I agree whomever was wearing the Biden costume won the event. Not sure I'd call it a debate as the only voice that could be heard was Biden's as he continued to ramble on like an old timer that is out of touch with reality, and seeking to teach high school students who are not aware of the facts; nor where to attain facts... So on the real question - Who was in the Biden costume? My guess "Jack Nicholson"!

Good job Mark. This should be done more often when people attack other people personally on Patch.

Thanks, Joe. We try to keep an eye out for commenters who use swears (or asterisks to cover part of what obviously is a curse word) and so forth to keep the dialogue clean and moving forward.

Great job of cutting and pasting Joe!!! There is no way you could write a paragragh without at least a half dozen mis-spelling and gramatical errors, especially when you used such big words. Hands down win for Ryan, ya okay.

Joe's 5:33 a.m. post was copied verbatim from an earlier facebook post by a Tea Party group, "Obama Must Go." How are the acoustics in that echo chamber?

I agree and I think we got a view into why there is gridlock in DC. He and Obama don't respect anyone with opposite opinion. If you don't agree with them they will ignore (Obama) or belittle and laugh and yell out (Biden). Remember the animosity didn't start when Obama was elected. It started after the Democrats basically told the Republicans that elections have consequence and they were solely in charge. They ignored any differing opinion or options and when the Republican's won in 2010 they wanted to continue that until they were parroted with "elections have consequence". Then they didn't like that and wanted to work together.

IMHO, Ryan and Romney seem to be more the adults at the table looking to solve problems by negotiation which is the only way this will get better.

Well put Bob. Thought I'd add this: “National Democrats keep confusing strength with aggression and command with sarcasm. Even the latter didn’t work for Mr. Biden. The things he said had the rhythm and smirk of sarcasm without the cutting substance.”

Nelly, re-read my post. They are not because the Chicago syndicate rammed through legislation without even a glance to Republican idea or opinion. Now Republican's have the hammer and they are using it. I hate it but I understand it in our government.
It is why Democrats have a hard time in understanding the Romney plan and it's lack of detail. It is a business plan that gives and outline, start point, end point and parameters for success. The details will be filled in in conference with Republican's and Democrats. If Obama or Biden ever ran anything they would be nodding their heads in agreement instead of looking on with blank expressions.

Nelly, Obama in 2009 said "you don't raise taxes on anyone during a recession". Now to get elected he wants to raise taxes. And who is trying to kid whom?

Bob - You can not have a revenue neutral 20% tax cut without raising taxes on someone. Under the Romney plan, taxes will go up for people who itemize their deductions. They can negotiate all they want but the only deduction they can eliminate that can cover that cut is the mortgage interest deduction. Ryan could not refute this when Biden confronted him with this fact. Romey wants to raise taxes on middle class families during a recession.

Nelly, YES. Every time Obama says raise taxes on the wealthy 1% the liberals faint from the tingles up their legs! You people want "fairness" ignoring the FACT that the top 2% pay @40% of all taxes. Yea let's tax them more!

Bob,

The non-partisan Tax Policy Center has basically said that Romney can't cut taxes across the board by 20% with only eliminating corporate loopholes. The math doesn't add up. And I disagree with you about it being a simple business plan. I think you can compare Romney's approach to someone trying to pitch a business plan to investors which went something like this: We want you to invest lots of money in our business. "We plan to make widgets but we have no idea how we are going to do it. But you should trust us when we say there will be widgets."

Christina,
Not exactly. The Tax Policy Center is a left leaning think tank. Their study ignores the overall Romney plan of job creation. By rolling back some of the more onerous regulations that have strangled the economy and clarifying things like the Frank-Dodd definition of a good loan.
Also Romney never said "only corporate loopholes" nor did I. What he said was to close loopholes to corporations and the wealthy so there is no reduction in effective rate of tax. If he can increase the working American count by the 12 million he said, that would make up for all of this. The studies don't take this part up because they see them as separate un-related pieces.
Will it work? I don't know. Can we continue with the regulation and tax policy we have today? No!

Bob,

The Tax Policy Center's website states that they are a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. So you are saying the Brooks Institution is left-leaning? Did you read the editorial in the Globe today about supply-side economics? I think there are real questions as to whether tax cuts grow the economy and whether the additional jobs needed to add tax revenue would actually materialize. The article looks at recent history. Also, they provide a list of the tax deductions that would add up to $480 billion which is what they would need to cover the tax cut. Most of them are deductions important to the middle class. If Romney/Ryan can make the tax cut revenue neutral without eliminating any of these deductions then he owes it to the American people to show us.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2012/10/14/gop-bets-tax-cuts-way-expand-economy-generate-new-revenues/LvAGuPPghim46PitrKlbdO/story.html?p1=Well_BG_Links

The TPC, your GLOBB article and many comments here never take all the points of Mitt's plan into consideration:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/09/tax-policy-centers-skewed-analysis-of-governor-romneys-tax-plan

Proper tax reform would:

- Improve economic performance by lowering marginal tax rates and making other growth-oriented changes;
- Enact a new tax code that raises the same amount of revenue as the previous tax code (revenue neutrality);
- Broaden the tax base to achieve revenue neutrality; and
- Maintain the current distribution of the tax burden across all income levels (distributional neutrality).

The Tax Policy Center (TPC) conducted an analysis of Governor Mitt Romney’s tax reform plan. Governor Romney’s plan follows all four requirements of tax reform. However, the report’s authors conspicuously chose to ignore the requirement for distributional neutrality. The results of their analysis have garnered much attention because they erroneously claim that the plan would necessarily cut taxes for the rich, whom their report defines as those with incomes over $200,000, and raise taxes on middle-income and low-income taxpayers (all other taxpayers).

