"The owners of this country know the truth: It's called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it." - George Carlin

Aren't you putting the cart before the horse? Your "great choice" still has to win the election first!

"Once you leave the womb, conservatives don't care about you until you reach military age. Then you’re just what they’re looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers." - George Carlin

we have a nightmare team in office now so this would be a great choice. obama needs to go now.

Well Lori maybe you can make a suggestion to obama on how to get the deadbeat welfare, foodstamp people off welfare. obama just lifted that those on welfare don't have to work or try to find employment that President Clinton put into effect and saved the United States millions. Only reason obama destroyed the law is for the votes from the deadbeat welfare people. Since he can't win an election without People showing photo id because to many people were voting many times thanks to Acorn.

Stephanie don't worry, the Paul Ryan will pick backfire against Romney and Obama will be sliding back in on Nov. 4. With the Ryan pick, Florida is done and out for Mitt but even more interesting the will be the effect in Wisconsin, Iowa and Ohio. Those voters already know Ryan and the suffering he brings better than most as they have already heard it the loudest so far. At this point the winning electoral numbers still line up for Obama and in just two weeks the polls will reveal the reality to Mitt (just as it did for McCain) .....gambling does not pay!

Stephanie don't worry, the Paul Ryan will pick backfire against Romney and Obama will be sliding back in on Nov. 4. With the Ryan pick, Florida is done and out for Mitt but even more interesting the will be the effect in Wisconsin, Iowa and Ohio. Those voters already know Ryan and the suffering he brings better than most as they have already heard it the loudest so far. At this point the winning electoral numbers still line up for Obama and in just two weeks the polls will reveal the reality to Mitt (just as it did for McCain) .....gambling does not pay!

@Fred and Keith – You should really do a much better job of coordinating posting Democrat talking points. You could have least changed a few words in there to throw us off your trail.

Well Fred and Keith, I see both of you attended the same liberal training session on how to troll web sites and respond with pro Obama verbiage. You can take your ACORN paycheck and go elsewhere.

Raymond,

You must be one of the 100 million people in this country receiving some kind of entitlement money from the gov't. If the country goes down like the way of Greece, Ireland, Portgual or Italy, who will you blame? I know - Georgr Bush.

Exactly Raymond, that's a good thing. Medicare and Social Security are nothing more than ponzi schemes, which the taxpayers are forced to participate. If something isn't done, those of us paying into them now, will receive nothing when we retire.

So good, I hope they gut it so I get something back since I will have been forced to participate for 50+ years by the time I retire. Madoff went to jail for his ponzi scheme, but the politicians will get to retire with a taxpayer funded pension after running their ponzi schemes.

this is a lie that the kool-aid drinking democrats are spreading. obama has ruined this country in 4 years and needs to go.

Not ending medicare trying to come up with a better plan and give people a choice like our senators and representatives have.

if you would actually read what he is suggesting, instead of just listening to the far left...

In effect, Ryan is asking Americans to make a historic leap of faith. He projects that the newly cost-conscious customers, who'll inevitably be spending more of their own money, will shop far more carefully for health care. The pressure from those bargain-hunters, and the end to a regime that pays for as many tests as doctors can order, will force physician groups and hospitals to become far more efficient, and offer better prices.

"It's very speculative how the new system would work," says Robert Moffitt, a health care policy expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "But we know for sure that the Ryan plan would force private providers to compete ferociously for business, and that would introduce a degree of competition into Medicare that's totally absent today."

Alright cc, you & Isabella represent what's wrong with people. You chastise those who spread false information about Romney and Paul Ryan's budget. Yes, your right, Ryan's budget does not end Medicare & Obama has really been taking Bain history way out of context. But what I can't stand it after you do this, you still call Obama a socialist, say the ACA is a government take over of health care, and say his supporters are high drinking "kool-aid". Just as Obama's claims have been proven wrong these claims above have been proven wrong time and time again yet you continue to spew them out. It is infuriorating! Give me one source that backs your claims. As for me, I personally use politifact & before you say they're biased they also have gone after democrat ads and have links to other fact check organizations that support there opinion. Please, stop with the Obama is a socialist. The socialist party of American (they exist and they are not democrats) has said that Obama is not a valid member.

Jacob Pavlecic you and these democrats are what is wrong with people believing all the lies that obama and the democrats are spreading. obama is a socialist and wants government run healthcare so they chooses who lives who dies. What is obama going to do when Doctors and Hospitals quit taking access and the ones that get free obamacare? Doctors now are pulling out of taking access because they don't want paid 12 to treat a patient when other insurance companies are paying 50.

CC, the ACA does not take over hospitals, they are still privately owned. Plus, thanks to your GOP friends the government does not offer a public option so most people will be insured PRIVATELY. Lastly, you have neglected to show any sources.

Gingrich was the first to attack Romney on his history with Bain Capital and confirmed this during the New Hampshire Primary debates.

John is right. Both parties are guilty of hyperbole and lying for the sake of votes, and they do it because it works. It works because we feed on it and wrongly attack people for choosing to act differently.

Here is a transcript:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/2012-abcyahoowmur-new-hampshire-gop-primary-debate-transcript/2012/01/07/gIQAk2AAiP_blog.html

Also interesting to see another call for the gutting of medicare before we all started parroting Romney's claim that he will _not_ touch medicare and that Obama is trying to destroy medicare...

Mike- are you an Obama supporter? I recall that he can't even throw a baseball in his mom jeans.

I forgot to mention that Romney didn't even have the guts to tell the other VP finalist they were not picked.

The country could do better than Obama, but Romney/Ryan is not an alternative. Their economic policies are complete fantasy. If you think that the deficit is bad now, the Romney/Ryan plans will blow it up completely. Of course, deficits don't matter when a Republican is in the White House.

I liked Jon Huntsman, but he had a brain and wasn't willing to sell his soul for the Presidency like Romney. I also like Buddy Roemer as well.

I agree with you. Romney will be worse the Bush and we see where that got us. I guess everyone blames Pres. Obama for what we are in but can't see the 8 years that Bush destroyed us we were had money. If Romney gets in and you are a middle class citizen then you might as well start planning on putting money under your mattress. Bush killed out education program and Romney will do the same. His wife has never worked a job just stayed home with her children. A real women works and takes care of her children.

@D - WOW!! your comment, "His wife has never worked a job just stayed home with her children. A real women works and takes care of her children." is absolutely appalling!!!!!!!

speaking of billionaire donors - are you referring to the same "billionaire donors" that funded Obama and his campagn - in return for sending billions of taxpayer dollars to failed companies such as Solyndra?

How's Obama working out for you? Gotta vote for the lesser of 2 evils....It's a no-brainer there.

do some research no one over 55 will loose their medicare, which is not all that great that is why they have to have a supplement plan to pay the difference medicare doesn't pay. If we don't reform social security, medicare our children will not have any they are only paying in now to keep people collecting a float. Government programs never work because they don't want to change with the times. Our country is going broke we need reform time for a change we really can believe in ROMNEY-RYAN 2012

I agree with Martin Connell comment of 8/11 12:10 PM.
Ryan's policies are a knife in the back of the greatest generation, of which my parents were members. They sacrificed to give us freedom, and worked very hard for what they had. They also fought to ensure that they, my generation, and generations to come can continue to live in that freedom and experience an improved middle class.
Ryan thinks we cannot afford this...The greatest generation, and we their children and grandchildren cannot afford Ryan.

CT we can't afford the social security and medicare as it stands it is going BROKE. What has Obama really done for the people on Social security first years in office no cost of living raise , third year very small cost of living raise not enough to make up for the previous years then raise medicare to take it back.. He talks a big game and people fall for it and that is all it is smoke and mirrors.

Gimme gimme gimme. Wha Wha Wha! The "schemes" are going broke and unless we address the issues no one will get anything. Wake up America. We are fast approaching the cliff and might not be able to stop unless we put the brakes on now. NO-OBAMA!

Haha! That is hilarious! OMG! We are more in debt than we have ever been in the history of this country. Maybe you don't have kids.....but we need someone who isn't trying to run this country into the ground. His unemployment rate is at an all time high. He ended the Iraq war? He killed Osama bin Laden? You are giving him credit for these things? What private sector employment has he increased? I need facts. Tell me how that health insurance thing works out for you next year. It's an illusion.

raymond, poor little boy, you my sir, are good example of our public education system. socalism last until they run out of other peoples MONEY. without business there is no govt. the govt does not produce a product,govt does not create wealth, PEOPLE create wealth.

I can't believed you used the word "saved" when it comes to Obama. The only thing he saved with OUR TAX DOLLARS is the unions when he bailed out GM and Chrysler. Now he wants to bail out more unions so he can he can get their votes. Typical Dem. QUIT SPENDING MY MONEY....MY KIDS MONEY AND MY GRAND KIDS MONEY!

obama isn't working out fine except for the people that are illegals and the people on welfare. he is a joke.

100% agree with Susan, farm kid, KMan & cc!!!

How do you define working our fine? Tripleing the national debt, Decreasing our national credit rating for the first time in history, the highest long-term unemployment since the Great Depression? Wake up Raymond!!

