@Scot Barteis I just want to comment about the threat of inflation. Why hasn't inflation gone completely out of control with the Federal Reserve constantly printing more money? It is because most of the money that it puts into circulation ends up overseas. Our massive trade deficit makes sure of it.

11 trillion of the deficit on the Republican Convention clock was on Bush's watch. Remember when Bush was elected the US had "zero" nada, no deficit in 2000. Unemployment is high due to deregulation of Wall St. and Banking again on Bush's watch which caused the economic callapse of 2007. Obama was sworn in on Jan. 20, 2009 with our country herroraging 750,000 jobs p/mo. His American Jobs Act was given a "NO" by the obstructionist teaparty Congress along with EVERYTHING our President wanted to do, regardless if it was their own mandate i.e like Romneycare. Let's see, what on earth did our President do for the working class - Oh! Lilly Ledbetter Act (equal pay for equal work), saved 1.1 million GM jobs, regulated credit card industry, regulated banking, ended the war in Iraq, killed all top Al-Queda leaders including Osama bin Laden, ended DADT, you know you are getting @ $300 more each month in your paycheck due to our President's stimulus, Affordable Care Act - WO it my micro-preemie niece would have reached her insurance ceiling for life, ending the war in Afghanistan, supports Women's rights. C'mon - who can you trust??? Romney who relgates our troops to a "laundry list" and never even mentions them. Romney who will not be transparent with the American people by disclosing his tax returns? Romney who flip-flops on every single issue? Romney who will not tell us what he will eliminate from the tax code? Like Mortgage interest, healthcare premiums? Get real!

@C. Gaeta -

"Remember when Bush was elected the US had "zero" nada, no deficit in 2000."

According to a cash accounting method. Under GAAP methodology, we ran about a $1T deficit in 2000 under Clinton, financed by a trillion dollar IOU to the SS Trust Fund.

The last time we actually ran a GAAP surplus and actually paid down the accumulated debt was under Carter.

"Unemployment is high due to deregulation of Wall St."

Where do you get this crap from - MSDNC??? Unemployment is high thanks primarily to NAFTA and giving China favored trading nation status - both Clinton signature achievements.

"His American Jobs Act was given a "NO" by the obstructionist teaparty Congress along with EVERYTHING our President wanted to do,"

Obama got Obamacare, which included a mandate and middle class taxes even though he promised it wouldn't, his nearly $1T stimulus, where shovel ready jobs weren't as "shovel ready as we expected," his shady auto-bailout, that cost taxpayers over $25B in losses even though Carter proved back in '79 that the auto industry could be bailed out without any losses to taxpayers, etc. And the Jobs Act was little more than stimulus round 2 - did you really want to hear that "shovel ready wasn't as shovel ready as we expected" from Obama yet again?

"regulated credit card industry, regulated banking,"

You just said that the banking crash caused the loss of jobs. So, if Obama fixed banking and finance, then where are the jobs and why are more people on food stamps and SSI than at any other time in our nation's history?

"Lilly Ledbetter Act"

Apparently equal pay for equal work is something that Obama doesn't believe in!

http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/05/democrats-focus-on-equal-pay-issue-while-obama-white-house-pays-women-less/

"you know you are getting @ $300 more each month in your paycheck due to our President's stimulus"

Please provide a citation to the law that does this, as is the most outrageous claim I've seen yet!

"ending the war in Afghanistan"

Ummm... yeah, we're still there in case you didn't get the memo! But Obama did promise to end that war on day 1, which was over 3.5 years ago!

"supports Women's rights."

Both candidates do.

"Romney who relgates our troops to a "laundry list" and never even mentions them."

Romney talked about our military. The troops are the military, thus they were covered by his convention speech.

"Romney who will not be transparent with the American people by disclosing his tax returns?"

He gave two years worth of returns. And from those two years, we were able to learn that Romney is far more generous to charities, giving nearly 30% of his yearly income away, than either Obama (who gave about 13% of his income over the last 10 years) or Biden (who gave a princely $300 total over the last 10 years) when it comes to their own money. And aren't academic records more important as far as qualification goes, and which candidate is it that refuses to release those?

"Romney who flip-flops on every single issue?"

When Obama changes his mind about a previous position, like gay marriage or closing Gitmo, it's called evolving, but when Romney does it, it's flip-flopping - give me a break!

"Romney who will not tell us what he will eliminate from the tax code? Like Mortgage interest, healthcare premiums?"

You must not have been listening or read his website, as he's said time and again that the only loopholes/exemptions/deductions that will be eliminated under his tax plan are those that are used by high income earners (AGI of $200k/yr or more).

Conclusion: Every single one of your so-called 'facts' is an utter falsehood! Your MSDNC revisionist history is quite telling about your ability to think for yourself!

What a HACK!!!

Care to try again?

@C. Gaeta: I only read your first sentence because (frankly) after that I realized you had no clue what you were talking about. When G. Bush took office the national debt was $5,727,776,738,304 and when he left office it was $10,626,877,048,913. That would be an increase of about $4.8 trillion in 8 years. The $11 trillion debt did not get added under Bush's watch. Since Obama has been President he has already added more than that to the debt. The national debt now is above $16 trillion. So under Obama the national debt has gone up over $5 trillion in less than 4 years.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/10959884/1/national-debt-a-look-at-presidents-tabs.html

There were 15 "cheat" votes in 2010, people who thought they were vote-eligible but weren't. I doubt the "cheat" vote will make much difference to the final outcome as this is a manufactured crisis.

@Bren -

So by your logic, everyone who cheated was caught. Wow, do you honestly think that our law enforcement and justice systems are 100% effective and efficient? I guess in Bren's world, there's no unsolved crime or people who ever get away with committing crimes, is there?

Remember the official investigation done by the Racine Country Sheriff's Department? Investigating deputies admitted in their report that under our current system, voter fraud was virtually impossible to detect, and thus nearly impossible to investigate or prosecute.

So that whole argument of claiming that this a manufactured crisis premised upon the number of successful prosecutions for voter fraud that occurred in the past really doesn't hold up very well, does it?

Care to try again?