The authors’ assumptions largely determine the report’s conclusions. The carefully chosen assumptions underlying TPC’s analysis misrepresent the outcome of Governor Romney’s plan and misrepresent the results of pro-growth tax reform in general.

Also if you read the Simpson and Bowles report you will see that the feds forgo $1.1 trillion per year (first paragraph in section 2 Tax Reform), using the math the dems like the most that is $11 trillion over 10 years. $11 trillion is more than $5 trillion ("arithmetic") so it is doable. The dems just want to negotiate it now during the election. I think Mitt is correct to just lay out the outline and the principles he'll use. This is far more than Mr 0 has said about the next 4 years.

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf

Republicans seem to be coalescing around this response to last night's vice presidential debate: Joe Biden laughed and smiled. A lot. Oh, and he was rude.

But that's all they've got. Considering their other option was that Paul Ryan had his rear-end handed to him, it's probably the best they can do.

.

Malarkey: Exaggerated or foolish talk, usually intended to deceive.

It's not just Republicans, it's Independents (like me). I thought Ryan held his own against a highly experienced Biden. He was articulate, knew his stuff, and didn't seem chained to scripted responses. Biden seemed equally as confident, but I expected this. A lot of people seemed to expect another Biden gaffe, but I didn't think he was going to give one. However, he didn't help himself at all by being so rude.

Overall, I think Ryan achieved his goal by not being a pushover against Biden and not screwing up (and being a bad headline the next day).

Stiv, CNN and CNBC polls thought Ryan won because of Biden's antics. It isn't just Republican's.

Bob,

ACtually the CNN poll was a draw, not too bad considering that the pollster admitted that the poll takers were weighted towards Republicans :

"The Thursday night debate between Vice President Joe Biden and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) resulted in a split-decision, according to a snap poll from CNN/ORC International.

Forty-eight percent of registered voters who watched the debate in Dansville, Ky. said that Ryan was the winner, while 44 said Biden ended up on top. That's within the poll's margin of error of 5 percentage points.

Keating Holland, polling director for CNN, urged caution to those trying to derive too much meaning from the poll, highlighting the limits of such a survey. Holland also acknowledged that the poll's sample of debate watchers included more Republicans than the average of recent CNN polls."

But Biden was the clear winner from a CBS snap poll of uncommitted voters and also from an NBC focus group after the debate. Uncommitted votes is really what is important because the others are not going to change their minds.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57531059/poll-biden-takes-debate-over-ryan-uncommitted-voters-say/?tag=MaxDeep

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/hardball/49384154/#49384154

Stiv - So 48% Ryan and 44% Biden is a draw to you? You stuck with the old math Biden and Obama are stuck with? Not able to figure out Romney/Ryan's tax plan?

Bob, do you really not know what 'margin of erro'r is? Did you miss the comment from the Polling Director that stated that there were more Republicans than usual in the polling group? The CNN people themselves called it a draw. Are you now interpreting their own data for them?

XBox Live viewers also saw Biden as decisive winner in debate. Aslo Biden picked a smore truthful:

http://majornelson.com/2012/10/11/xbox-live-community-flex-political-muscle-during-interactive-vice-presidential-debate/

Stiv - now I know where ABC/CBS/CNN are really getting their facts from..."XBOX LIVE" good points on that one! (Perhaps they are the 47%'ers that are still cheering for no more Bush & looking to have their rent paid by the working class...)

Stiv, evidently someone does. 48% to 44% is a win for the 48%. To then say "but it is in the margin of error" doesn't change the data. Margin of error is for extrapolation to a larger "national" type audience. It has nothing to do with the poll numbers themselves. They asked 100 people who won. 48 said Ryan. 44 said Biden and 8 gave no answer or called it a draw. Margin of error says if we asked 1,000 people 480 (+-5%) would have said Ryan and 440 (+-5%) would have said Biden.
Make up the population of the poll also has no affect on the raw data unless your poll was trying to be representative of the general population. If so, CNN's poll master is an idiot. STILL doesn't change the outcome of the poll.

Yoohoo Bob!

From the small print (font size 2) at the bottom of the quoted CNN snap poll:

"SPECIAL NOTE OF CAUTION #1: This poll does not and cannot reflect the views of all Americans. It only represents the views of people who watched the debate. SPECIAL NOTE OF CAUTION #2: The sample of debate-watchers in this poll were 31% Democratic and 33% Republican. That indicates that the sample of debate watchers is about eight points more Republican than an average CNN poll of all Americans, so the respondents were more Republican than the general public."

So CNN itself claims that the results are not representative of the broader public, as determined by their concurrent national polling. So CNN itself is admitting that the partisan gap they're seeing at the national level isn't reflected here.

What would be helpful would be to see how independents and undecided voters viewed the debate. And on that score? CNN blows it. Their poll memo does not include crosstabs.

Hence we have no broader context other than according to the Republican-heavy sample that watched the debate, those Republicans liked the Republican. If that's what they were going to give us, they might as well have saved their money. I could've told them that for free.

Thus, the CBS News poll of undecided voters (where Biden crushed Ryan) is decidedly more informative.