And as far as "killing Osama Bin Laden" read up a little bit - he put the operation on hold and scratched his head for two days before he went to his advisors and said he could not make up his mind and didn't know what to do and had them make the decision for him.

i agree crosbycat, they hear obama lies in commercials and believe them as the Gospel truth. obama can't win against Romney so he just has to make things up and lie. obama needs to be president of fantasy island.

Then he needs to release his tax returns for the last 10 years. He has money in foreign accounts that he doesn't even pay taxes on. I can't say that everything Pres. Obama has done but he is trying are should I say he is doing what the Republicans will let him do. Romney will buy his way into the White House he has more then enough money to pay for votes....

D why doesn't obama release his real birth certificate and school records so we will all see he was just a foreign exchange student going to school in the United States. Mr social planner hasn't done a dam thing good for our country except give more welfare to the ones that don't want to work.

D - even if he did release his tax returns, they usually only release the 1040, or at most in addition their Schedule B just so they can show off their donations. None of those records would disclose, if in fact, he was "hiding" money. In any case, whatever he is doing with his money is LEGAL, so if you have a problem with any of this, it's actually the completely messed up TAX CODE. If I had that kind of wealth, I would minimize what tax I paid as well, and why? Because I'm not willing to help my government pay $100 for toilet seats that's why. I'd rather take that cash, and donate it as I see fit instead of handing it over to the federal government to waste. Tell me you'd do different???

so right cc keep dropping our defense and we will see another 911

Stephanie, you are welcome to go live in Sweden and hand over 60% or more of your paycheck to the government each month. I personally, don't prefer that option, that's why I live in America.

Republicans seem to do o.k. on a township level after that its to overwelming. Didn't
"W" and friends get us in this downer and aren't the ones who can free up funds holding on to funds to try and destroy the Whitehouse so they can come in and in 6 months start to free up programs in place and get the banks lending again to shin.
Don't underestimate the public ,you blew it with picking Ryan just like last time with Palin.

Bakruptcy could well have saved GM but not on the back of the investors who were robbed in Obama's deal. Why do union employees think the rest of us should have to pay for their bloated benefits which were not properly funded...speaking of Ponzi schemes!

There was a total of 322, 000 jobs created under obama, when actual unemployment rate if we would count the people not collecting unemployment now is up over 30 %. Good job obama, we need you gone in November.

Rice would have been a better choice, but she is not sufficiently "pure" enough for today's right-wing ideologues. They wanted someone who could keep a leash on Romney and Ryan is the man.

References to source material are always welcome.

All of these claims have been fact checked and proven false by "non-partisan" fact checking websites. The "Paul Ryan’s plan would end Medicare as we know it" was even listed as the Politifact's 2011 Lie of the Year".

In the future, please explain your arguments and not just parrot talking points provided to you by the DNC.

Wait wait. I am confused. I am reading a lot of these calls for cutting medicare, social services, obamacare etc...

It is not all over the conservative news blogs, online papers, television shows that Obamacare makes a $700 billion cut on medicare. Seems like this is exactly what you are asking for, but now the spin from these same media sources is that Obama is killing senior citizens. So which is it? What do you want? Hard cuts? Seems like Obama gave you what you want.

The point is that Romney and Obama are both moderate in their political parties and really do not have a whole lot of differences between them except that Obama obviously has the public speaking skills. The presidential debates are going to be hilarious.

I don't love any of the options, but this nonsense about Obama ruining everything, driving us into an Ameriocalypse, and being some sort of covert socialist/muslim, old people executioner (that you claim in the same breath as calling for medicare gutting) is nothing more than media perpetuated propaganda that we all just regurgitate onto each other like hate filled vomit.

We've got to love the opinions of the young folks, such as Erin. They are great to hear. The idealism seeps through every statement, an idealism that has germinated out the recent classroom experiences.

Someday, perhaps sooner than later, these thoughts will be deflated and shown the transparency they deserve. Until then, enjoy the happy ride because it may not last very long. The reality of understanding what is happening will settle, and attempts to justify the present Administration will be blown in many directions.

The rhetoric that you so eagerly await has been with us now for more than four years. Maybe when it started, you weren't old enough to understand what was being said. But, for the 99% of the rest of us, the slick rhetoric has been set aside, rather seeking substance, policy, and leadership. In 2008, many were fooled by the rhetoric. By now, most realize they were swooned, and no longer are swayed. Perhaps the debate scorers will rate the rhetoric high, but they are not the ones intending to reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Who cares? The debates may be hilarious to some. To others, the debates will further expose the lack of substance in the slick talk.

Thanks for playing, but time to return to the coffee house now.

What idealistic viewpoint did I show in that comment Roger? I am not all that young. Maybe in comparison with you, but I left school to go back later. I am flattered that you seem to think of me as a young college age kid, but I promise that I am a full-fledged adult only now finishing my two degrees soon to go on to get my masters in public policy and legislation.

Saying that I like neither candidate but do not believe we are headed into an apocalypse is not exactly "idealistic." Or maybe I should just throw around meaningless insults and hyperbole? Would that make me more mature?

So do you want medicare cut or not? Lauren called for a gutting of medicare, as have many others, and now medicare seems to be cut according to the conservative news sources that I have been reading. Or is it just that you want someone under a giant elephant banner leading your parade?

They are both moderate candidates. We will get much of the same from either. Believing otherwise is the naive attitude of the two. How old are you Roger?

Thanks, Erin. You have exposed your position with much better than anybody else. You cite two college degrees, with pursuit of another one. The liberalism of many of our colleges seeps through, ... no mark that, gushes through the cracks of worldviews. All the attempts at justification of Obamacare a few weeks ago is reinforced with comments in this thread.

The hallowed halls of academia do a great service to many of our citizens. But, they also are painfully void of experiences and perspectives of reality. For those who make those halls their primary arena of learning, they expose themselves as ones who are missing the bigger picture of what really happens on the street. Yes, it is out of these halls that many get their grounding for development of public policy, and the dysfunction of pubic agencies reveal the viewpoints developed in those halls.

Wisdom is far greater value than knowledge.

Thanks for playing, and being part of the game.

Ok Roger. You are old and wise, and I am young and naive. My current investment in my education is wasted.

So let me ask again. Lauren is calling for a gutting of medicare. I see 700 billion dollars worth of medicare cuts that Paul Ryan voted in favor of. Is this not what you are asking for? Though despite the cuts that had bipartisan congressional support, those same media sources that bash the PPACA for increased spending, now bash it for killing old people. After all, medicare needs the gutting bc of its support of the "lazy losers." Right?

So why are you against these $700 billion worth of cuts in medicare?

@Erin – I get your point, but the examples you provide might not demonstrate it.

You can’t very well state, “The point is that Romney and Obama are both moderate in their political parties and really do not have a whole lot of differences. . .” and then state, “. . . yet emerged with unique visions for this country.”

Despite the posturing of others, all the politicians you mentioned are at the center of their parties.

I think the point Roger was making is many fresh out of college come out expecting to change the world. These young adults are full of idealism and want to make an immediate difference. It is with time and experience that most moderate and realize the world is much more nuanced that they first believed. It is then these folks figure out how to really make a difference.

Does this mean I oppose recent graduates for getting involved, heck no. I want everyone to get involved in the direction of our country. It is with this experience we all grow.

Yes OC. That was my point. So many feel that education breeds brainwashed liberalism, and yet the politicians that they see as ending the world have come from identical-similar educational backgrounds as the politicians that see as saviors. However, I deleted that comment once I realized that instead of answering my very honest question, he was forcing me to debate the value of my education and age. That is a pointless road as I am sick of explaining that I am not an idealistic, fresh out of college, 22 year old, and it is a bs argument to begin with.

I _am_ however going to start taking these accusations as a compliment. I imagine that it won't be much longer that my picture is going to lead people to believe that I am at most 22 years old.

I'm shocked at Roger's condescending attitude toward Erin. She makes a good point that no one bothered to answer: The ACA will cut Medicare by $700 billion. So, do you want that or not?

A CBO report also states the majority of cost savings and of the revenue raised through additional payroll taxes would be used to “pay for other spending and therefore would not enhance the ability of the government to pay for future Medicare benefits.” Whether we call them “cuts” or “savings,” it’s been implied taxpayers will see a benefit. That’s going to be a difficult proposition for the President to make given the circumstances. You might say it’s like “shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic.”

I believe the Republicans are latching on to this as they see it as hypocrisy by the Democrats. When you run images of Republicans throwing grandma off a cliff and then go on Face the Nation and claim you’ve cut Medicare by roughly the same amount as Republicans, it just doesn’t smell right.

I didn't ask about payroll taxes. I asked about the 700 billion in medicare "cuts." These cuts, which a large portion is based on reducing payments from the govt to private health insurance companies that were found to be well above what those on medicare were actually requiring in medical cost, are reductions in payments.

It is all outlined here: http://www.cms.gov/apps/files/ACA-savings-report-2012.pdf

Currently you have a bidding process going on, which sounds similar to what Romney is offering...very little change. No reduction in spending for Medicare. He admits as much easily. "The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) reports that Medicare payments to private
health plans in 2010 are between 9 percent and 13 percent higher, on average, than local fee-for-service costs"

more info here: http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8071.pdf

Both parties have accused each other of throwing grandma off of a cliff. Why? Because the elderly are the largest group of voters. Romney's campaign is now focused on Obama killing old people through these cuts, so when you refer to the hypocrisy of the democrats, at the very least you meant "the hypocrisy of both parties" but as far as the latest campaign strategies, the reverse is true.