@ Bren: "There were 15 "cheat" votes in 2010"...

In many, many, many elections in Wisconsin, 15 votes can make the difference in an election. In Florida in 2000, 15 votes in each precinct would have swung the election over to Al "Mr. Excitement" Gore.

We are an incredibly ideologically divided state and country, so many of these close elections could easily be stolen with illegal votes.

But Anti, don't we have election controls for just that purpose? It's only the need for instant news gratification that gets numbers on the boards so quickly. Think of what a non-issue Kathy Nicklaus' "I forgot Brookfield" controversy would have been if the numbers had been posted only after errors had been checked.

If the cookie-cutter Voter ID bills making the rounds hadn't been penned by ALEC, perhaps I wouldn't be so cynical for their raisons d'être. As it is, the fewer people voting/paying attention = more shenanigans, to my way of thinking. Just what we need right now. More shenanigans.

a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Obama.

Gearhead that is faulty red vs blue logic. Actually a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Gary Johnson. A vote for Obama would be a vote for Obama.

The question wasn't who will you vote for. The question is who will win.

Voting for Gary Johnson may make a point-to yourself, but it is a vote for Obama. People who do these things are closer to being a dreaming liberal than a realistic conservative. Sometimes you just have to face the fact that it's over. Gary, Ron, Ralph Nader, Roseanne Barr...they will all have a line on Wikipedia , but that's it.

Gary Johnson 2012 because Republicans and Democrats are idiots..

Voting for the lesser of two evils still leaves us with evil.

Gary Johnson is on-target to reach ballot access in all 50 states. If he is included in the debates, in all the polls, and is given fair media coverage, I'm convinced his ideas will resonate with far more voters than most of you can imagine. And if, for once, people vote their conscience instead of wasting their vote on the lesser of two evils, we could, indeed, end up with 'not evil'.

And hey, Patch staff, why don't you stop feeding into the media bias and add Gary Johnson to your poll? After all, he will be on our ballot.

Mike, thank you for making my point. You are part of the problem.

We had campaign finance legislation called the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, also known as "McCain-Feingold". Obama and McCain had a gentleman's agreement to follow the act. McCain kept his part of the deal, Obama did not.

Ah Mike, I remember seeing you on the news occupying Madison. I think you were one of those beating drums, and crapping on the floors, cop cars, etc.
Are we to assume the cop car was voting Republican, just as we assume you are the shitt-er?

@mau We currently have the President of the United States running around the country to fundraiser after fundraiser instead of doing his job. It is not his fault; the money game has become so exorbitant because of the Citizens' United case that he has no other choice. Corporations don't have to divulge their contributions either. Talk about corruption.

Well said Mike

Obama was not the president in 2008 when be broke the agreement. He collected record $$$$$. MUCH MUCH more than McCain collected. And you're right, Obama has been campaigning and fund raising since he took office, not doing his job.

@mau My point is that the new rules that have been set have no ceiling or limits that a campaign can collect now. Most of the big money is under the table for both sides. We don't know who is influencing who anymore.

That's it! Stormy says vote Romney. I've been waiting for a reason to tilt on way or the other and now I've got it!

I like Gary Johnson, just wish he supported stem cell research.

Romney/Ryan will not try to turn the train wreck around. They just say that to get your votes and have you argue with the other side.
Look at their biggest campaign contributors and tell me these two will change the status quo.

Besides, after seeing the disrespect Romney and the RNC showed for the rules during the nomination process and the convention, I could never vote for them.

Stormy .. So which MOB family do you want to screw us .. I say F' both of them .. Now that Dr. Ron Paul has been railroaded by the establishment .. I say Gary Johnson as well

Bob - You need to get out of that lily white suburb with the big lawns and no sidewalks and go to town once in a while. Take a bus. It's called living and working together, no matter what the color, age, or background.

No thanks Dirk, I don't associate with crazies. Best to let you Democrats lose another so you can do some soul searching.

sandra, the part about charisma is right but I'm not sure he's got it in the bag this time----Too many people can see right through him

Sandra - So why did Obama not destroy this country in the past four years? From the brink of disaster to an economy well on its way to full recovery. It is actually more conservative to pick a known and tested incumbent than take a wild chance on a bumbling someone intent on undoing everything and starting over.

@Dirk -

"So why did Obama not destroy this country in the past four years?"

He definitely tried as best he could! But thankfully not even members of his own party could get behind many of his proposals, such as his budget. And in 2010, America responded to Obama's recklessness by giving the majority of the House to Obama's opposition, thus effectively slowing him down. And come November, America will see that he vacates the WH this coming January!

@ Dirk- I'm not sure Obama has not destroyed this country. The debt has gone up more under Obama than it did in 8 years of Bush. The economy is sluggish at best and some indicators suggest it is slowing. Unemployment has been above 8% for a very long time. We just had 368,000 people drop out of the labor market. Even with the bailout, GM might still go into bankruptcy. I'm not sure how much worse things could get.

@Hoffa - So what has the Repulican House of Representatives done? Obstructionists are not leaders. Being unwilling to compromise is not leadership.
How does the Budget Committee and all the other Republican led committees share no blame for inability to balance the budget? If these Republican "leaders" are not obstructionists, then they seem incredibly inept.

@Dirk -

Honestly, how many bills has the GOP House passed? How many different versions of budgets has the GOP House passed?

It's the obstructionist Democratic controlled Senate, where everything from the House goes to either be ignored or die a death without even so much as a debate on the consideration of proposed amendments!

Did you forget that the the Senate voted 0-100 against Obama's proposed budget?

But yeah, blame it on the GOP - you guys always will!

Scot Bartels - Obama may have destroyed the country??? You are apparently quite young because all you mention have happened in previous administrations, Republican and Democratic. In fairly recent history, I remember mortgages that were near 18% APR on 30 yrs. under Reagan, and those were prime rates. Now they are miniscule. In Jan. 1983, Wisconsin had an unemployment rate of 11.5%, also under Reagan, and many states were much higher. Nationally, the highest rate for a single month is shared by November and December of 1982 with an unemployment rate of 10.8%. The year with the highest average unemployment rate was 1982 with an average unemployment rate of 9.71%. Let's not even visit the Depression years.