Bob,

The CBS poll had Biden at 50% and Ryan at 31%. And here is a quote from the CNN website about their poll:

"This poll does not and cannot reflect the views of all Americans. It only represents the views of people who watched the debate and by definition cannot be an indication of how the entire American public will react to Wednesday's debate in the coming days," cautions CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

One-third of the respondents who participated in tonight's survey identified themselves as Republicans, with 31% identifying themselves as Democrats, and 34% identifying themselves as independents.

"That indicates that the sample of debate watchers is more Republican than an average of recent CNN polls of all Americans," adds Holland.

Christina and Stiv,
I understand what each says. My point is very simple. In the CNBC poll, Ryan won. In the CNN poll Ryan won. They BOTH had Ryan winning with more than just Republican votes. So Independents and/or Democrats also thought in each poll he won.
The CBS poll which I didn't cite, had Biden winning.
Stiv, I understand what CNN poll master said. I am not arguing that the poll or the CNBC poll represent the larger population. I simply said both polls said Ryan won PERIOD. No further inference from me. Again the RAW poll data is the votes actually cast in each and in each Ryan received the greater number of votes.

If so, I guess I must have been watching the wrong channel.

hey quasimodo - if you were watching anything other than Fox; indeed you are getting it wrong to begin with...

The only comments by Republicans are about Biden's demeanor, but nothing is said about the content of his data. A large part of Ryan's comment was, well..., just malarkey. If you don't think so, just go on factcheck.org, you might learn something.

Quasimodo - you elude to 2 false claims here... A) that the sensable and non bias responses are republican (of which I am not) B) that there was and data provided by Biden last night... There were a few comments such as his ignorance to the ongoings in Lybia - but unfortunately factcheck does not have much on Bidens mental state. (But seriously - I do pray for all Americans lost not only in Lydia, but for all lost in the senseless violence stemming from the hatred of Americans by extremists.)

So you essential angst is that you want to see the Republican budget in finite detail BEFORE November 6th? Will you be voting on the candidates – or their budget?

When have you EVER seen ANY of Obama's 'budgets' – in finite detail? Do you yet know the finite details of ObamaCare? [Wait til you try to sell your home.]

Romney/Ryan want to work out a budget – in cooperation and consultation – with Congress. How hard it THAT to understand?

4 more years of Mr 0, 4 more budgets that even dems in the senate won't vote for, next stop 25 TRILLION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! is that hard to believe? that is what you'll get with Mr 0, ...

This is why I believe Biden Lost, instead of smirking and laughing etc he should have grilled Ryan on their budget plan and let Ryan try to explain it rather than interrupting him.

And no..no one is asking for a finite detailed line item budget but it would be good to know how Romney and Ryan plan to get there. Just saying they are going to do X or Y is not good enough. Unless they ACTUALLY Cut defense, they are not going to be able to get there and I believe (I may be wrong) Romney and Ryan have said they are not going to touch defense.

Otherwise what is the difference between the two (Not that there is much difference between the two any way, on issues that really matter..both parties are the flip side of the same coin) their only argument is trust us vs them and frankly I don't trust either of them.

Craig, Ryan tried a couple of times to lay out the plan and Biden jumped in each time. He didn't want Ryan giving the detail because they would have nothing to harp about. Romney spelled it out last week in his roll over Obama...

Cut tax rates, eliminate loop holes for the wealthy and expand the tax base by adding up to 12 million jobs.

Smerls, so you think 4% of the US GDP is the make or break part? Military budget is the shiny object that get's the liberal base foaming at the mouth. $1.2 Trillion over 10 years of cuts is only $120 billion per year in an approximate $4 Trillion dollar budget. Like saying a cup of coffee a year at a coffee shop will crash your home budget.
That was the same as Biden's claim of the wealthy tax cut killing the budget "120,000 families getting $500 billion in cuts over 10 years..." $50 billion a year is what the government pays in TP!

that is due to dem dementia ;)

John, the answer is simple... Massachusetts voted for Ted Kennedy. If Jack the Ripper ran as a D in Massachusetts he would win. And what Vincent said...

Bob,
The Republicans had control of the Governors office from 1990 through 2006. A Democrat could not beat the Republicans until Mitt came back to Massachusetts. 6 out of our last 9 Governors were Republicans (Volpe, Sargent, Weld, Celluci, Swift and Romney) and one of the three Democrats, King, was a DINO and should have been a Republican

John,
Define control. In Massachusetts the single most powerful politician is and has been the Speaker of the House. With 86% of one party there is little the SotH can force in the state. Remember Romney vetoed over 400 items and over 400 were over ridden. I think it was 4 that were upheld.
Kerry Heally not Mitt lost the Governor race. The R's have all been RINO's. Romney is not conservative by most measures.

I have the same feeling, magnified, about Ryan.

>> OK, I'll bite. What CLASSIFIED information did he leak

Without saying too much - he revealed way too much detailed knowledge about somebody's elses building project. Loose lips sink ships - and get our friends killed.

Frankly, the man is widely regarded in military and intel circles to be too stupid to be trusted. Another perfect example was when he couldn't contain himself and blurted out 'SEAL Team 6'...thereby painting a bulls-eye on their backs - and their families' backs. He is a joke, a buffoon, and an ongoing danger to America and our allies.

That's OK, Nelly, with Republicans, opinions trump facts.

Sometime, given the perpetual "malarkey" of the opposition's argument, a little rudeness is necessary.

Doria - Biden called him out on his plan to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction. It is the only deduction large enough to cover the Romney 20% rate deduction to keep things revenue neutral. The Republicans stopped mentioning the mortgage deduction months ago because they know that they will lose elections everywhere if they continue to push this plan. The Romney/Ryan plan is to raise taxes on moderate income people who itemize their deductions and it was great to see Biden call them out. Ryan had no response.