So we are still not addressing my question, but the issue is still fairly new to most and not everyone spends all day reading and writing about this stuff like I do. What remains is the fervent call for a gutting of medicare, which Romney is emphatically _not_ offering.

@Erin – First, the sources you link do not represent $700 billion in “savings” or “cuts.” Second, the CBO accounted for additional payroll tax revenues when they calculated the effect of Obamacare on Medicare. That’s OK as that’s not the larger point. The larger point is you asked whether those that oppose Obamacare are happy about the $700 billion in “cuts” to Medicare the Administration claims it has “achieved.”

I can only give my opinion, which I did, but I’ll repeat myself. Very few people are going to find solace in the fact the Administration states it cut $700 billion from Medicare when those stated cuts are going to pay for other items rather than revert back to citzens. Additionally, most citizens who oppose Obamacare know that when a family four pays for only 1/3 of the cost of their health insurance, the rest of us are picking up the difference. Again, it’s just like “shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic.”

You’ll get no debate from me that there is hypocrisy on both sides. I was merely giving my opinion on why Republicans seem to be making this a campaign issue. It’s just bad timing on the part of the Administration.

The sources that I provided do an estimate for 2 years. The $700 billion comes from a span of 10 years. If you do the math from all of the savings or cuts proposed in the source, extending those amounts to 10 years, it does add up. I had my calculator up and everything.

Can you source this for me in the CBO report? I would be so grateful: "the CBO accounted for additional payroll tax revenues when they calculated the effect of Obamacare on Medicare."

@Erin – You’re assuming “savings” rates for two years remain constant over 10 years and you know what they say when you assume? ;) Again, that wasn’t the point, but you know that I hope.

Here’s a link you asked for http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/110xx/doc11005/01-22-hi_fund.pdf. Please drink your coffee before diving in.

"Very few people are going to find solace in the fact the Administration states it cut $700 billion from Medicare when those stated cuts are going to pay for other items rather than revert back to citzens. "

I am also wondering how the American citizens expect 700 billion in reduced spending to revert back to citizens. That would be a redistribution of funds to another source, ie: not reducing govt spending at all.

where does the American citizen want to see this $700 billion over 10 years go? my source says "− lowering costs to make the program more sustainable." Not redistributing costs. It also says the medicare benefit to the citizen is much, such as the preventive care measures (reducing more costly procedures later). I have personally seen this measure create jobs, businesses, and accountability working in an HIM position in a company just bought by JP Morgan bc it the rapid business growth is so lucrative.

You seem to be including these "additional payroll tax revenues" in the $700 billion. I am not seeing this in the list of reduced govt spending in regards to medicare. I have a very specific focus here. That $700 billion. I'de love it if you could give me some specific CBO info regarding this $700 billion that is so talked about right now.

i am just so confused as I see concerned citizens rallying for Romney while calling for a gutting of medicare. Romney does not plan to do this at all.

Oh what a headache (that I love).

@Erin – I think we might be talking about two separate but equally important topics here.

The first is the $700 billion in “cuts” you mention. If we look at it as specifically as you’d like to it would tell most citizens is that over the next ten years, Medicare is going to cost $700 billion less than was projected before the passage of Obamacare. This information has citizens asking themselves, “If the cost of operating Medicare is $700 billion less than was previously projected, doesn’t that mean the government needs $700 billion fewer tax dollars from citizens over that timeframe?” I think this is a reasonable question given the fact the way the $700 billion in “cuts” is being sold to the public. I think that’s also a legitimate question based on the way that you and others are framing it.

The second issue is the solvency of Medicare. Projections had the Medicare trust running out of money by the year 2017. Passage of Obamacare is projected to extend the life of Medicare. This extension is due partly to the savings you mention, but is also made possible through additional payroll tax revenue. That’s why I said the CBO took revenue into account when determining the impact of Obamacare on Medicare.

An interesting side note, for those touting the benefits of Romneycare, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts just passed additional legislation to curb rising health care costs.

Your source deals with Part A of Medicare and the HI fund, which is great for reasons outside of this conversation. I assume that the $700 billion (a number coming from conservative news sources which was the foundation for my questions) involves more than simply Part A and the Hospital Insurance Fund.

Still a good read that I will keep. thanks!

the CBO states that:
- Enacting PPACA, including the manager’s amendment, would
reduce net outlays for Part A of Medicare by $245 billion over the 2010–2019
-those changes in outlays and revenues would diminish budget
deficits and add to trust fund balances by $358 billion over that 10-year period.
-Debt held by the public is the most meaningful measure for assessing the
relationship between federal debt and the economy...enacting PPACA would reduce debt held by the public at the end of 2019 by somewhat more than $132 billion
-the effects of legislation on debt held by the
public offer a more useful measure of that legislation’s impact on the
government’s financial condition.

Also, _your_ source, aka the CBO, also is doing its budget analysis of Part A and the HI trust fund over a span of ten years.

If I am assuming that savings can account for the span of 10 years, it is because the CBO told me to so please do not pretend that these are numbers that I am coming up with on my own. I am not that smart.

@Erin – You’re right; Part A is just a part of Medicare, but it demonstrates the larger issue. Cuts to programs does not equate to the government spending less taxpayer money. That is why some of us are not overly optimistic.

Great. Now we are getting somewhere in a civil manner. I love it. Yes, I was repeatedly saying that we were talking about two (or more than two) different topics/sets of numbers/what have you.

So now we are concerned with the American citizens not giving a poo about medicare when taxes are increased. My understanding is that this tax revenue comes from a variety of taxes including those on medical equipment to the individual mandate/shared responsibility tax. So I give you this that I was just reading:

"According to the CBO’s latest, revised estimates released in March 2012, the reform law raises “$510 billion in receipts and other budgetary effects (primarily revenues from penalties and other sources)”—including the “individual mandate” tax penalty and penalties on employers.

The Kaiser Foundation points out that in the CBO report there are $808 billion in tax credits to low-income and middle-class families to help them afford health insurance over the next 11 years.

In February 2011, the CBO estimated that Obama’s health-reform law would reduce the deficit by $210 billion over 10 years. Part of that reduction will come from slowing the rate of Medicare spending growth and imposing taxes."

Now in this article Romney is calling for a number of $500 billion (not $700).

@Erin – I still believe the hang up some of us have is the fact that we’ve been told how much money will be saved by enacting Obamacare.

Then we run into statements like, “$510 billion in receipts and other budgetary effects (primarily revenues from penalties and other sources)”—including the “individual mandate” tax penalty and penalties on employers,” and “Part of that reduction will come from slowing the rate of Medicare spending growth and imposing taxes.”

These statements don’t inspire us the government is going to make do with less. They are slowing growth rates, not spending less. Additionally, they’re offsetting costs through increased revenue – taxes. Whether these are direct like the penalty, or indirect like the others all of these taxes will impact our bottom line. This is not smaller government, it’s bigger government.

So I would imagine that as much as we are concerned with these taxes that may not ever affect most American citizens, while also resulting in a reduce debt held by the public at the end of 2019 by somewhat more than $132 billion which is a greater indicator of the economic situation in this country (according to the CBO), we are concerned with this middle tax increase by Romney right?

Both parties are proposing tax increases. Seems inevitable. While one most likely will never affect the majority of citizens, but certainly does not lessen taxes to medical corporations, the other proposes a cut to the wealthy and an increase to the middle class.

I mean, this is true right? The campaign strategy is saying nothing is definite yet, but come on now...This is what is proposed correct?

Here is an article where a Romney advocate defends these middle class tax increases which he says are inevitable. We must have them to increase revenue, right?

"What he's done is propose specific tax cuts, say he wants to keep tax breaks for investment income, and say he wants to make the whole thing deficit-neutral by closing loopholes. It turns out that the only way to do that is with a big increase in middle class taxes." http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/08/09/mitt_romney_s_middle_class_tax_hike_he_won_t_defend_it_but_i_will.html

@Erin – An interesting article by Slate – hardly unbiased – citing a paper by Brookings – again hardly unbiased – which admits it doesn’t have enough information regarding Romney’s proposed economic policies to make a full analysis.

What the paper does say is that almost everyone would see an increase in after tax revenue. The sole demographic that would see a decrease are those making under $30,000. They would pay $130/year – or $2.50/paycheck – more under Romney’s plan. This means, the paper states, federal revenue will be reduced by $365 billion. The paper then goes on to speculate the government will need to capture this lost revenue and the way to capture this lost revenue is to close loopholes.

FIRE DRILL!!!! Sorry Erin, I needed to wake up people who’d fallen asleep by now.

The paper then goes on to speculate which loopholes would be closed to make up this shortfall. Did they contact the Romney campaign to confirm these are the loopholes he mentioned he would close? No, they didn’t. Again, they speculated on the loopholes they would close. And guess what happened? That’s right; they closed the loopholes that would impact the middle and lower classes most. There’s your tax increase, the closing of unsubstantiated loopholes.