1974,1979-81 had double digit CPIs, now we even rarely talk about inflation it is so low.

Agree, the national debt is too high. It was about equivalent as a percentage of GDP at the end of WWII. But even in some fairly good times except for the final year, during the presidency of George W. Bush the gross public debt increased from $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008, due to the Bush tax cuts and two unpaid wars!

So yes, there are problems coming out of the greatest recession since the 1930's, but your doom and gloom of a ruined America is hyberbolic. Ending the two wars and increasing taxes on the super-wealthy, reducing spending, as well as an improving economy, can reduce the debt substantially.

@Scot- "I'm not sure Obama has not destroyed this country. The debt has gone up more under Obama than it did in 8 years of Bush."

That's a lie.

That is a flat out lie.

The Clint Eastwood thing is widely regarded as an incoherent , elderly actor embarrassing the RNC. Where was the planning there? Bad start on you ranting.

"The Clint Eastwood thing is widely regarded"

There goes Dirk with his lemming mentality again instead of thinking for himself.

@Hoffa - Here are your Republican national leaders:
They let an 82 yr. old actor get up on the stage and ad lib without any kind of preparation. In my small experience, actors need a script. He decided on the chair idea as he was going on stage (someone offered him the chair in case he had to sit down). At least Eastwood before his dementia episode has been staunchly pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage, and (especially) pro-environment. In the past, Eastwood has been rather apolitical, not coming down consistently for either party, e.g., he supported Gray Davis, That is why I believe his age has affected his thinking. Even Romney aides thought the episode was strange Scott Walker says he cringed.

I prefer Eva Longeria. Youth, talent, enthusiasm, freshness. But then, that is just the difference in the two parties, isn't it. Yes, I do join the opinion of vast majority at times.

@Dirk -

Speaking of the integrity of DNC party leaders, here's your fearless leader caught red-handed in a boldfaced LIE:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/09/omg-debbie-wasserman-schultz-is-caught-in-bald-faced-lie-on-national-tv-video/

So, how exactly do you reconcile and tolerate such bold faced lies without remorse from your national leader?

Why are her eyes so darn far apart? She looks like Sloth from The Goonies.

@Hoffa - The way I interpret this is Wasserman did lie about repeating Oren's fear of a Romney victory, but I also believe Oren, the Israeli Ambassador, did really express such apprehension to the weak Republican position regarding supporting Israel. Now we enter the realm of international diplomacy. My best guess is that Oren asked Wasserman to deny he ever said that, for obvious reasons, and she then denied she ever repeated it, but got caught. Should she be fired? I believe she took the hit for Oren and diplomatic relations, bigger issues then she is.
Do I believe the Republicans are weak on Israel? Well, they are ruthless and shameless enough to sacrifice Israel against Iran, or to win big oil favors from the enemies of Israel.

Greg - Perhaps you have little appreciation for feminine beauty, internal and external. Your vision is distorted by your all consuming ultra-right partisanship, as she is Hispanic.

@Dirk -

Please try sticking to the FACTS instead of resorting to ASSumptions and unfounded conspiracy theories!

Hoffa - A third party voting preference moves the major party in that direction. Romney will swing in any direction he needs to win. And as you have voted 3rd party in the past relatively often, when you just could not hold your nose enough to vote Republican, you should relate better to the conscience voters. Of course, every election always seems to be the most important one in history, so that argument falls flat. The two major parties always say "this is the most important election in history, vote only for us".

It sounds to me that you and Linda are accusing others of your own sins...

Are you feeling less guilty?

Dirk you are a fool. Linda called the democrat's very own slogan "racist" because she thought it came from steve's mouth. So the Democrats were the racists ones.

But like a true idiot, you cannot stay on topic and don't even try to understand what happened. "Republican are racist" is all you can say, because quite frankly, its all your little mouse brain can contain.

"Sociopaths accuse others of their own sins." - as you said Dirk, which is EXACTLY what Linda is guilty of. LOL Thanks for making her the fool, as well as yourself.

To suggest that there are no racist people in the Democratic party is just silly.

The evidence that racists vote Republican: The South almost suddenly shifted to Republican after civil rights became a major issue in the '60's. White flight suburbs are predominately Republican voters. Republicans push voter ID. Republicans dislike Obama much more than for his just being a Democrat, Republicans keep writing poorly written blogs about how they are not racist, openly racisit remarks and actions from some Republicans, and a guilty conscience always looking for some scrap of evidence trying to say Democrats are the racists. Everyone understands in America, if you are racist, vote Republican.

@Dirk -

Following your logic, if you're racist against white folks in America, vote Democratic!

Boy you really are a ding bat Brittany, not an ounce of intelligence or facts in your blabbering banter.

@Brittany If it is the economy that you are worried about, then you must know that neither candidate is the one for you. Obama has signed rotten trade agreements just as Romney promises to do the same. Unless we reverse our trade deficits, this country will continue to slide down. Neither party ever talks about the trade deficits. Notice that?

@Michael -

Actually, Ryan talks about getting tough with China all the time.

@Hoffa It isn't about getting tough. Did you know that our tariff laws favor companies that have foreign operations? Did you know that some of our tax laws make it beneficial for companies to locate some of their operations offshore? We are just plain stupid.

@Michael -

You don't have to tell Hoffa - he's been saying forever that collectively we are our own worst enemies. Irregardless of what our government does, we as the consumer hold the ultimate power. By purchasing crap that is made cheaper overseas, we actively encourage the off-shoring of American jobs.

At least Hoffa walks his talk - he goes out of his way to buy American made. Can you say the same?

@Hoffa Protectionism is a word that Americans are not allowed to hear. And for good reason. This phony free market sales job that the American people have swallowed inevitably only benefits comparatively few fat cats. Protectionism was designed to protect the masses from the selfish designs of the few. The people should start opening their history books and look into it.

Protectionism is a word used by losers who don't want to compete internationally and want free cheese from the gubmint to pick the winners. I enjoy driving my Toyota Land Cruiser.