Doria, so you are telling me you like the plan the Obama administration has put forth to reduce our crushing deficit? Do you realize what this deficit is going to do to our kids? That's right - Obama has NO plan.

Ryan scores big time over the Obama/Biden disaster. Also, calling Mitt Romney Mittens just reduces your comment to childish temper tantrums. I

Which ones are you AFRAID of? Is your whole life constructed around a specific deduction?

Democrats who pretend to want to micro-manage the Republican budget - BEFORE they'll vote for the TICKET - are just blowing smoke screens.

For four painful years we've had a questionable/suspect pResident, and a JOKE as a Vice President. Our national debt rose by $6 TRILLION, the Muslim Brotherhood is set to rule the Islamic world - and the oil routes - Iran will have a bomb within months - and thanks to the BROADCASTING of secrets - nobody out there wants to work with us. Other countries DON'T TRUST Obama. Biden's secret-leaking last night is a PERFECT example of why they shouldn't.

So, you still want to micro-manage possible deductions - with the Levant ablaze?

Personally, I believe he knows which ones, but he wont say, because they are the modest "loopholes" that most middle-class people use on their tax returns. In particular, the mortgage deductions, which, if cancelled, would also put a real break on the housing industry.

I agree, why is the administration so silent on what happened 9/11/12? The massive failure of our Sec. of State Clinton really took me off guard. I gave up on the media years ago, their approval rate is on par with congress for a reason. But Up until then I had a lot of respect for Clinton, thought she' be a great contender in 2016. But, we were lied to and now they are trying to whitewash the whole "bump". Deplorable.

BINGO!! You captured a KEY truth:

Per Biden - they DIDN'T know what was happening in Benghazi - even as the press was reporting the details...

BUT,..they want YOU TO BELIEVE...that somehow they know what's going on in Iran? Just proves they really DO think American voters are stupid.

well then there is the problem, you do not understand the goal, it is not a 20% tax cut so no one should expect that, you should read about the principles he'll use and the real goals

It's more than semantics, but rather, like Joe would say, malarkey on the part of the Romney. It's a 20% reduction in taxes for everybody, but it's also supposed to be revenue-neutral and the way to reach this goal is to remove some deductions on the tax returns, which in turn will result in collecting more taxes from you and me. Did I miss something there? Its a basic fact of Nature that you cannot get something for nothing.

quasimodo...I think you did miss something. Every time Biden said killing the mortgage deduction, Ryan reitterated they would only close loopholes and deductions for the wealthy. I believe the number he used was those making over $1 mil.

Interesting response Craig F.
However there seems to be a gap in your analysis, including the points where the R-R proposals are working under a premise of voters having some intelligence and doing their homework on topics; not to mention listening & the ability to comprehend the points of discussion. As for the economy - it's not a simple 1:1 and unfortunately the equations are a bit more complex than simple Obama math. But at a big picture simple explanation to those whose lights have not gone on all the way let me say this. If you increase tax, you are pulling money out of the economic flow. If you reduce tax, you are allowing money to continue to flow. As the economy flows it grows... so in simple enough math for perhaps Obama to comprehend, (or perhaps not)
{Part 1 of 2 & this is a short response and you are wondering why the Romney-Ryan reply is not defined...}

{Part 2 of 2}
Let’s say the economy needs $80 in "flow" to be stable & is currently at $100... (this is a theoretical point & could have been any $)... Now you are going to establish your tax % on the $100, if you tax over 20% you will not have a stable economy.
We are currently taxing at a rate of 50% in this perspective and this created a bottleneck in the economy. There is no stimulus that can positively impact this if you do not reduce the tax percentages...
This examples barely touches the surface of the actual complexity with the economy, but is just a perspective of the concept one needs to realize.
I am a lower middle class citizen and just paying in the first tier of federal taxes... there are people making just a bit less than I (pay no taxes come yearend) and it makes no sense... A) We need to implement a flat tax B) limit the economic "assistance" to those who are legitimately in need to food/shelter and education (and of course U.S. citizens only).

you need to read more

http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/TaxPolicy.pdf

If you listen you will hear Mitt say he intends to use principles like these on tax overhaul:
- work with congress
- not lower burden on upper income individuals
- relief to middle class (making us more competitive due to this being most small businesses)
- keep it deficit neutral

Joe - I really don't care about which candidates are tolerant of other races. I'm sure they have all made inappropriate comments in their lives.
The point Biden made was that it is impossible to have a revenue neutral 20% tax cut without eating into the mortgage interest deduction. Of course the Romney website does not say this because it would scare off too many voters.

The Laffer curve. LOL. Coming from you, I am not surprised.

I've met Arthur Laffer and he does not question the validity of his law. To confirm a few points on the curve check out Europe.

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

IN June 2009 Arthur Laffer wrote an article for the WSJ in which he stated:

"With U.S. GDP and federal tax receipts at about $14 trillion and $2.4 trillion respectively, such a debt all but guarantees higher interest rates, massive tax increases, and partial default on government promises....... We can expect rapidly rising prices and much, much higher interest rates over the next four or five years, and a concomitant deleterious impact on output and employment not unlike the late 1970s."

How'd that prediction work out for him, Reverend?

"Forecasting is a risky business, especially the future."

This is why economists have two hands..."But on the other hand."