Yep, definitely not a credible source just an interesting read on a topic that, as you cited, we know very little about as of now so it is pretty much all speculation. I hope Romney gets this information out there soon and especially before October or we are going to hear a lot of really lame presidential debates.

Martin, I would first ask who in the Congressional Budget Office wrote that report and ask to see the numbers. I trust none of them.

The Congressional Budget Office is a non-partisan team of economists and policy analysts. Paul Ryan's and the budget committee's site links to the Congressional Budget Office. Douglas Elmendorf, the director, works under John Boehner, was mentored by a man who worked under Reagan, and was responsible for the budget report that said that Clinton's health reform package would cost more than was previously assessed. Doug's report was at least partially responsible for killing that package.

The budget committee is a committee made up of members of Congress. Like an interest group inside of congress. They will research and support legislation, lobby for legislation within congress, etc...Their leaders and the majority of their body is Republican.

The Congressional Budget Office is not affiliated with any party and their director has clear republican ties. The Budget Committee, which has a Republican Chairman (Paul Ryan) and vice chairman and is mostly republicans (22-15), cites the CBO often and relies on their reports and research.

So who is it exactly that you don't trust in the CBO and why?

Raymond Bin Laden was killed on the orders that Bush had put in place not obama and 2 years before they did kill him our Government knew exactly where he was but obama didn't want to act on it till it got closer to election time. who do you think obama is borrowing money from Greece. he bailed out banks and auto companies to give the ceo and upper crust big raises and big payout. The little people didn't get anything. I wouldn't waste my money buying a GM or Chrysler product. Ford was the only company that stood on their own feet and made their company strong. obama needs to go back to kenya where he belongs.

cc - do you ever let the facts bother you when you're making stuff up?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/12/14/bush-binladen.htm "Bush pledges to get bin Laden, dead or alive

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush pledged anew Friday that Osama bin Laden will be taken "dead or alive," no matter how long it takes, amid indications that the suspected terrorist may be bottled up in a rugged Afghan canyon. The president, in an Oval Office meeting with Thailand's prime minister, would not predict the timing of bin Laden's capture but said he doesn't care how the suspect is brought to justice. "I don't care, dead or alive — either way," Bush said. "It doesn't matter to me." written is 2001 and also put a bounty on his head. It wasn't obama that went after him, was on the orders of George Bush. Before obama made the announcement that SEAL TEAM SIX killed Bin Laden (not obama), he called George Bush. Go read up on it since you don't know much Red Jackson.

In Sept. 2006, George W. Bush told Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes that capturing Bin Laden was not a priority. http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2006/09/14/7472/barnes-osama/?mobile=nc

"millions of unemployed"?? Over the last month and a half, I have driven over 4000 miles...2000 to Montana and 2000 to Maine and back. Everywhere I go, including here in the 'burgh, I see "NOW HIRING" and "HELP WANTED" signs everywhere!!! So, I'm NOT feeling sorry for any of these people. There are plenty of jobs out there if you're truly looking to "work".

I agree with most of the sentiments of NS1958 (8/11 @ 10:26 PM). -- see my comment of 8/12 9:36 AM.

But I do also agree with Lynne's 8/12 9:27 AM comment.....there are many "help wanted" signs out there in the burg and surrounding communities. no type of work should be too demeaning if you don't have a job. On the other hand, if these jobs are in communities that lack public transportation access, it is hard for people to get to the jobs / to get to them for the required work hours.

Lynn did you go to Michigan where there isn't even jobs in McDonalds to be had. Not all states are suffering but many states are. Tennessee is one of the worse states for Unemployment. It took my son 2 years to find a job coming out of the military to find a job and he had a degree. You might be able to support your family off minimum wage, no benefits but most can't.

Proud American you are so right but these obama supports would tell you that you are incorrect. One of my employees moved her mom into her home because her mom couldn't live off of Social Security and her husband pension stopped because he passed away. She is 75 years old and trying to get a job so that she can get her own place again. I feel bad for the seniors that are going to have to pay for their own medical treatments under obamacare because they will be told they are to old for surgery, to get cancer treatments and will only be given prescription drugs to ease the pain.

you can thank obama for dropping what Bill Clinton put into law that you have to be in some sort of training or looking for work to get welfare, which saved our country billions of dollars. Now under obamacare you don't have to be doing anything, just go get your welfare check, go back to spending billions to put more people on welfare just so obama can get votes. Real good job there obumma.

False. Not true. Based on a lie perpetuated by a recent Romney Campaign ad.

Let's see what Bill has to say about his own Welfare Reform law and what is actually going on.

"The recently announced waiver policy was originally requested by the Republican governors of Utah and Nevada to achieve more flexibility in designing programs more likely to work in this challenging environment," Mr. Clinton added. The Administration has taken important steps to ensure that the work requirement is retained and that waivers will be granted only if a state can demonstrate that more people will be moved into work under its new approach."

"The Romney ad is especially disappointing because, as governor of Massachusetts, he requested changes in the welfare reform laws that could have eliminated time limits altogether," the former president said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57488887-503544/bill-clinton-denounces-romney-welfare-criticism/

but obamacare is suppose to save tax payers millions on health care that they won't have to pay for but the rich will be paying for it. The voucher system will allow seniors to shop around for healthcare and they won't have to worry about what medicare is going to pay. Seniors have to carry supplemental insurance now because medicare doesn't pay for much.

How about the disaster known as Obama? These 2 cannot do any worse than the second coming of Jimmy Carter.

Idiots, that's pretty funny considering we have a community organizer running the country. But, the great American community organizer experiment will soon come to an end. I look forward to watching Obama leave the White House with his telepromper in tow.

It's just dumb when people talk about Obama and his teleprompter as if using a teleprompter is something only he has ever done. EVERY politician uses a teleprompter. The ones who can't speak without a teleprompter because they're too stupid to memorize their own policies write on their hands, like the last polarizing Republican VP pick, Sarah Palin.

obama is worse than Jimmy Carter

I totally agree Jim, we have the two idiots in office now and they definitely don't need to be re-elected for another 4 years. Romney/Ryan is the best choice for President and Vice President. They will have 4 years to clean up the messes that obama made.

Yes, Red every politician does use a teleprompter, but none have used it to the extent of Obama. The man couldn't order from a McDonald's menu without his teleprompter. So, I'll say it again, I can't wait till I see him leaving the White House with his teleprompter in tow.

Isabella - how do you know that? Sounds like an opinion, not a fact.

You know Red, if you were smart, you would have given Obama a compliment for using the teleprompter so much instead of your lame response. It's not an opinion, everyone, but you apparently, knows that Obama uses the teleprompter far more than another other president. And there's a reason for it that is quite complimentary to Obama. But I'm not going to tell you what it is.

Amen I agree with you 100%.

obama not a citizen of the US. obama did college as a foreign exchange student. obama never created more than 322,000 jobs. obama keeps on wasting trillions on tax payers money. obama creates obamacare that will end up costing tax payers thousands to have healthcare that they say they can't afford now but wait, you won't be able to afford it later either.

cc - interesting how you replied to a logical, well-reasoned list of issues with an inarticulate rant. Why not try to make sense, or is that just too hard for you?

Red why is the great obama hiding everything about college, his true birth certificate and everything about him. Why because he came here to the US as a foreign exchange student from Kenya.

I rest my case.

@Martin – You’ve obviously never seen Ryan’s public speaking/debating capabilities. I look forward to Ryan debating the human gaffe machine known as Biden.

Ryan will probably defeat Biden in a VP debate as far as the American people are concerned (those who are not always concerned with the information presented but more with the style in which it is presented). Considering 1/3 of Americans do not know who our current VP is, and Ryan is not running for President (nor is his budget policy), the real attention and fun will be on the presidential debates.

Biden as a human gaffe machine is 2nd to only one highly publicized politician and his name begins with an R and rhymes with Bomney. ;)

I cannot wait until October!!!!!

@Erin – You’re showing your true colors. That’s OK though, we always knew where you stood.

You’ve obviously not spent much time watching/listening to Ryan if you think he’s style over information. Most of his opponents in the House even agree he’s an intelligent, well-spoken advocate of his ideas and has the ability to clearly communicate complex budgetary issues in a way most can understand. I will agree with you he’s a better communicator than Romney. Though I’ll disagree Romney’s reached Biden’s legendary status, but it may just be that he hasn’t been in the public eye quite as long as Biden.

If you’re looking for style over substance, that’s clearly Obama. Just wait for a teleprompter malfunction and his charm quickly fades. He becomes a stuttering mess who searches for the most basic words and claims that people didn’t build their own businesses. I do agree the Presidential debates will be entertaining to watch.

And the personal attacks and pointless slander have started which means that I bow out of the conversation before it is reduced to Batman villain impersonations and belittling name calling.

What is this position that I am always accused of being so covert about? Do you want to know who I am going to vote for? Why don't you just ask?

Right now it is looking like I am voting for Obama though I am considering the option of a protest vote. My issues with Obama mostly have to do with foreign policy. I am extremely skeptical of Romney's ability as president of this country.