Brittany- We know what has happened under Obama. We have seen our debt grow more in less than 4 years than it did in 8 years of Bush. We have seen unemployment stay above 8% for a very long time. We have seen new regulations that companies have to try to follow making it harder to create jobs. We have seen new taxes that impact everyone including the middle class. We just saw over 300,000 people drop out of the job market. They gave up on Obamas economy because they could not find a job. We are facing big time inflation. BTW... your "translations" to Romneys goals are a bit off. You make the mistake of using your own pre-existing opinions of Romney when "translating" his plan. So why should Obama be given another 4 years? What great things has he done for this country?

@Bob Sacamano -

Would you agree that as Americans, we value clean air, clean water, clean land, a safe work place, and fair wages for a fair days work?

Hoffa is all for free trade if everyone is playing by the same set of rules and standards. But that's not the way the current world works. Free trade inevitably leads to the exploitation of the environment and people in nations where the government permits such to occur.

As Americans, we should not let the unfair players dictate the rules of the game to us. After all, we're Americans - we tell the rest of the world what to do! Not vice versa.

Fair trade is what we need. And to the unfair players, we either force them to play fair and by our rules/standards or cut them off to our market place or at least equalize the playing field.

Honestly, what's so difficult to understand about this?

Well done Brittany!

@Scot - "We know what has happened under Obama. We have seen our debt grow more in less than 4 years than it did in 8 years of Bush. "

Again, that is a lie. It's a flat out lie.

I know it is the Republican way a la Fox News, but in the real world. Saying the lie over and over again doesn't make it true

It is a lie.

@FreeThought Troy: Under Bush the national debt went up $4.8 trillion in 8 years. So far under Obama the national debt has gone up over $5 trillion in less than 4 years. Simply calling something a lie does not make it a lie. If you disagree with these numbers by all means please post what you THINK they are.

Here are the average spending increases per year in raw dollars (not adjusted for inflation)

Ronald Wilson Reagan: 8.6 (Saint Ron... here is where I started as all the Tea Party Conservative worship him)
George Herbert Walker Bush: 5.8
William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton: 4.0 -hmmmm lower
George Walker Bush: 10.2 - WOW such a spike for a "Fiscal Conservative"
Barack Hussein Obama: 1.4 - that's 8.8% difference in spending. And that is after the President started including the Iraq War to the Budget - some thing Bush 43 did not do.

all from the Liberal Media (not really) that is Politifact

Thus my premise that placing blame on the President for our debt is a lie.

@Hoffa There is a front page article in "The Economist" concerning the worldwide growth of protectionism. Electoral backlash is a cause of this. Brazil has raised tariffs on 100 items; the US, India and China are currently involved in a trade war concerning steel. Actual worldwide trade has declined this year. Free trade is not all that it is cracked up to be.

@FreeThought Troy: Clearly Troy you do not do much thinking. You point to percentages but they do not do a good job of pointing out how much actual money the debt has gone up. As I said before, the national debt went up $4.8 trillion during the 8 years of Bush. So far under Obama the national debt has gone up over $5 trillion in less than 4 years. I didn't think I needed to point this out but $5 trillion IS MORE than $4.8 trillion. This makes me think that either you are intentionally trying to mislead people or you simply do not understand basic math and percentages. If you have a debt of $100 and you increase your debt by $50, that would be a 50% increase. If you have a debt of $10,000 and you increase your debt by 50%, that would be an increase of $5,000. Both increases are 50% but clearly $5,000 is MORE than $50. Using percentages do not show how much the debt has gone up. So tell me Troy. Are you simply trying to mislead people or are you simply ignorant of basic math? $5 trillion (in less than 4 years) IS MORE than $4.8 trillion (in 8 years).

@Scot- I do apologize. For the longest time all I heard about was Obama's spending. Once it was verified it was the lowest in decades, the conversation shifted to debt overall - never mind the first step in addressing debt is addressing spending.

So if debt is now the cup of tea of the day, does that mean you are ready to realistically discuss revenues as well as cuts?

I didn't think so, either.

@Scot, Nothought Boy

Scot, exuse nothought boy, he doesn't understand the differences between spending, revenues, debt, etc.

Nothought boy needs to stop playing video games in mommy's basement so late and get a real job and education.

So in other words Troy when I said the national DEBT has gone up MORE in less than 4 years of Obama than it did in 8 years of Bush I was not lying. Maybe you do understand math but just don't read very well. Maybe you can tell me why Obama and the Dems did not fix the deficit/spending/debt issue when he was first elected into office?

So to pay off the current deficit at $1/second would only take 507,000 years. Or we could pay $68 billion for every year this country has been in existence.

I think my math is correct.

Greg I think you are forgetting to calculate in the interest.

Nope, not forgetting. The illustration was meant to cover the current number, interest was not needed to show how massive the debt is. I should have included that the deficit means that every man, woman, child and even infant, in the United States, owes about $533,000 currently.

I don't care how ancient you are Brittany, you know the old saying "there is no fool like an old fool"

I'll ask again Brittany. Why should Obama be given another 4 years? What great things has he done for this country? I've listed all sorts of really bad things that have happened with him as President. Can you give me something good that he has done? His two big achievements are the stimulus and Obamacare. The stimulus spent almost a trillion dollars and didn't really do much (if any) good. Obamacare has been declared a "tax" by the court and it is a tax that will hit job creators and the middle class very hard. In any case neither one of those things are popular with the American people. Oh and he did bail out GM with a heck of alot of money and GM may still go bankrupt.

GM already did go through bankruptcy during the summer of 2009.

The 'bailout' didn't prevent the first bankruptcy, and now it seems that there may be a second...

@ Scot - "Can you give me something good that he has done?"

1) Auto Bailout. GM is number one in the world & Chrystler is showing record profits.
2) Assasination of Osama bin Laden
3) Repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell
4) Establishment of Consumer Protection

There are four things just for you.

@Brittany Our economy is based on consumer demand. The American people's incomes are declining due to globalization, which of course hurts demand. This, of course, will continue as long as globalization is in force. Our cost of living cannot compete with third world countries. Remember, whenever you vastly increase the labor pool, it is good for business but bad for people.