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

Why would Lafleur, sorry Laffer, question his own law? I don't think the Pope would question his own church either. ;~))

PS. Who paid for the drinks?

Sorry, Richard, some VPs start huge wars based on lies.

Richard - The VP sometimes becomes President. It has happened twice in many of our lifetimes (Truman & Johnson). Biden as President is a very scary thought.

How has Joe's foreign policy expertise helped shape our direction, when will Iraq be split into 2? Joe is a gaff machine, a plagiarizing gas bag, oh sorry I forgot dem dementia blocks that out.

That is truly a scary thought indeed. Could you imagine crazy uncle Joe across the table from some of these middle eastern nut cases? Whose nuttier? Imagine the impression the USA give with crazy Joe's wild eyes, laughing, smirking in a foreign policy capacity. Its bad enough he's too close to the button.

Doria, not knowing how old you are, you do realize if you're in your 20's, chances are social security is not going to be what it is now because by then someone needs to have the balls to correct the problem. If you're 55+ you do realize the ryan plan does not involve you. The sound bites of rich getting richer are lame and provide no substance to the conversation, sound bites just negate your post. What exactly is the Obama/Biden plan for Medicare and social security? I haven't heard one. I might add that you are probably aware that this "voucher" plan would allow you to keep a plan very similar to the existing medicare plan. If you have kids, you should be hoping that someone like Ryan can try to fix what is broken for the future generations. It's not all about us you know.

You can do whatever the hell you want with your body, just don't make me pay for it. No one's stopping you and no one plans to stop you. Do you really know the issues? How are Romney/Ryan too extreme? What has Obama done?

Patricia sez: "You can do whatever the hell you want with your body, just don't make me pay for it. No one's stopping you and no one plans to stop you."

Is it possible that you've never heard of the Republican Party? Do you really not know that their party platform for 2012 supported a constitutional amendment banning abortion that would allow no exception for terminating pregnancies, even those caused by rape? Perhaps you are the one who does not know the issues.

Correct

I think the fear comes from political candidates like Ryan who may be in a position to change laws who say that they want to make abortion illegal. Ryan is now following the Romney campaign line but he has said in the past that he will oppose abortion being legal. I agree that it is unlikely to be outlawed but if only the naive or misguided believe it could be outlawed then what do you say about someone who votes for a candidate who has said he wants to try and outlaw it?

Perhaps the best-kept secret of modern medicine is the link between oral contraceptives and increased breast cancer risk.

While combined oral contraceptives, better known as The Pill, rank as Group I carcinogens according to a 2005 report released by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an arm of the World Health Organization, doctors continue to routinely prescribe the pill for a variety of conditions, ranging from acne to birth control (American Cancer Society, 2008)….

MO - Are you really trying to claim that Obama is pushing the pill and Romney will protect women from taking it? I 100% guarantee that there will be no change in the number of women taking the pill no matter who wins the election.

Not only will countless more women be taking Type 1 Carcinogens on a daily basis if Obama gets another 4 years, but these same women also won’t be able to get the mammograms they’ll need to detect the cancer it can and will cause many of them. One more victim is one more too many.

I think you put too much trust in Obama's unelected and unaccountable 15 person panel of bureaucrats that will make your health decisions beginning next year.

Right you are Saul

Quasimodo - I had not seen the CBS poll but just looked it up. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. How we vote in Massachusetts generally does not matter much since we live in a very liberal state. The new Florida polls offer a much clearer picture as reported yesterday. Florida is a swing state and how they vote is important. I tend to track www.realclearpolitics.com. Romney/Ryan gained 2 points. I do not always trust polls but they have a lot of them and since the numbers all moved after the debate it looks like Ryan won. Even NH seems to have moved Romney/Ryan (based on the polls). We will know much better after the next two Presidential debates.

this is an oldie, WOW those suffering dem dementia must think the wheels surely have come off of Mr 0 campaign if they see the need to play this card, ...

FACT: If RvW were struck down then abortions (yes/no) would fall to each state.

"Living in MA it is hard to believe this is going on in our country"

-> I think you are saying YOU know better how others should live their lives, ... dem dementia for sure

just so we are clear dem dementia is:

- re-electing a failed president
- re-electing a gas bag vp
- not holding the president accountable for his failure on the economy
- not holding the president accountable for his failed foreign policy, lying about the 9/11/2012 terrorist attack
- not holding the president accountable for using class warfare as a campaign strategy
- > $6 TRILLION!!!!!! added to the national debt over 4 years and no plan in action to get it under control
- driving Ds and Rs as far apart as they currently are, not leading
- changing from "hope and change" to "mope and blame"
- ...
- voting for someone because they have a D next to their name

riiiight, "mope and blame"

I believe "jo" is correct. During the next 4 years, there will be at least 2 vacancies at the US Supreme Court. You can bet that a Romney victory would result in couple more Scalias on the Court, and in the next challenge of Roe vs Wade, the outcome would be obvious.

Hey Mark........who asked you first of all.........I was stating a fact, did you not hear what Ryan had to say during the debate or are you deaf??

"Personally, I believe that life begins at conception, and it is for that reason that I feel we need to protect that life as we would protect other children,"

As a pro-life congressman, it's no surprise Paul Ryan has supported bills including the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act and the No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act.

But he's also lent his support to more controversial legislation, recently backing a bill that would require a woman seeking an abortion to receive an ultrasound from her doctor to make sure she sees the fetal image

Is this not ruling against a women's right to choose?

Or are republicans deaf, dumb and blind?