I am known to watch hours of CSPAN at a time. Did you know that they also broadcast England's House of Commons sessions? They are hilarious. The English are way more clever on their feet than we are. Needless to say, I have probably listened to Ryan speak more than President Obama. Ryan is featured on CSPAN much more often.

You know I am watching Biden speak right now on CSPAN, and I am not discounting his ability to come out on top over Ryan. My money might still be on Ryan, but I see why he was chosen. Biden reminds of George W. Charming, non-threatening, a regular joe. :) I don't know...He definitely has the ability to out appeal Ryan.

@Erin – I couldn’t care less who you vote for and I would never ask. Nothing I posted was a personal attack or slander against you. I’m not name calling and I’m not belittling your beliefs. What I am saying it’s obvious you lean to the left. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with leaning/stumbling/sliding or freefalling to the left – or the right for that matter. There are some here – myself included – who would prefer you own it. Not that you care, but I would respect it.

You say you’ve listened to Ryan far more than Obama and yet you say that “Ryan will probably defeat Biden in a VP debate as far as the American people are concerned (those who are not always concerned with the information presented but more with the style in which it is presented).” By saying this you’re saying that Ryan relies on style over substance. While this is your opinion, it flies in the face of conventional thought. So be it, we’re all entitled to our opinion.

I’m sure you’re known for watching C-SPAN. I also like to watch “Prime Minister’s Questions.” I would love to watch Pelosi or Boehner face that kind of test.

Man, this entire sub-thread does not matter at all, and I got sucked into arguing over nothing.

I see you’ve deleted your comment and that’s probably a good thing. You need to grow a thicker skin if you want to be a writer. Accusing people who use humor to disagree with you of name calling, personal attacks and slander demonstrates a thinner skin than someone aspiring to be an opinion writer should possess.

Why should you care what I say? Because I’m the “peanut gallery” and the writer of blogs needs the “peanut gallery” to exist. I can agree with you and defend your position, or I can disagree and force you and others to defend your position. I make what you write interesting. My comments drive people to read and comment about what you write. Without me, you’re posts would go without notice and you’d fade into oblivion.

So, if you want to be one of those sad little writers that post “how’s the soup” stories that no one reads or comments on, or if you want to be one who takes every disagreement so personally that it causes you to alienate readers, be my guest.

If you’d rather make a splash and get others to think, toughen up.

Hey, Outraged, get over yourself. Erin Conners is by far the most articulate and thoughtful writer on this thread.

You ASSUME her comment about 'personal attacks and pointless slander' refer to YOU. My own thinking is that she's probably just disgusted at the 4th grade level of 'did so!' 'did not!' 'did too!' garbage and repeated fauxbrications spewed above by our own CC, the lowest common denominator on just about every topic on this Patch website.

It comes across that you perceive Erin as the brightest writer here--I'll grant you that much intelligence--so you, like so many men with the short-guy complex, set yourself to the task of trying to tear her down to make yourself look taller.

Sorry, dude: it's not working.

@np – You bring up some interesting points. I’m sure Erin wasn’t specifically referring to just me in her rant on how people who disagree with her are committing slander et al. While I don’t always agree with Erin I do find her to be a superior researcher that always brings interesting outside perspectives to discussions. I think she would make a brilliant staff assistance for some legislator.

Having said that, Erin brings very little original thought to her posts and basically just attempts to re-explain the views of those she cites. That’s fine, just not really a “writer.”Whether this makes her “the brightest writer here” I’ll leave to you. It would be difficult for me to say she’s not given what I’ve read from other Patch staff.

Finally, given the fact you felt it necessary to respond to me multiple times, it kind of proves my point.

Shorty out!

I just have to laugh at the democrats boohooing about companies that make money. It is these companies that keep AMERICANS working, hire more employees. I thank the Republican party that has helped me succeed, not the democrats. I know my company will never be a big corporation in America but if I can keep 58 people working full time pay 3/4 of their medical and then do profit sharing i'm doing great. I know when I start paying over 40 hours of overtime it is time to hire a new employee thanks to the Republicans. Under obama and his obamacare I will now be cutting into profits that are shared with my employees because i'm going to have to pay more in taxes to take care of obama entitlement and obamacare. I employ both democrats and republicans and this had been discussed many of time how when taxes goes up under obama and obamacare it will cut into our profit sharing. We need obama gone in November before he can do any more destruction to the United States. Go Romney/Ryan

Louisa I agree and Obama Cuts "Work" in Clinton's Work to Welfare Law, which saved the United States Billions. People that never worked a day in their life were now working instead of milking the system but thanks to obama we will be back to millions of people milking the system again instead of working. Another ploy for obama to get votes.

False. Obama did not cut the work requirements in the Clinton welfare law. That rumor is based on a lie perpetuated by a recent Romney Campaign ad. It takes five minutes to look this stuff up.

Let's see what Bill has to say about his own Welfare Reform law and what is actually going on.

"The recently announced waiver policy was originally requested by the Republican governors of Utah and Nevada to achieve more flexibility in designing programs more likely to work in this challenging environment," Mr. Clinton added. The Administration has taken important steps to ensure that the work requirement is retained and that waivers will be granted only if a state can demonstrate that more people will be moved into work under its new approach."

"The Romney ad is especially disappointing because, as governor of Massachusetts, he requested changes in the welfare reform laws that could have eliminated time limits altogether," the former president said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57488887-503544/bill-clinton-denounces-romney-welfare-criticism/

CC: If there was an IQ test required for voters instead of an ID, you would not be eligible.

Yes red i know if there was an iq test given out all you democrats would fail big time because you listen to lying obummer

Obama kills welfare reform
"Determined to destroy Bill Clinton’s signature achievement, President Obama’s administration has opened a loophole in the 1996 welfare reform legislation big enough to make the law ineffective. Its work requirement — the central feature of the legislation — has been diluted beyond recognition by the bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). "
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/dick-morris/238501-obama-kills-welfare-reform

The Hill CC? come on now. Obama gave the States back their power through the option of a waiver (that still has requirements that must be met) as requested by two republican candidates. Bill Clinton himself has announced that Obama is doing nothing of the sort. It was Bill's law.

Quotes from your Hill article:
"Its new regulations allow the states to substitute education programs for work to get welfare benefits. "

STATES! Reduce federal control and allow states to make the decisions that Republican lead states have asked to be able to make. is this not the cornerstone of GOP policy?

Also the numbers presented in that article do not identify the payments that they are speaking of. They could very well include student loan payments/government student grants. My suspicion increases as I consider the increase of college bound students that has risen sharply since the 1980s.

This article is garbage.

And my article does not quote "Obummer." My article quotes Clinton...The last president to have a balanced budget...the guy who signed the work requirement into law. Your article quotes a guy who wrote a book called "Outrage, Fleeced, 
Catastrophe and 2010: Take Back America — A Battle Plan." - Possibly the worst book title ever btw.

Erin that is your opinion.

*as requested by two Republican governors (not candidates)

http://nation.foxnews.com/welfare-reform/2012/07/18/morris-obama-kills-welfare-reform Morris: Obama Kills Welfare Reform "Determined to destroy Bill Clinton’s signature achievement, President Obama’s administration has opened a loophole in the 1996 welfare reform legislation big enough to make the law ineffective. Its work requirement — the central feature of the legislation — has been diluted beyond recognition by the bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)"

There are so many articles out there on obummer destroying welfare but yet you listen to the lies of the dummocrats.

CC that is the same exact article that you posted from the Hill, except this link shows the same exact article posted as a Fox News blog.

I am not offering you opinions here. Well, except maybe with the "this article is garbage" statement.

I am giving you facts and quotes from the original author of the welfare law, that you only address with one blog posted by a man that wrote this book "Outrage, Fleeced, 
Catastrophe and 2010: Take Back America — A Battle Plan."

Can we just stick to actual information and leave out the really poorly designed insults?

I think we all know, as rational human beings, that all democrats are not "dumm" and that Obama is the farthest thing from a "bumm." Or maybe you mean that he is a "bummer" in which case I just don't get it.

So no silly insults, okay? My only goal in participating in these comment threads is to inject factual information and get perspective and leads for my own research. when I see these really stupid insults I get distracted from my purpose. They are like my own serpent manufactured apple tempting me from my higher purpose, and since I am but a woman, I am easily induced to bite. So go easy on me CC!

Erin since you are trying to be accurate, you may remember that the Republicans actually wrote the welfare law, and Clinton vetoed it the first two times around. Clinton was not the author.

Great Sue T. To quote myself I said "Clinton..the guy who _signed_ the work requirement into law."

I am a registered Republican, always have been, but I also try to inform myself across party lines to pick the best candidate for my country and region and not just be a knee jerk Republican. Nothing burns me up more than Republicans who quote obviously biased sources (or Democrats who do the same) or believe nonsense like Obama is from Kenya, that he's a Muslim, a Nazi, a socialist, whatever the insult du jour it. Be smart, oppose his reelection because of substantive policy or social positions and articulate that opposition. Otherwise, you just make all Republicans look ignorant and uninformed. CC, your nonsensical links to Dick Morris's column are a good example of this.

As for Romney, I haven't decided if I'm going to vote for him or not. Given my choices I may just stay home. Rick Santorum exaggerated when he said Romney was the worst Republican we could nominate (Santorum would have been worse, he's so out of touch), but Romney's pretty bad. This is an election we need to just write off and look toward 2016.