Realistically, we can't really stop globalization. Even if our companies aren't sending jobs overseas, there are still going to be products being made overseas by other companies and available for sale cheaper than what we can make here. It will be extremely difficult for our companies to compete in the global market.

What we need to do is evolve our economy to the 'next level' and start producing jobs that the hoards of available workers in India and China are not qualified to do, or cannot do. We will also need a workforce that can do that type of work as well. This means our people will need to have higher levels of education and more specialized education. Eventually, the labor pools will equalize as the standards of living rise in the developing nations--but that will be a long time in coming.

@CowDung Do you see how the politicians always talk about everyone going to school and becoming a success in whatever? Well, in a country of 300 million people not everyone is smart in school; that is just the way reality is. What are those people supposed to do with their lives? How are they supposed to support themselves when all of our low-skilled jobs are gone? I see trouble in the making.

Face it, without a certain ammount of globalization your cell phone would cost $14,000 and would weigh 3 lbs.

Michael:

Certainly it is trouble in the making. We have that same situation right now as the unskilled labor pool has grown with globalization.

The way I see it, we can either sit around and complain about globalization and jobs going overseas, or we can take action to improve the collective skills of our workforce and create new jobs to replace those that are being lost.

This is where I think the unions are currently doing workers a disservice. They are fighting to keep high wages, but they are pricing the workers they represent out of the market. They should instead be working to improve the value of their workers through skills training and education.

America remains the world's marketplace - so right now we still hold the power of a majority of the world's demand. But that power is quickly eroding.

If our own consumers were conscience and purchased their goods as Hoffa does, we'd still be a major industrial player. But consumer greed in this country shifts the demand to cheap goods. The more cheap goods people buy so that they can have more means the less good paying American jobs available. It's that simple.

We are too big of a nation to think that we can successfully specialize our economy the way several much smaller nations have been able to. We need our industrial backbone.

Bottom line is that cheap goods and a majority of the world's supply of finished goods are largely produced in nations that offer little to no demand for those goods. Thus if we dropped the WTO and started a Fair Trade coalition of nation's that play by the set of rules and values that we've adopted, then the exploiters will have little choice but to comply with our demands or be stuck with a bunch of product that they cannot unload anywhere.

Demand is a far more powerful force than supply. We've been the world's dominant purveyor of demand for the last century but have recently failed to exercise that power as effectively as we should have.

It's time to wake up and become America once again!

I have been called worse things. ;)
Forgive me if I made a joke at your expense, but we all could use a little more humor and less nasty on here lately.
I am curious how many people on here even know what we are talking about, it does date us. :-P

Yep, so everyone should vote for Romney.

@ Warriors Mom-"We need to get our country back & be feared again not laughed at by other countries." Why is fear such an all consuming good thing?

Ok though, I'll play along.

You think the world laughs at us for Osama bin Laden or other other Al Quaeda lieutenants we put a hit on?

Gas prices will go down when we break our dependence on fossil fuels and the demand goes down.

Or we begin to <gasp> regulate the industry a little to curb speculation.

He is the President... maybe turning the channel and hearing a different point of view may help those stuck in the dogma of their own creation. Flexibility in thinking is what makes America exceptional. I don't see much of that on the Republican side of the isle. In fact critical thinking is required to repair the damage of incorrect dogma acted upon for 30+ years. Republicans can think critically about Obama; relentlessly. Their problem as I see it is not seeing the damage they have done with their philosophies and actions. The absolutely moral bankrupt nature of it amazes me. Bravo for your courage in going after 50-somethings. Steal from them to satisfy your hunger for more tax cuts..
You sound like anyone at FNC.

"through tubal detoxification and "meditative thinking" whereby we uncover the truth, unveiling those hidden facts from which our attention has been distracted by Tea Party distortions n lies"

Translated:

hit some acid and you'll see Tea Party conspiracies all around just like I do!

well said..

The comment you deleted I replied to. I am unable to delete my reply for some reason.

@morninmist -

Those 'polls' were conducted before the latest jobs numbers were announced yesterday. Obama going down, down, down!

Yah Hoffa.

Walkers jobs rating will bring it down.

@morninmist -

Hoffa supposes that it's easy to get Gallup to stump for the Dems after the Dems threaten Gallup with a DOJ lawsuit!

http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/06/justice-dept-gallup-lawsuit-came-after-axelrod-criticized-pollsters/

My, my, my - how desperate and thuggish have the Democrats become!

Just goes to show that the slimy Dems will do anything to try and steal an election!

America isn't buying the left/Dems Saul Alinsky tactics anymore!

ROMNEY/RYAN 2012!!!

@morninmist -

You mean the Daily Kos, don't you?

Hoffa
Try reaching outside your biased "brain" for once.

Not likely. The Republican party blatantly cheated Ron Paul, and changed their own rules just to make sure the establishment candidate Mitt Romney was nominated. I doubt the two parties would allow Gary Johnson in on their little horse, and pony show. Unless he can somehow pull a Ross Perot. Unfortunately most people haven't a clue who Gary Johnson is. Perhaps someday enough people will finally get that the two party system is corrupted, and has no basis in the Constitution. All parties who meet minimal requirements should have equal access to the election process.

@tippingpoint Hurray! Someone is finally thinking out of the box!! I commend you!

Any of you Johnson supporters want to put money on him winning? I'm up for some easy cash.

@Bren -

That's great - thanks for providing your rationale!

That Barry Obama sounds amazing! Too bad he only exists in your head. Barry's careless spending spree has driven us trillions into debt with a lower national credit rating, and the economy hasn't gotten any better. Billions in banker bailouts while people loose their homes. Affordable Care Act? We're all forced to buy health insurance against our will, and prices are going up! He's invading middle eastern nations under false pretenses to set up the standard puppet regimes so his big oil, and banking buddies can rape third world nations of their resources while killing millions of innocent civilians. He's done nothing but stand in the way of illegal immigration enforcement, and mining our oil resources here at home. Please do some real research and stop listening to the Democratic Party propaganda machine.