Maybe you haven't paid attention lately? There are always groups in different States which promote bills to stop abortions. These cases eventually end up at the SC. You know full well that if the Romney's appointees, just one of them get hold of the case, Roe Vs. Wade will be rejected at least 5-4.

Global warming is a HOAX. That's one pretty BIG reason not to trust science. Most likely the biggest hoax in American history. The EPA intentionally buried a study proving it. Alan Carlin, author of the EPA study on climate change stated “My view…there is not currently any reason to regulate carbon dioxide. Global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century.” “They’re not going up. If anything, they’re going down.”

Everyone needs to watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nCONuySFjY&feature=share

Alan Carlin has a Ph.D in Economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a B.S. in Physics from the California Institute of Technology. My favorite quote of his "The Obama Administration has made many efforts to support its climate religion. Since this viewpoint has no basis in the scientific method, it is not science and would seem best characterized as religion."

Sorry that hearing the truth via Fox news is mental torture to most Progressives and Liberals as you can't stand the truth or reality.

It’s a HOAX about redistribution of wealth, and scientists from all over the world including employees from NASA have become whistleblowers. Did you read the letter sent by 49 NASA employees including astronauts stating the claims are unsubstantiated considering the thousands of years of empirical data?

It’s over, time to face the truth. We know it’s a hoax.

Watch this to learn more about Obama’s Green Agenda and see how corrupt the EPA has become.

Note to Parents: this is a must see to catch a glimpse of the brainwashing going on in our local schools.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-QDEh4jf8w

"No Democratic senator was willing to support it, however, after Obama discussed a more ambitious plan at George Washington University to save $4 trillion over 12 years. Republicans criticized his speech for lacking detail."

- Nelly: how is that $4 trillion reduction plan working out? and this happened every year Mr 0 held office (no budget passed the senate).

seems reading comprehension is an issue ;) did uncle Joe the gas bag (aka Mr the words don't always come out correctly) post that last comment?

I could say "what # cigar was Clinton on?" but I won't that was just an example ;) talk about a war on woman and dem dementia (blocking out traumatic events)!

and all it takes is one LEADER who knows what he is doing, willing to compromise, that clearly did NOT happen during Mr 0's first big boy gig!

Yes, Vincent, there is certainly blame to be shared by both sides of the aisle. However, I will remind you that it was the Republican policy, EXPLICITLY and PUBLICLY expressed by Mitch McConnell, Republican Minority Leader of the Senate, to have the Obama Administration fail, and counter all of its efforts to pass absolutely everything: it almost have worked.

exhibit A: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/25/AR2010102502408.html

The roots of Obama's demise
By Marc A. Thiessen
Monday, October 25, 2010

The decline of the Obama presidency can be traced to a meeting at the White House just three days after the inauguration, when the new president gathered congressional leaders of both parties to discuss his proposed economic stimulus. House Republican Whip Eric Cantor gave President Obama a list of modest proposals for the bill. Obama said he would consider the GOP ideas, but told the assembled Republicans that "elections have consequences" and "I won." Backed by the largest congressional majorities in decades, the president was not terribly interested in giving ground to his vanquished adversaries.

exhibit B: http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/pelosi-healthcare-vote-democrats/2010/03/16/id/352913

Democratic leaders already plan to employ the parliamentary maneuver known as reconciliation. Under reconciliation, Congress agrees on general objectives and uses reconciliation to plug in specific numbers later. It is intended to streamline legislative debates and amendments related to budget-related legislation.

Reconciliation became necessary following Sen. Scott Brown's upset win in Massachusetts, which cost Senate Democrats the 60th vote they need to head off any filibuster of new legislation.

exhibit C (checkmate): http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/24/Dems-Lie-McConnell-One-Term-President

Dems' Favorite Lie: McConnell Wanted Obama to Fail From The Start

Back in December 2010, two full years into Barack Obama’s presidency, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) remarked, “Our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term.” He was speaking after two years of Obama ramming through exponential spending increases, Obamacare, and a feckless foreign policy that had crippled United States policy in the Middle East. He also stated that he didn’t want Obama to fail, but to change.

read'em and weep? why? I'm not personally vested in them unlike others. Why shouldn't I choose IBM?
Some people have waaayyyy too much time on their hands and should get off the grid.
Question, do you have these thoughts and then goggle them looking for some article to back up your thoughts? Or do you actually read and memorize all these mostly obscure articles? Either way it explains a lot. I know I know it is the FACTS. lol

"waaayyyy too much time on their hands" like time to post a gem like this over on the liquor license thread

Brian
9:01 pm on Saturday, October 13, 2012
hey now ;)
lol

you lose

you like that one don't you ;)
glad to see your cut and paste clicks are working, you must be a software engineer :)
There is a benefit to laughter to which I find somethings amusing. In particular some peoples comments. Such as:

"Vincent, Jesse James' name, as he just stated above, is also a pseudonym. Like Alex, he's also welcome to comment.

If you're interested in reducing the "poison", what I would recommend is that you become more positive and constructive in your comments to those you disagree with and request the same from others of all opinions."
7/12/12

But don't worry Big Blue will do just fine. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/mitt-romney-says-big-business-doing-fine-after-criticizing-obama-for-similar-remarks/

be petty all you like, FACTs matter

look in the mirror

ummm, ya, that is his message

and you numbers are OLD, China is the growth market in tech now, I know all about it ;)

you have nothing new to offer the conversation so don't even bother
last time I checked the WSJ, India still was one of the top leaders in tech growth

check again -> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9169678/IBM_stops_disclosing_U.S._headcount_data

are you saying you chose IBM by accident? I guess everyone gets lucky, just not on the numbers/FACTs!

straight from the article you just posted
Ron Hira, an associate professor of public policy at the Rochester Institute of Technology, said the workforce data is critical to helping policymakers understand the dynamics of offshoring. "By hiding its offshoring, IBM is doing a disservice to America -- through omission the company is providing misleading labor market signals and information to policymakers," Hira said.
Exactly might point. Thanks for backing it up!