Oh wait. I did say "author" on another comment. Well, author in the sense that it would not have existed if it were not signed into law. And clinton and Gingrich worked on revisions for this until it was passable as far as Clinton was concerned, who also edited with his vetoes. So "co-author" would be accurate.

amen Red. I feel a very similar way. I am a registered Democrat, but Obama has really let me down as far as foreign policy is concerned. And as far as the PPACA, I have a ton of research to do yet, but Romney has offered me nothing as opposition.

During the primaries I could not help but consider that the Republican party actually has no intention of winning this election. After all, when we have one party as Executive the Legislative branch ends up becoming the opposition. This is nothing that I would ever actually write about or attempt to defend, but I can't help but wonder.

@Erin. The Repubilican committee wrote the original bill, and yes Gingrich and Clinton negotiated the final bill. A lesson Obama could learn from Clinton. How to actually work with the other party.

Thanks for the confirmation Sue. That is certainly a lesson that our entire congress could learn.

Where you agree with the change Obama made to the Welfare Law or not, the real issue is that he made the change. The law was specifically written so that section could not be changed without an ammendment by Congress. It appears to me that Obama has over stepped his authority. And that concerns me more than anything.

Because he did not get rid of work requirements. State governments requested that he offer a waiver so that they could individually tailor their work requirements to the needs of their constituents, giving power back to the states, but with conditions and on an experimental basis only. This is a response to different requests made by multiple republican governors, including governor romney. In this situation, the state is closer to the needs of the people and probably should have more freedom when it comes to welfare work requirements. Just making that government smaller when the situation calls for it. So is this the dangerous precedent that the Obama is setting? Retraction of the federal government in welfare control and power given back to the states? Maybe we should be worried. Once again this is just an experiment to continue improving welfare. You guys call for welfare reform, or the complete destruction of welfare. Do you think that the changes that you want are not going to contradict laws in place? So when you say that you want reform/gutting, what you really mean is you want nothing to change and everything to exist by the current standards? Like Jefferson, I prefer a fluid government that changes and responds to the needs of its people/states. I posted a million articles explaining this below. Take it or leave it.

I think we can all agree that during an election year, mountains are made of mole hills on all sides.

When laws actually get changed, and data is in from these experiments with increased state power over work requirements, I am sure we will see a lengthy debate in congress and everyone will fight throwing nonsense accusations at each other and nothing will get done. Will you then be satisfied?

Red Jackson, yer killin' me! You are by far my favorite Republican in recent memory! Good on you for calling out the nitwits that make your party look so bad!

I'm a Dem but I had a lot of respect for Jon Huntsman. Shame the moron 'R' contingent assured his ride into oblivion. Certainly I didn't agree with him on everything, but I respected him.

The moment that could finally shake up a close race could come in the three debates Obama and Romney hold in October.
The president said Romney could run into trouble because of arguments that are not backed up by facts, citing a widely debunked television ad campaign in which Romney accuses Obama of gutting the work requirement in the federal welfare law.
"It will be a little tougher to defend face-to-face," Obama said.
By BEN FELLER
http://twitter.com/BenFellerDC

all of obama's plans add trillions to the national debt

Red again your wrong, I didn't say that the Republicans were adding to the National Debt, I said obama loves to spend trillions and trillions and thinks nothing of it. I know my Business did better under Bush then obama. Eight companies that I worked with under the obama administration went out of business and put about 800-1000 people out of work. Under obama our profit sharing went down but was up with Bush was President.

Well let's see...

'On January 20th, 2009, Barack H. Obama was
sworn in as the 44th President of the United States of America ...'

And on January 21st, 2009 everything went all to hell, right CC?

Oh, wait. Didn't I hear something about the U.S. economy having collapsed or something a few months prior to that? Hmmmmmmmmm. That Obama, he's some magical powerful dude! Collapsed the economy before he even won the election!

And eight companies that you worked with went out of business around January 21st, 2009, right? And that magical powerful Obama put all those 800-1000 people out of work, too, huh?

He brought on the drought this summer, too, right? And he did nothing to help the farmers before going on recess, right? Oh wait! I think that was the ever-so-helpful House of Representatives (including Rep. Paul Ryan) turning out the lights and leaving Capitol HIll while the farmers were left standing out there in the dust saying "What the hell? Don't you legislators see us here desperate for emergency help? Like, RIGHT NOW!"

Oh, yeah, all the House of Representatives had time for was passing HOW MANY ITERATIONS of Repeal Obamacare????????

no chef chuck kerber i did't agree, i said obama plan adds trillions to the national debt so where does it say I agreed????? I think not.

CC - I'm glad you agree that both parties just make the national debt worse.

True story Red. Presidential campaigns tend to make everything worse. both parties throw out hate filled campaign ads and everyone gets all fired up thinking the other party is going to end the world. We really need to stop this "democrats do this" and "republicans do that" and just depolarize our congress...or we can just be comfortable where we are at and shut the heck up about it.

It was kind of nice to see Biden start off yesterday's Virginia rally by saying repeatedly that he respected Ryan and Romney and that they were intelligent guys, but they had different political viewpoints. I don't know what OC is talking about with the chains comment. I really don't see why anyone would get riled up about that at all (and I am known to get riled up over any and all politically incorrect/insensitive statements), but that is a really pointless conversation anyways that I am trying hard not to get sucked into.

We need some integrity back in American politics which is never going to happen if constituents don't pave the way first. If we salivate over every salacious piece of political propaganda, we are only going to continue getting what we are asking for.

I say "kind of" pointedly because the hyperbole began shortly after those statements. :)

Sorry John, the republicans do not have the majority in the Senate, that's why no one mentions it. The democrates have the majority in the Senate and the Republicans in the House. Thanks to the 2010 elections, the voters took away the super majority Obama had the first two years. Miracles do happen. He's a question, why doesn't the Sentate take a vote on the bills the House has passed? Why didn't any democrate vote yes for Obama's budget? He couldn't even get one person from his own party to vote yes for his budget. The fact that not one person voted yes for his budget speaks volumes.

John, neither Ryan's or Romney's plans (and they have two different plans by the way) impact anyone over 55 or currently on Medicare. Also, the Democrats have the majority in the Senate. The Democrats controled both houses for the first two years of the Obama administration. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but should base those opinions on facts.

Isabella, you touched on one of my sour points. The fact that the Senate (or house in the reverse case) doesn't vote on a bill passed by the other house unless the majority party supports and has the votes to pass the bill. I would like to see every bill debated,ammended/revised, and voted on so we can each see where are representatives stand on the issues.

Sue T. you did a fantastic job clarifying that

Sue T, I agree; however, I don't know if that would be possbile due to time constraints. Think about it, there are a lot of bills that are passed by either the Senate or House that aren't brought up on the other side. I agree they should because I think some politicians will vote the opposite of what they would knowing the bill will never get voted on by the other side.

obama is doing a great job of destroying our country now and I can't even stomach to hear him talk anymore. No take that back when his teleprompter goes down he is so clueless it is like watching a comedy show.
Maybe why they don't want to work with obama is how he handles himself, he demands and I wouldn't work with him either. obama hasn't done anything except bail out banks and auto and he should of left them go bankrupt, would of saved us tax payers trillions. obamacare is a joke that 60% of the American People don't want. obama doesn't give in on anything all he does is demand. What about his promise to bring our men and women home within the first few years, we are almost at the end of him being in office and he sent people into another Country. I hope all the Republicans in the House don't cave into anything he wants. He is as useless as Carter was. I am hoping that the Senate majority switches over to Republican if he gets back in office.

Fox News
Former GOP aide Haskins said the Obama administration was wrong to roll out its waiver plan without first getting the advice and consent of congressional Republicans. But he added, "There is merit to what the administration is proposing, and I don't see how you can get to the conclusion that the waiver provision undermines welfare reform and it eliminates the work requirement."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/08/obama-welfare-waiver-gutting-rules-or-tweaking/#ixzz23dIsv4N5

The Obama campaign countered by citing a waiver request Romney made to Congress in 2005, as governor of Massachusetts, that it said was even more lenient on welfare work mandates.

http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/08/07/romney-accuses-obama-waiving-welfare-work-requirements/aCx5F3hPGNdjYxTeRlcq7M/story.html

Politifact- Pants on Fire rating

Romney’s ad says, "Under Obama’s plan (for welfare), you wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check."

That's a drastic distortion of the planned changes to Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. By granting waivers to states, the Obama administration is seeking to make welfare-to-work efforts more successful, not end them. What’s more, the waivers would apply to individually evaluated pilot programs -- HHS is not proposing a blanket, national change to welfare law.

The ad tries to connect the dots to reach this zinger: "They just send you your welfare check." The HHS memo in no way advocates that practice. In fact, it says the new policy is "designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families."

The ad’s claim is not accurate, and it inflames old resentments about able-bodied adults sitting around collecting public assistance. Pants on Fire!

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/07/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obamas-plan-abandons-tenet/

FactCheck.org

Romney’s ad also distorts the facts when it says that under President Obama’s plan “you wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job.” The law never required all welfare recipients to work. Only 29 percent of those receiving cash assistance met the work requirement by the time President Obama took office.