@Bren Did you know that the Affordable Care Act was corrupted in the White House before it was sent to Congress? That is why the law does not address health care costs- the health care industry made a secret deal worth 150 billion dollars when the law was being written.
Did you know that the finance reform legislation that Obama keeps talking about has been watered down so much that it is now ineffectual? Yep, you guessed it. The special interests got there first again.

I was on the edge of my seat wondering which way you were going to vote.

I'm willing to bet that for every relative benefiting from Barack Hussein Obamacare, I have a relative or co-worker that have actually lost out on health care, mostly through higher premiums.

And yes, I have lost out since I will be paying more for my portion of employer provided health plan. and since they are paying more, I probably won't get a raise this year.

Thank you Barack Hussein Obama for your change to hopelessness.

Obama/Biden is the more conservative choice.
Four years as battle-hardened President, the stock market reaching high marks, inflation and mortgage rates near all time lows, the economy steadily pulling back from the cliff edge, job growth, the impending end of two wars, etc.
The alternative, Romney/Ryan, is a promised radical restructuring of life as we know it, from Social Security and Medicare, to Social Insecurity and Mediscare, from women's control of their own bodies to forced births and raising of unwanted fetuses caused by criminal inseminators, from a still strong middle class to 99% poor and 1% dreadfully rich, etc.
But all that aside, and even if you dislike Obama to believing he is a devil, "better the devil you know than the devil you do not know'" That in its pure and simplest form is unpolitical, rational conservatism and its aversion to the risks of monumental change.

@Dirk -

You're confusing the term 'conservative' with 'status quo,' which is what you are really talking about.

And under the status quo, the country goes bankrupt by 2024, and then we're all pretty much screwed.

ROMNEY/RYAN 2012 = Reform back to our conservative principles that will save our nation from becoming an economic disaster!

Hoffa - There is more than one kind of Conservative, not just radical conservatives that want to make extreme changes and which might make matters much worse. Throwing the car into reverse while cruising along the highway is going to be a risky shift. And mix that with social conservatism For US social conservatives, Christian based religions -- often Evangelical Christianity and Mormonism -- guides all political positions on social issues. The type of conservatvism I am describing does prefer maintaining the steadily improving current situation over untested theories and avoiding a scary return to the Dark Ages of social restrictions, prohibitions, and severe punishments for violating someone else's.moral edicts.

@Dirk -

"... avoiding a scary return to the Dark Ages of social restrictions, prohibitions, and severe punishments for violating someone else's.moral edicts."

Could you give us an example of how Republicans supposedly want to do this?

@Carol It was the big banks who financed the Obama campaign in 2008; that is why there have been no criminal charges brought against the banks for any of their criminal activities. Obama is just as corrupt as the rest of them.

You are right Carol. When Romney/Ryan wins in November you may be in big trouble. Many of you will have to get of unemployment and welfare and go to work. And I'm not shedding a tear. Rather than taking money from job creators to give to welfare recipients, Romney will let the job creators do what they do for the economy better than government can...create jobs.

I disagree with your assessment of the Republican convention. While not overly dramatic like the Democrat's convention, they were engaging and spelled out how they will get the country back on the path to prosperity.

Compare that to the Democratic blueprint of "more Hope and change".

After 8 years of Bush the national debt went up $4.8 trillion. So far under Obama (less than 4 years) the national debt has gone up over $5 trillion.

Actually, they probably began "planning Obama's political demise" shortly after the election, which would be SOP for just about any presidential election. You re-evaluate the losing strategy and prepare for the rematch. Only the exceedingly naive would find this extraordinary and "twisted".

Wow Joe, all unbiased and non-partisan links. Especially the Huffington Post!

Obama-Biden, let's see what they've proven:
It is possible to have 43 months of 8%+ unemployment
It is possible to drive millions of people out of the labor force
It is possible to spend the United States an addition 6 TRILLION into debt
It is possible increase Federal spending by 27% and still have a stagnant economy
It is possible to ignore most of the country and force socialized medicine on us
It is possible to tax citizen's for not only what they do, but for what they don't do
It is possible to spend only 109,777.78 Federal dollars to create a job
It is possible to con millions of people into thinking you are not incompetent by redirecting blame for your failures.

And finally, Obama-Biden has proven Obama-Biden is NOT the right team to lead this country back to prosperity!

@Anti-Alinsky - Haven't you been reading the posts (Tea Party Conservative reading fact... I know, I know.... doesn't really happen, does it)?

Governement spending has only increased 1.4%. Where on earth did you come up with 27% - your own troubled mind or the fictional reality that is Fox News?

Who cares about the tax returns! Personally, Hoffa would rather see the academic records. Which candidate is it that refuses to release their academic records?

You saw two chairs? Doc, have you been getting high on your own supply?

We're borrowing money from foreign entities to keep the country running. It's a little late to be concerned about a campaign contribution having undue influence at this point.

@Bob McBride The rules of the game have it that companies don't have to reveal their political contributions to the public. This instance came to light only because Barclays is under investigation over the Libor scandal. How many other foreign entities that is contributing and from where is unknown. We have lost our way.

Every time we try to regulate contributions, we end up creating a situation whereby the source of those contributions essentially goes "underground". We don't stop the contributions, we just make the sourcing less transparent. We need to stop worrying campaign contributions and trying to limit them. It doesn't work.

And, again, we've got enough foreign money running through the veins of our economy and our political system as it stands now to make worrying about "undue foreign influence" a moot point.

@Bob McBride If we go by your logic the American people have no representation in Washington regardless of who wins. The whole thing is a farce, which is exactly my point. Both sides are beholden to those who don't necessarily have America's interests at heart.

@Michael -

Why are contributions such a concern to you? If Hoffa gave money, would that automatically mean that he was trying to unduly influence a candidate?

If Barclays really believes in what Mitt Romney stands for as a candidate, and isn't using the contribution to try to unduly influence or gain political favoritism, then there's no problem, is there? Hoffa used to donate money to the Sinn Féin over in Northern Ireland all the time before 9/11 made that difficult to do. Does that mean that Hoffa was trying to unduly influence Northern Irish politics?