Did I dispute any of that? The article clearly states IBM no longer reports headcount and you think you know where they are adding headcount (based on old stale data). I told you I know more about their headcount than you do and that Mitt's policy is to lower tax rates and close loopholes (where we started) and you proved what exactly? you are almost out of time once again

another very relevant question is why did you skip all the way down to IBM when GE sits as a poster child in this area? General Electric's CEO Jeffrey Immelt has served as chair of Mr 0's Jobs Council

Obama Jobs Council Packed With Outsourcing Companies
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/12/obama-jobs-council-outsourcing_n_1666443.html

Bam’s angry adviser
Immelt appalled at O’nomics
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/bam_angry_adviser_YOANZQkGODYVqFDAsI9LjP

Report: Members of Obama's Job Panel Outsourced Jobs to China
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/jobs-panel-outsourced-jobs/2012/09/06/id/451023

read'em and weep!

nice job on the FACTS ;)

aka PolitiFiction

http://www.politifactbias.com/

http://www.politifactbias.com/

Biased, indeed, as their URL indicates.

Or if your golf game got rained out you could hop on over to this site and see how Obama’s Race to the Top funds are supporting a UN Curriculum.

http://gulfspeaks.info/

hi, with all due respect: Why do you care, I bet TR would tell you to mind your own P & Qs, in case that was not a TR lesson I sent it along free of charge. Is it OK to watch the PATs? ;)

"I guarantee no successful person (in business or life) is sitting around repeating these patterns you are"

I wonder when we'll see the day where it's legal for hack partisans to fight to the death (preferably via pay per view), so we can get the Internet back to the productive, wholesome place it otherwise would be. In the plus column for you types, you'd get some fresh air and sunshine at least....do it up like hunger games or something that the young kids like, maybe that would get them into lessons on civic duty and politicking.

I bet we'd have plenty of takers too...it's easier to fight than it is to live on realizing you are merely a fleshy conduit for poorly sourced Google searches. Not to mention all the wasted data being shuttled across the wires. My god Sierra Club ought push a ban Commenting on the grounds its causing global warming. Or at the very least, making people buy Carbon Credits based on the volume they "comment."

I personally love the idea of attaching a credit card verification to all comments on non-paid websites. Pay a penny to verify once and post to your hearts content...with your own full name. Would cut out the tide of the chattering class who confuse being informed with "can type in a search box". But if we can get Net Neutrality killed then it may well come about, so there's hope....and our man Mitt will probably help in that regard. Still, I'm undecided. See what happens Tuesday.

Til then, as you were (and will be)....

if you read the Simpson and Bowles report you will see that the feds forgo $1.1 trillion per year (first paragraph in section 2 Tax Reform), using the math the dems like the most that is $11 trillion over 10 years. $11 trillion is more than $5 trillion ("arithmetic") so it is doable. The dems just want to negotiate it now during the election. I think Mitt is correct to just lay out the outline and the principles he'll use. This is far more than Mr 0 has said about the next 4 years.

Hey that reminds me about Dick Morris’ new book “Here Come the Black Helicopters”. It’s a book about UN Global governance and the loss of freedom.

Anyone else tired of all of those cars, cars, cars clogging the roads of our cities? It's all part of the Republican Party's "Paveability" plan:

“Cars and oil. What does that have to do with it? I like to drive my car and so do you. So what? Automobile and oil/gas advocacy groups are very powerful now. Advocacy. A fancy word for lobbying, influencing, and maybe strong-arming the public and politicians. What's the connection with auto groups? National groups such as the American Petroleum Institute, the US Oil and Gas Association, the National Petroleum Association and others, have training programs teaching their members how to pressure for redevelopment, and training candidates for office. It's not just about more highways, it's about remaking cities and rural areas to the 'auto-usable model'. massive urban reconstruction with more roads and parking for cars is the goal. This means that whole residential areas need to be demolished and rebuilt in the image of high auto-usage development. Auto groups are being used as the 'shock troops' for this plan.”

...and Ryan, like his "boss," is also a liar.

The Republicans are predictably having a case of the vapors over that horrible Joe Biden's terrible manners, which is hilarious from the people who had no problem with Newt Gingrich browbeating the moderators to their faces or audience members screaming out "yeah!" when Wolf Blitzer asking if people who don't have insurance should die. To hear them go on today, fainting couches have sold out all over the country.

Like all petty bullies, the Republicans hate most when someone fights back.

Huh?

Stiv, I agree and that is a huge issue I have with the far right Republican's. I long for the Golwater Republican's that would separate the moral from the legislative.

I do think you are engaging in hyperbole when you call his answer "a mullah answer". I see his answer no more or less concerning than those on the left who continue to speak and attempt to legislate for a "wall of separation" such as trying to make a nativity scene on public property and validation of one religion.

I don't think that it's hyperbole. If you asked a mullah about faith and public service, don't you think that they would say something very similar to "Our faith informs us in everything we do.” ?