Under the new policy, states can now seek a federal waiver from work-participation rules that, among other things, require welfare recipients to engage in one of 12 specific “work activities,” such as job training. But, in exchange, states must develop a plan that would provide a “more efficient or effective means to promote employment,” which may or may not include some or all of the same work activities. States also must submit an “evaluation plan” that includes “performance measures” that must be met — or the waiver could be revoked.

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

Here is a blogger on Breit Bart's website. The opposition is pretty well limited to bloggers because the only opposition is based on speculation for the future and a warped perception of the present, ie: not fact.

"n other words, the whole work program. Sebelius’s HHS bureaucracy declared the existing TANF law a blank slate on which it can write any policy it chooses _twisted perception of the present_. Because HHS granted itself total authority to change any aspect of the work standards, the agency will not be bound by its state-by-state waiver approach in the future_twisted speculation for the future_."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/09/obama-welfare-waiver-gutting-rules-or-tweaking

The doomsday precedent argument is always fun, but exists only because there are no facts to support an argument/accusation.

What is really funny is the "big government" phrase in the link. States requested the ability for a waiver to experiment with other employment programs and Federal government gave it to them. Big government is actually releasing some of its power and giving it back to the states. i always find it interesting when people are so conditional about their calls for "smaller government." These people almost always mean "smaller government" or "bigger government" when it suits their interests.

Erin, instead of reading a series of articles, I suggest you read the ‘‘Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act itself’. Section 407 provides a specific itemized list of what activities are considered work.It also provides excemptions for individuals that do not need to "work" such as single mothers under 20 yrs of age. If you go to the waivers section of the act, it specifically states that any waiver granted to a State will not affect the applicability of Sectio 407. In other words, only Congress has the right to change or grant a waiver to Section 407, the definition of "work". I'm all for limiting Federal power and granting more decision making to the States; however, Congress put a pretty clear restraint in this Act only giving that power the Congress, not the Sec of HHS or the President. I actually agree that in a time of high unemployment the waivers Obama made make some sense, I just don't agree he had the authority to make those waivers. Here is tha Act by the way. I find the actual law more reliable then articles out there in cyber world.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/legislation/pdfs/pl_104-193.pdf

Erin,here's the law. If the link doesn't work, just copy - paste it into your browser.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ193/html/PLAW-104publ193.htm

Read. I had trouble finding the work requirements and thought you were pulling a fast one on me, but I did find them. Bottom line: We are not policy analysts (yet) or lawyers (I assume that you are not a government/constitutional law lawyer, but I could be wrong, and if you are that is awesome and I could use your input), so we unfortunately must rely on people who do this crap for a living. I think it is safe to say that your interpretation is based on what you have read outside of that law as you didnt include the relevant HHS doc.

Lets look at the HHS memo that started all of this:

"While the TANF work participation requirements are contained in section 407, section 402(a)(1)(A)(iii) requires that the state plan “[e]nsure that parents and caretakers receiving assistance under the program engage in work activities in accordance with section 407.” Thus, HHS has authority to waive compliance with this 402 requirement and authorize a state to test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407, including definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates. As described below, however, HHS will only consider approving waivers _relating to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals of TANF_."

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/policy/im-ofa/2012/im201203/im201203.html

Ignore that "read" word starting my comment. Just a typo. I am not authoritatively commanding you to read my comment. ha!

The former sentence is not equal to the latter and is therefore not an "in other words" situation. You also failed to mention 402. But this is why we are not lawyers (yet) and must rely on the experts to do a little interpreting for us when necessary. :)

" If you go to the waivers section of the act, it specifically states that any waiver granted to a State will not affect the applicability of Sectio 407. In other words, only Congress has the right to change or grant a waiver to Section 407, the definition of "work"."

Bingo!

Outraged Citizen your are so correct.

@Big Red – What I find interesting is the Administration believes it needs to conjure up imagines of slavery to an audience with a noted number of African-Americans in attendance all the while using a fake Southern twang to scare people about banking regulations.

What I also find interesting is that as a caring and compassionate fella, you’re not in the least bit insulted by the second highest office holder in the land utilizing such race-based tactics in an election. After all Big Red, aren’t you the same fella that posted, “Nothing burns me up more than Republicans who quote obviously biased sources (or Democrats who do the same) or believe nonsense like Obama is from Kenya, that he's a Muslim, a Nazi, a socialist, whatever the insult du jour it.” I guess unless that “insult du jour” is the sitting Vice President telling a group of African-Americans that Romney is going to “put y’all back in chains.” Yep, nothing to see here, keep ‘em moving.

Finally, do I want to see banks defraud their customers? Absolutely not Big Red, that would be terrible.

If you don't want to see back defraud their customers, I suggest you not vote for Romney.

A group of African Americans? The group was about 50/50 based on observation. I am sure that his comment had nothing to do with the continued metaphor used by Romney involving the words "unshackling the economy." He said "you all" not "y'all."

Here is the mole hill. Enjoy your hyperbolic mountain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1PVOIqQAns

@Big Red – Skipping right over the righteous indignation you heap on Republicans but can’t find it in your kind heart to condemn the sitting Vice President? Oh well, to be expected.

@Erin – I didn’t think I’d see you engage in this discussion about nothing, welcome aboard!

The “audience” was about 50/50 based on observations. Within the “audience” there was a sizable “group” of African-Americans. Are you even trying anymore?

I invite everyone to listen to the video you so graciously provided. Not only is it clear he said “y’all,” he did his best Southern Baptist preacher in his pronunciation of “unchained.” Perhaps he learned this when his “father marched with Dr. King.” I don’t blame you for not recognizing the subtlety; you’ve spent “over 20 years” of your short life in Cranberry. That’s not exactly a hotbed for gaining a robust worldview or experience.

My righteous indignation is not wasted on anything anyone says, such as Romney saying he likes to fire people (taken out of context) or Obama rightfully pointing out that it takes a community to build and maintain a successful business. Trying to interpret people's words to mean what you want them to mean is too easy and is just a silly waste of time and effort. I save my righteous indignation for actions, and the actions of those who supported deregulation for banks and big business sent our economy into a nose dive and will ruin both our economy and the environment going forward.

Biden is a joke. I'm surprised that the NAACP, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson wasn't all over him for that remark.

Careful, Outraged. I can see that short-man complex coming out again. Seems that Erin really brings that out of you. Tsk tsk tsk.

Pssssst -- Tearing her down doesn't make you any taller.

I don't want you to "give." I always appreciate direction towards sources. I am going to continue to maintain that it is absolutely okay to use outside sources, fact checking sites, and the expertise of others when attempting to determine the legality of 100+ page legislation full of language that we are not accustomed to. There is no reason for this aggression.

I am also going to maintain that Romney's ads are lies (this is not to say that Obama does not have deceitful ads as well). Obama has not cut work requirements, and I don't believe a waiver experiment meant to give state's more power is outside of their authority (according the HHS memo that started all of this). Let's wait and see if it sticks and changes to the law are required. Have you seen the waivers? Sec 407 is pretty loose about the general work/school requirements. The time chart is more specific. Do we actually know how these waivers are violating these requirements or if they are at all? We have no idea of the extent of flexibility states are requesting.

I feel it is best (I do not always succeed) remain placid when it comes these politicized scandals _especially_ during a campaign season. If we did not always bite every time we were fed hateful, embellished nonsense, they would not feed it to us. Consider that it is not congress that is the problem, but that congress is the product of their constituents. It is time that we expect better of ourselves regardless of political party.

All of obama's ads are deceitful and he wouldn't know what the truth was if it was staring him right in the face.I cringe when I see any of his commercials.

Then I hope you cringe equally for the Romney ads. Maybe it is time constituents demand better? How do you this? Stop believing everything we see in these ads that we all admit to knowing are deceitful, hyperbolic nonsense. Instead of parroting information that we know is intended to manipulate us, we ignore it and go to better sources. Done. You and I and everyone else in this country is responsible for every horrid piece of garbage that comes out of both the republican and democrat political candidates. If we are getting bad information from people that we know are deceiving us or playing on our emotions for a vote, then we look elsewhere towards the most credible, pragmatic (and probably much more boring) sources that we can find.

If we stop acting and feeding off of the stupid and hateful, then they will stop shoveling stupid and hateful our way.

how many billions has obama stolen from medicare and spent elsewhere. there won't be money left in medicare if he is re elected. obama got to go.

Here is a very good, nonpartisan article explaining federal spending. It is a fact that federal spending under Obama was much less than previous presidents. This is not to completely credit Obama with lower spending, or even advocate the lower spending; it is just a fact.

"Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s."

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

Please remember that both parties are trying to demonize the opposition. A budget for federal spending is already set by the previous president for the first year of a new presidential term. The article above explains this very well without a political leaning.

Erin the writer of that article is a left wing liberal here are the figure from the budget office.
Until Barack Obama took office in 2009, the United States had never spent more than 23.5% of GDP, with the exception of the World War II years of 1942-1946. Here’s the Obama spending record:

• 25.2% of GDP in 2009
• 24.1% of GDP in 2010
• 24.1% of GDP in 2011
• 24.3% (estimates by the White House ) in 2012

What’s more, if Obama wins another term, spending—according to his own budget—would never drop below 22.3% of GDP. If that forecast is right, average spending during Obama’s eight years in office would average 23.6% of GDP. That’s higher than any single previous non-war year.
Mr Nutting used smoke and mirrors in writing his article.