Barclays has substantial interests and holdings in this country, thus it's no surprise that they're interested in the outcome of the election. But Barclays doesn't get to vote, does it?

Those on the left accuse Walker of being a puppet for the Koch Brothers all the time, right? And yet, since Walker has taken office, the Koch Bros haven't received any kind of preferential treatment from the Walker administration, nor has the state cut them a check. Contrast to Obama. A large Obama campaign contributor/bundler made a couple of visits to the WH shortly after Obama was elected. A few weeks later, that contributor/bundler's company, Solyndra, received a check from the US Treasury in the amount of $.5B. That's textbook cronyism - Obama should have been impeached!

So, to put it crudely, Michael, you prefer to be wined and dined and lied to before they bend you over and....(I'll let you fill in the blanks).

It's gonna happen anyways. Might as well happen out in the open where we can see it. If you think you're going to take the money and special interests out of it, you're being very naive. Can't be done under this form of government and the kind where it can be done, you wouldn't want to live under anyways.

@Hoffa Are you honestly implying that undue influence never happens? Are you honestly believing that foreign entities have an absolute right to be in the middle of our politics regardless of where they are from? Do you believe that these deals always have beneficial results for the American people? Remember, suit cases full of money tends to corrupt people regardless of their political leanings.

@Michael -

There is no proof that donors are trying to buy influence or special favors when they make the donations. The proof only comes after the fact when we see the government do things like Solyndra - which Obama's own DOE stated in emails wasn't ready for prime time. And yet, Solyndra still ended up with a $.5B check from the people thanks to Obama.

We should be holding the drug users, the corrupt politicians such as Obama has proven to be, accountable, as opposed to the drug dealers, the donors. Because we cannot conclusively know for sure why they are donating at the time of donation.

Why does Hoffa donate? Do you honestly think it's to try to buy influence or special favors? Or is it because Hoffa believes in the values and positions espoused by certain candidates and would like to see his preferred candidate beat their opponents? Hoffa is sure that there are plenty of big money guys that donate for the exact same reasons that Hoffa donates, and nothing more.

Think about it. If Hoffa gave $1,000 to a campaign, that would represent nearly 2.4% of Hoffa's net yearly income. If a billionaire like David Koch gives $100M to a campaign, that would represent approximately .4% of his overall net worth. By these numbers, you'd think that Hoffa was trying to buy influence or gain special favors, and not David Koch, right?

@Hoffa Then why is everything so secretive? If Hoffa contributes money to a campaign, would Hoffa really care who knew about it? Since we don't know who the donors are, then how can we know their intent or the outcome of whatever policy that might come up?

Bottom Line - The right wing will take campaingn money from an English bank, and see no problem, even though they are under investigation for manipulating interest rates worldwide. Their philosophical argument here is they would or do also take money from Red China, N. Korea, Belarus, Burma, or Elbonia, whatever it takes to get rid of Obama, and let the contributions be opaque and unlimited.
And they call themselves Patriots.

@Michael -

Actually, yes, Hoffa would, as Hoffa has already been targeted by unhinged liberals who have threatened his life, the lives of his family members, and the economic well being of his family restaurant merely for espousing his believes on a public forum such as Patch. After all, why do you think Hoffa now uses a screen-name as opposed to his real name on this forum? Hoffa started out using his real name, and it brought nothing but grief for Hoffa and his family.

Thus, if Hoffa can make donations without having to deal with the unhinged element of our society every time he does so, it's all the better!

AWD - Obama is obviously toward the center of the political spectrum. You consistently so overreach in your accusations and labeling of Obama that you come across as dangerous.
In fact, examples of extreme right-wing elements are the KKK, Posse Comitatus vigilantes, McCarthyism, John Birch Society, George Wallace and his American Party, white supremacy, social Darwinists, Branch Davidians, Timothy McVeigh and his comrades, other past or current paramilitary groups from which felony convictions have been obtained (usually on weapons, explosives and conspiracy charges).include the Oklahoma Constitutional Militia, Georgia Republic Militia, Arizona Viper Militia, Washington State Militia, West Virginia Mountaineer Militia, Twin Cities Free Militia, North American Militia, San Joaquin County Militia.
emerging para-military groups such as Kentucky State Militia, Ohio Unorganized Militia Assistance and Advisory Committee, Southeastern Ohio Defense Force, Michigan Militia (two factions using the same name), Southern Indiana Regional Militia, Southern California High Desert Militia-and plenty of others.
A growing trend is the Sovereign Citizen Movement, which claims that a U.S. citizen can become a "sovereign citizen" and thereby be subject only to common law and/or "constitutional law", conveniently not to statutory law (including most taxes).

Conclusion: We have much more to fear from the extreme right than the moderate Obama.

"The biggest thing to note out of this is you can't just pick out parts of Obamacare without having the Individual Mandate."

That's one of the most ludicrous statements I've heard yet! Of course you can. The Supreme Court demonstrated this wherein it eliminated the mandate Obamacare imposed on the states to setup exchanges, or did you forget about that?

Of course the good parts can be repackaged into a new bill with other reforms, just as Romney has proposed in his 57 point plan!

And Romney only liked Romneycare for the state of Massachusetts. He thinks that all states should have the freedom to implement and experiment with their own programs and learn from the experiments of the other states.

You're not being very honest about things Brittany.

@Brittany -

So, you honestly believe that you need to keep the individual mandate in order to keep the parts of Obamcare that Romney likes? According to the source you linked to, the parts of Obamacare that Romney said he'd keep are:

""One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage.’’
Romney also said he would allow young adults to keep their coverage under their parents’ health-insurance."

Umm... no, you don't! What the mandate effectively does and pays for is to provide subsidized health care coverage for people that 1) don't fully qualify for medicaid, 2) don't have a qualified employer provided health plan, and 3) can't afford to purchase a qualified health care plan of their own.

That's how Obamacare provides the 32M Americans that currently don't have health care insurance with insurance.

And there has always been inconsistencies with the platform and the party's candidate. Obama isn't exactly 100% consistent with the Dem platform, is he?

