy obamacare and maybe you work for one of these companies or your wife. In today society no ones job is safe anymore and you can walk into work tomorrow and be handed a pink slip.

Mandates from the central authority without regard for the patient-doctor relationship will kill thousands if not millions. Obamacare is bad health policy because it is not about healthcare but the takeover of the healthcare industry. Obama believes enlightened government ensures fairness and will perform at a higher level than a free market system dependent on greedy doctors. However, you will notice that the government system is for you and not for him and his buddies. Want evidence --- notice his children don't attend the public schools. Notice he exempted himself and thousands of union leaders and union healthcare plans from Obamacare.

I am uncomfortable with the individual mandate as a solution to unpaid healthcare costs in this country, but I can not think of a better solution at this time. However, he did not exempt himself from Obamacare. Obamacare, as you said, is not a healthcare policy. The mandate, which has not happened yet, only applies to those who do not already have a plan. If you have a plan through work or individual you are good. If you are of a lower income you are exempt. the president has a healthcare plane. He does not need to make himself "exempt" from anything.

And who cares about the Public Schooling system? Considering the security those kids have to have and there other extraordinary circumstances I am surprised they are not tutored. If I have the money when I have children, they will be going to private school as well. There is plenty to be concerned about on the surface without attempting to dig up nothing in the dirt.

For Erin: Have you read Obamacare? It is not a solution to the problem of the uninsured. After it is fully implemented it is estimated that 20 million and up to 30 million will remain uninsured. If it was really about insuring the uninsured, it could be done for all the uninsured at a fraction of the costs as is currently done with auto insurance. 159 new agencies are being created. Their mandates will apply to the insured as well as the uninsured. It is estimated that as many as 10 million will lose their current insurance and be forced into the public exchanges. There is no way I can cover over 2 thousand pages but I do suggest you become better informed before you support something like Obamacare. As for public schooling you better care. Every uneducated person is disadvantaged for life and this will directly impact you the rest of your life. There are over 100 failing public schools in PA. There are good solutions but they cannot be implemented because the current system protects itself first and worries about students and education next.