Sure Stiv, but tell me the where Ryan, or Romney for that matter, said "all law must come from the bible". That is mullah territory.

Bob,

I'm glad we agree. As for the other half of your comment, you are stating something that was never said or implied.

Paul Ryan's faith is very convenient. I don't doubt that he believes that Opus Catholic idea of womens' primary role being as vessels for children. That's old school Catholic. And 8th century misogynistic. When a man who may become the second most powerful person in the world genuinely believes that's what women are good for, he'll make choices based on those beliefs. God will tell him to. And that's exactly what a mullah does. The comparison is spot on.

"womens' primary role" -> surely their role is not crawling (or being thrown) under a bus for the big dem in office, is it? Oh wait poor Hillary crawled under the bus for Mr 0 and was flatten by the BC bus. Imagine a world where the President of the USA stood up and took responsibility!

Donal, not if they lower your tax rate. If they lower your rate 5% and remove deductions to equal that 5% number it is a wash. That is their stated goal. Since deductions are after tax and a rate decrease is pretax, your effective rate may even go down.

That is the only relevant thing in this discussion. Anyone who itemizes their deductions and earns under 250K will see a tax increase under the Romney/Ryan plan.

@ Bob

What you wrote would be correct if this was the Romney/Ryan intention, and in this case, the Government would see no increases in its revenues and therefore this "exercise" in duplicity would have been for not: we would remain in the present big mess! It's like taking a $ from your left pocket and putting it in your right pocket (or vice versa ;`), and in that case the average tax payer has no more free cash than he/she had before. In other word, the Romney/Ryan plan is at best a bad joke, but more exactly a first class swindle, which hide their true intention.

folks, vote how you like but why lie?

http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/TaxPolicy.pdf

Long-Term Goal: Pursue a Fairer, Flatter, Simpler Tax Structure
In the long run, Mitt Romney will pursue a conservative overhaul of the tax
system that includes lower and flatter rates on a broader tax base. The approach
taken by the Bowles-Simpson Commission is a good starting point for the
discussion. The goal should be a simpler, more efficient, user-friendly, and less onerous tax system. Every American would be readily able to ascertain what they
owed and why they owed it, and many forms of unproductive tax gamesmanship
would be brought to an end. Conversely, tax reform should not be used as an
under-the-radar means of raising taxes. Where reforms that simplify the code
or encourage growth have the effect of increasing the tax burden, they should
be offset by reductions in marginal rates. Washington’s problem is not too little
revenue, but rather too much spending.

Quasi, it would if that were the end of it. It is part of a larger plan to get American's back to work. If those two things happen as they plan, it would mean about 12 million more tax payers and the income would far outpace. One must open one's mind stop looking at it in a phone booth.
Also it would mean more money in your pocket if it was tax rate vs. deduction. Deductions are taken after tax income. Tax rate is before/during. Any benefit pre-tax is better than an equal post tax.
In your example I have $2 dollars in my left pocket and I can put one in my right pocket without paying fees or taxes. I then pay government taxes and fees on the $1 dollar still in my left pocket but not on the one I already moved into the right! More money in right pocket!

If the moneys collected exceed the expenses then the fee is a tax.

Yes, they are, just as they were when I paid them when my kids were in school. Any monies paid to a government entity to provide or supplement a public service or program are taxes, despite the spin the pols try to put on it. Especially egregious is a fee for kindergarten, but sport and club fees are also taxes.

YES complete "malarkey"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/15/charity-president-unhappy-about-paul-ryan-soup-kitchen-photo-op/

the campaign followed its usual protocol for impromptu, on-the-road stops by candidates: A staffer was dispatched to the St. Vincent De Paul Society ahead of Ryan’s visit Saturday morning and spoke with a woman in charge on site, who said that it would be fine for the congressman to stop by. The campaign did not contact Antal ahead of the visit.

The woman on site told the Romney staffer that some of the volunteers had already left, but that most were happy to remain until Ryan arrived, according to the aide. After Ryan left the soup kitchen, the woman approached a campaign staffer and expressed gratitude for Ryan’s visit, the aide said.

Yes, Vincent,

What a spin!!!!! Ryan went in the kitchen with his wife, put on an apron, picked up a pot (a dirty one?) , and pretended to be an average-joe, "compassionate" citizen. He was there just enough time to fool the public with the picture shoot. This is a blatant example of how Ryan and his buddy operate. What a bunch of liar!!! And you try to justify this malarkey? I guess people like you deserve what they get: a bad government.

Get on the bus! Get on the bus! Get on the bus!

wait are you in the drivers seat?

all politicians do these, wake up!

spend some time digging into the 2012 terrorist attack (the lies, the cover-up, ...) and start thinking how you are going to spin your way out of that after Mitt hits Mr 0 over the head with it tonight!

hmm Mr 0 is going to have a headache tomorrow morning

http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/battery-builder-a123-won-249-million-federal-grant-143806554.html

Battery builder A123 Systems that won $249 million federal grant files for bankruptcy

"No company has embodied Washington's hope for an American-built electric vehicle business like A123 Systems. The Massachusetts-based company was supposed to become the leading home-grown supplier of lithium-ion batteries for automakers in the United States and around the world -- fueled in part by a $249 million grant from the Obama administration. Today, A123 Systems filed for bankruptcy, saying much of its assets would be sold after losing $857 million over the past several years."

OUCH:
- not ready for prime-time "green" energy or as reality proved lack of energy (like Mr 0 in a debate)
- the feds should not be doling out $ like this
- ...