It is not smoke and mirrors. It is putting spending in a non-partisan perspective.

Federal spending _always_ increases. It is a joke to consider that Obama, Bush, or Romney have any intention of actually decreasing spending. This has never happened. All nutting is pointing out is that Bush's spending increased by so much during his two terms, that in comparison, Obama's increase by percentage is much smaller. He is just talking about the percentage increase in spending. He says exactly that, and he does not need smoke and mirrors.

Nutting is accused of being a liberal by people like Breitbart and Limbaugh. Known right wing nuts. Even CC quickly proclaimed that he/she does not listen to Rush.

I know that spending is increasing. I am not denying this and neither is Nutting. The article certainly does not champion Obama as he says that congress stopped what would have certainly been more, and we know that Congress holds the purse strings.

The real point is that this is not a right vs left issue. It is incorrect to say that Obama is spending like crazy in comparison with previous presidents. If history is any judge and with total GDP no longer growing, the percentage will always increase.

The question is not "who will spend less?" The real question that people are either unwilling to admit or just do not realize is "what do we want more money spent on?" We have a real problem that involves the FED and printing of money which increases inflation.

Honestly, I don't know what the solution is, but spending greatly increased during each term of Bush, increased by a much smaller percentage with Obama, and will continue to increase with either Obama or Romney in the next presidential term.

I happen to think the main problem is our more than excessive military spending and faux foreign aid that keeps the FED printing money, inflation increasing at rates that we cannot keep up with while those who have always profited from the "military" spending spout fear mongering nonsense and combat any idea of an actual international fair trade and continue to get richer. And we all yell at the opposing political party about ridiculous garbage, spewing ridiculous nonsense because that is what we are supposed to do because we are too dumb to do otherwise.

Not the most eloquent phrasing ever, but I am in a hurry.

If people actually cared about spending, there would be a prominent third party candidate with a chance of winning. As long as we bicker against each other for the sake of our chosen party, spending will increase.

They didn't rush it though this election is the point. People had over 8 months to get a Photo ID.

Margaret if you go to the Drivers Center in Downtown Pittsburgh, Washington PA and Bridgeville you can secure a license the same day. I had my wallet stolen out of my purse, came home got my birth certificate and a piece of mail and took it to the driver center, paid 10 for a copy of my license and was out the door with a brand new drivers license.

ml -AAA they only do photo's there which follows the hour of the business and you can't take a drivers test there. Margaret lives close to Caste Village so why should she drive out to Pleasant Hills when she can go to Jack Magg's in Caste Village,. Department of Transportation Drivers Centers open at 8:30 in the morning. Like Isabella told you don't get your panties so ruffled, as your not right at all.

Well if you lose your license and want a replacement that day you go to a PA Drivers Center and not a photo place or AAA. AAA can only send in for a dup license for you and then you have to wait a few weeks to get a duplicate copy of your license sent in the mail. But then ignorance is bliss ml like you.

poor ml, bragged about how much money she had on a feed a few months back and now complaining about gas. just have to laugh at all the stupid stuff that comes out of ones mouth.

proud American, i still haven't seen one thing obummer has done good for the good of the USA and that is why they harp on Romney. Hope and Change is about taking more from the rich and giving to the poor, fits in with obummers entitlement.

ML what planet are you on ,
1. The economy is growing the only thing I see growing is the price of gas, groceries, clothes, medicines, etc.
2. Obama didn't bail out GM the tax payers did.
3. Here comes the old how could Romney be a successful business man and make money we all have to be middle class in this country according to Obama. Never been hired by a poor man.
4. And when all else fails blame Bush
5. Obama doesn't even have a work record that he can produce
Romney and Ryan 2012

It is better for small business to drop their employees down 49 and pay the tax. Would actually save a small business a ton of money the pay for health care for their employees. Many of companies are doing this now, laying off so they don't have to buy obummercare and will pay the tax.

What a great article. Thanks for the refreshing dose of reality in these crazy, cutthroat threads.

It is a great “tongue-in-cheek” article regarding political discourse. I would also agree we should take away something from it as it relates to this thread if that was the thread’s purpose. The purpose of comments on the Patch is not to elevate the discussion to create some sort of virtual “saloon.” It would be far more productive for those here who believe this to be the purpose to change the format and invite opposing points of view to respond to issues with the understanding that the context is pseudo-academic.

People who come here know they’re coming here for battle with those they oppose. We like to “mix it up” with opponents and to drive our points home. We like to point out hypocrisy while ignoring our own. We enjoy serving as political hacks for our preferred candidate/causes while despising it in opponents. Almost no one is here to change the minds of others. We’re here to be “right” and to point out how the other side is “wrong.”

Those at the Patch would be disingenuous if they stated they preferred otherwise. How many “articles” do we really need about Penn State, Obamacare, Paul Ryan and Voter ID? The only reason for these retreads is to “fire-up” the same old discussions, garner hundreds of responses and watch the participants go at it once again.

I fully expect “righteous” indignation to follow, proving the point.

@Outraged... I'd prefer our readers comment on stories like the one on Moon and CV patches about the Scott Township World War II veteran being honored for his service. But that didn't happen. That story received a combined two comments thanking Mr. Howe for his service. Care to explain why that might be the case while this thread has nearly 300? It's typical to blame the media for the way things are rather than looking inward.

@Mike Jones – Thank you for leading readers to the story about the WW II vet.

In my previous post, you will notice I discuss the nature of comment pages. You could scour the internet and easily come to the conclusion that by in large, my observations are fairly accurate. You’ll also notice that I take full responsibility for why I post here on the Patch. I enjoy the vigorous debate with those I happen to disagree with either politically or philosophically. I enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy I see here, especially from those who through either deliberate or self-deceit believe themselves far more intelligent than others who also happen to be “above the fray.” Does this mean I include myself, you betcha! I’m as guilty as I charge. Am I alone in this, observations say no.

I don’t blame the media Mike; you just give us the stage. I mention the Patch, not to call you out as atypical, but to say you’re just like everyone else. Honestly Mike, how many “articles” do we really need about Penn State, Obamacare, Paul Ryan and Voter ID? All one has to do is read these “articles” to realize there is no real material difference between them. These retreads give us the opportunity to sound off once again.

@Outraged... The only exception I take to your comment is that we're like everyone else. We're not. Look at all 13 Patches in Western Pennsylvania. Each has a local story in the top slot and numerous unique enterprise stories below that. These posts about Obamacare, Voter ID, Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney's taxes all have been washed off the main pages long ago and replaced with stories tailored to the local community. As journalists, that's what every reporter and editor here is focusing on as we continue to build this product.

@ Mike Jones – I know the Patch attempts to keep residence up-to-date in the communities where they live. I do enjoy this service. I find this service informative.
What I’ve also seen on the Patch is at least fourteen stories on Voter ID since March (approximately half of those in the last week), six stories in the last twelve days about Paul Ryan, at least five stories on Obamacare during a two week timeframe and six stories on the Penn State scandal within eleven days.

When I say you’re just like everyone else, I mean you post stories you believe will capture reader interest and compel them to post. Why else would you provide readers that option? Why would editors offer their own comments to spur further discussion? Additionally, why else would you continue to post stories with the exact same topic as previous stories that garnered hundreds of posts?

There is nothing wrong with this approach Mike; you just want people to read the Patch. I want people to read the Patch.

@Sophistahick – Thoroughly enjoyed the way you held Rep. White’s feet to the fire regarding Marcellus Shale employment. What I found most interesting is the fact that he actually thought it was a good idea to respond to any of the comments. He should serve as a case study for other politicians on avoiding bad social media choices. Kudos to you.

Sophistahick ml does that on every feed. There is a story about how Congress is taking a break and she is throwing how hard teachers work. What has teachers have to do with congress taking a break???

I for one am happy about Romney pick of Ryan for Vice President. I think these two can turn the country around from the mess that obummer and Biden made this country over the last 4 years. obummer has stolen from medicare to give the money to obummercare which over 60% of the citizens of the United States doesn't want. obummer has dropped how many people are now considered middle class and wants the rich to pay for all of obummercare for everyone. I wish they would shut emergency rooms down to people who truly need them and send the others to a MedPlus or MedExpress and quit seeing them for colds and stupid stuff.

Sophistahick you are so correct. all obama did was robbed Medicare to put 700 billion into obamacare and more than likely his off shore accounts. Yes there are some that think obama is going to save Medicare.

Neither will the Banks Chrystler, Freddie and Fanny pay back the money that obummer gave them. Obummer is even losing the backing of some Unions as Coal because he wants to do away with mining it.

Wow-
More "government intervention' based on "feelings"

Freedom allows you to choose to continue reading and posting- or simply say no.

I continue to notice more and more how people are just wanting to hand all decision making over to others.

just more control over what is said , how much is said, and when we can say it. One more freedom taken away. When you have an open forum it should be open not on a limited basis.