And your point about Romney isn't an inconsistency, as the reforms found in Obamacare that he is proposing to keep are also found in the GOP platform, on page 33 under the heading "Our Prescription for American Healthcare: Improve Quality and Lower Costs," as well as in Romney's own proposed reforms!

Have you even read the ACA, the GOP Platform, or Romney's 57 point plan, or are you just going with whatever biased third party analysis you happen to be reading this week?

The platform of the Republican Party and the Romney-Ryan positions are so ambiguous, complicated, and in some cases, in opposition, that it takes a lawyer all his time reading primary documents so he can tell others they can't really talk about such matters unless they read the stack of primary documents. Like it's some kind of court session. No, its just a community blog. Lawyers like to make you think you cannot possibly understand issues by yourself from your own research and common sense. And even primary sources are open to interpretation.

@Dirk -

Thanks for proving my point about how most people are misinformed because they fail to read the primary source documents for themselves!

Why do you encourage laziness and a lemming mentality instead of encouraging people to read the primary sources for themselves, conduct their own analysis, and actually think for themselves?

Hoffa encourages people to think for themselves. If you think it takes a lawyer to read the primary source docs, then you obviously feel that a majority of your fellow Americans are stupid and incapable of doing so and thinking for themselves.

So, the real question here is why do you have such a low opinion of your fellow Americans?

@Brittany -

It's obvious that you have no idea how Obamacare really works, and when called out on it, you instead try to shift the subject.

Obama's plan for the future is even less detailed than Romney's 57 point plan, so if you're consistent with what you're saying, I guess that means that you'll be voting for Romney, as he provided the more detailed of the two viable plans that are being offered in this election, right?

That's not to mention all things that Obama has already lied about - gay marriage, closing Gitmo, halfing the deficit, unemployment below 8%, ending the wars on day 1, etc.

@Brittany -

Romney has not said that the AHC, in its entirety, is alright. He said that two things in the bill are good ideas, ideas that also happen to be a part of both Romney's reform plan and the GOP Platform.

And apparently, you haven't even looked at the detail in the AHC, as you had no idea what the mandate was actually funding!

And you're right, Obama's jobs bill is indeed out there. Did you look at it? It's essentially stimulus round 2. Remember stimulus round 1? Obama promised it would take unemployment below 8%. That still hasn't happened since he took office. And yet, throwing even more money into public workers will somehow work this time around? While doing that might provide a short boost, it's not sustainable in the long term and greatly increases the deficit and our accumulated debt.

It's clear that you've already drank the liberal kool-aide, thus Hoffa knows that he's just wasting his time.

What we honestly need to get our economy turned around is to make our government more globally competitive so that the private sector can flourish here once again.

@Brittany

Paul Krugman explains why a mandate would still be necessary with Romney's new idea. I would trust Krugman over the third person speaker Hoffa.

September 9, 2012, 2:57 pm
Revenge of the Three-Legged Stool

Another day, another Romney whopper. Now he says that he’ll keep the good parts of Obamacare, in particular coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, while scrapping the rest.

You can’t do that – and Romney knows very well that you can’t do that, because the logic that went into Romneycare in Massachusetts is the same as the logic behind Obamacare.....

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/09/revenge-of-the-three-legged-stool/

@morninmist -

Krugman is a self-admitted biased liberal hack - notice how his column is called "The Conscience of a Liberal."

Notice the assumption upon which Krugman's argument is based: "But if you stop there, you know what will happen: healthy people will opt out, leaving behind a high-risk, high-cost pool."

So if Romney imposed the "community rating, requiring that insurance companies make the same policies available to everyone," we're supposed to believe that all the healthy people in the country would instantly and simultaneously drop their health care coverage???

Using Krugman's logic, why then would any healthy person currently be paying a premium for a policy they obviously don't need? Wouldn't it be cheaper for those people to just be paying cash direct out-of-pocket as they utilize services?

COME ON - anyone with half a brain can see the absurdity of Krugman's logic and argument!

The fact that that man is a tenured professor at a prestigious college represents the quintessential problem with our system of higher education!

Romney will sell lots of snake oil--more if you wait awhile.

Don't like what Romney says? Wait, he'll tell you want to hear, eventually... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/09/mitt-romney-obamacare-_n_1868385.html #p2 #ctl #topprog #tcot #tlot #teaparty

PANDERING: Romney before: "I'll repeal Obamacare day one!" Romney today: "I'm not getting rid of all of Obamacare." #p2 #ctl #topprog #tcot

@Brittany -

Obama flipped on some pretty core values and hard decisions - gay marriage, closing Gitmo, halfing the deficit, raising taxes on the middle class, ending the wars on day 1, no mandate in his health care law, broadcasting WH meetings on C-SPAN 3, etc.

Attack Romney while giving Obama a pass - please, your hypocrisy and double standards are astonishing!

@morninmist -

The Nation is lefty liberal, and you know it.

And today's lead can quickly turn into defeat on election day!

ROMNEY/RYAN 2012!!!!

America's future depends on it!

@hoff

Well Hoff, the lefty liberal -The Nation still reports on your Right leaning Rassy poll:

"Monday The first of today’s daily tracking polls is out and GOP-friendly Rasmussen continues to find a post-DNC surge for Obama, with the president widening his lead over Romney to 5 percent, the highest mark for him since last March."

Hoffa
That Obama bump is making Mitt sound desperate-Not wise of Romney to do this!

ThinkProgress ‏@thinkprogress

In new stump speech, Romney suggests Obama is anti-God. Watch: http://thkpr.gs/PjriNE

That's what they said about Carter vs. Reagan this far out from the election.
History has a way of repeating itself............

Prior to the last update of The Patch, when you clicked on a link in the email notice, it took you right to the comment. Now it just takes you to the entire blog and you have to search.

ace - ace - ace

I JUST got done bowing to your grace and intellecence. I mean, jumping on the tail end of an argument with such compelling data like I am a punk bitch.

And now back to reality by showing what a truly despicable racist you really are. It's beyond description, really.

You should thank the non existent god in the heavens you really don't have an Imam as your leader. There is no way you would be walking around free right now.