Stan but you sound like someone that thinks the world owes him a living, and one day you will have a rude awakening.

Deb...I agree with you and you make perfect sense. This is definitely not the Republican party I grew up with. I've lost all respect for those radicals. However, I do feel that President Obama has done a lot despite the obstructionism from Republicans and I think he will be able to accomplish far more in a second term.

Deb, I'm sorry but Obama doesn't understand a thing. He is bringing down our country in a unique way. He isn't for Americans he is for Black Americans and Muslims. Give everyone everything for nothing--welfare, education, healthcare, food stamps....who do you think is going to pay for all of this????? Go to Europe and live there and get sick and see what happens to you. I've done it!! Why do all the big shots from european countries come here for surgery? This country must be run like a business and Obama has no clue! You can't reason with terrorists--power, military and security is the only prohibitor of terrorism. Obama has spent a fortune in his first four years and our country is in the worst shape it's ever been. Talk about Radicals Obama defines the word at it's best!!

But if everyone claims that the media is biased towards Liberals, why would they tell us it would be close? Wouldn't it be in the "Liberal Media's" best interest to call this Obama in a landslide, thus keeping Republican voters home tomorrow??

Your logic is slightly flawed.

Deb...you have been converted by the spin machine of propaganda. Please check the facts on U.S. Presidents to compare the accummulated debt for each. I think you will find President Obama is low on debt to China or elsewhere. One thing you've failed to mention is how dependent corporations have become on government for subsidies and how much we middle class are supporting their businesses via our tax to build the roads and bridges, the infrastructure that they use to deliver their goods and services. Yes, those billionaire dollar profit companies such as big oil not only is making huge profits, but we tax payers are providing them big financial subsidies. Corporate welfare is draining all of our middle class in America. The truth of the matter is that it is the poor and middle class that has made them as wealthy as they are. We are the ones who keep them in business, even the poor spend welfare money, the disabled spend SSI checks to purchase their goods. We will all need FEMA in our lives, too, at one time or another and so will you so you'd better pray hard Romney doesn't get into office and do all the privitizing he has up his sleeve. Or, when a storm puts you out of your home, you'd better hope you have saved up enough money to pay out of pocket for the clean up.

Please go ahead and expound upon your ridiculous and bigoted statement that infers voting for Obama is a vote against religious freedom. You will be proving the point of why so many are steering away from the republican party at large.

Hi, Jim - I think you were trying to direct readers here: http://westborough.patch.com/blog_posts/massachusetts-democrats-propel-romney

What a scary thought..Romney as president. If you are not already filthy rotten rich,.you might as well throw in the towel. Jim, you must be verrrryyy wealthy and therefore, of course you want to continue with Romney. As so many have said, or weren't you paying attention, even many of today's republicans are thinking twice about Romney. He is not what the republican party used to be. I bet many republicans are saying one thing aloud, but when they walk into that voting booth, they are pulling the lever for, or penciling in OBAMA.

Here is Senator John McCain calling out Mitt Romney when he said he didn't raise taxes as Gov. of Massachusetts. McCain says his statement is all "Malarky"

http://front.moveon.org/john-mccain-called-out-romney-on-his-i-didnt-raise-taxes-in-massachusetts-malarkey/?rc=fb.fan

I never thought telling people to be self reliant was a bad thing. The era of "santa claus" government is over, we are broke. It cant be business as usual, the money is all gone and our children are going to be saddled with a financial burden they cannot pay.

That being said, Obama will win reelection because of the press and fear mongering. If you tell me you are vtoting for Obama because you dont like Romney, I can respect that. If you tell me you're voting for him because he's done a good job, you're just a brainwashed liberal that will never vote Republican. Thats too bad because this country is in DEEP trouble.

We will have another 4 years of this ineptitude and maybe we will be in such bad shape that the American people wake up. Liberalism doesnt work, never has, never will. It may make you feel good but I think 16 trillion and climbing debt illustrates that point.

Colin Powell doesn't think Romney would be good for the U.S. military and their families.

Disappointingly, Colin Powell knowingly lied when he testified before the UN that we needed to go into Iraq in reaction to Iraq's chemical weapons capability when he knew that the information he was basing that position on was garbage. Powell's credibility has not been something to rely on, in my opinion, ever since he did that.

If team Obama is covering up events in Benghazi and president Obama is removed from office does Biden become president? That is Scary!

Excellent Point Concerned Citizen, Obama is keeping quiet on Libya and his failure ...........he has failed all military families and cannot comprehend them even considering voting for him again. Deb Par - from a military family, what do you say about Benghazi?????????????

Colin Powell understandably has a bad taste in his mouth in regards to the GOP, after having to fall on the sword after his speech at the UN, all but assuring he'd never be able to run for higher office.

After election season, he should give ol' Hil-dog a call and they can commiserate about being thrown under the bus for the good of the party.

If you tell me you are voting for Romney because he did a good job in Massachussetts as governor I would say you have been brainwashed. I am voting for Obama because i've looked at all he has been able to do to take the country from falling over the cliff to a steady recovery. For those who think you can wave a magic wand a walla everything is fixed then you are not living in reality. It takes far longer than four years. So far Obama has made very wise choices for America; if not for Republican obstructionism we would be much further along in job growth despite that we have been making steady progress.
Mitt Romney is a profit-making business man...let him continue to do so albeit maybe he could pay some taxes to the U.S. instead of investing his money outside the country. Mitt is no leader for 'all' the people. And to blame the poor for the economic mess we were in four years ago and continuing is just ludicrous...that's what the Rush Limbaughs of the world would like you to believe. There are many jobs out there that can not be filled because we don't have the people qualified to do those jobs...we need to better educate our people to fill the jobs as we create new venues for employment. Obama is the man to do it.

Marlene, I assume you're OK with the $50B in paper losses on GM stock that the government is currently holding on behalf of the taxpayers? On balance, that's one of the things that counts on your score sheet as an uptick in the interest of "saving" the auto industry? Romney advocated a managed bankruptcy - run like most bankruptcies through the courts and not be the executive branch. Had the bankruptcy been handled that way, where do you think that $50B stock loss would have landed? On the backs of the private investors that were holding GM stock, where it should have fallen.

Colin Powell was dupped by the administration...he came before the American people with the evidence he was shown, as well as the evidence given to members of Congress, who supported the invasion of Iraq on the same information Powell was given. My guess is that Powell left the administration when he realized he and the rest of the country had been dupped into invading Iraq on false pretenses. He hasn't seemed too cozy with the Bush/Cheney team ever since. I think his integrity is still good...at least he has been willing to be honest in retrospect which neither Bush/Cheney have been.

The auto industry is paying back or in most cases have paid back their loans with interest to the U.S. Gov. I'm not okay with an industry going bankrupt whereby millions of jobs are lost and those millions more are on the gov. unemployment payrolls, perhaps eventually on welfare and food stamps. Bush began the bailout, Obama went for it and made sure the industry was saved and so were millions of families and their jobs. The stock market did hit bottom but has now rebounded quite nicely under Obama.

Marlene, to the best of my knowledge, your information on Colin Powell is wrong. and your understanding of economics is WAY off. Like you, I assumed that Colin Powell got the wrong intelligence before testifying at the UN certifying that Hussein had chemical weapons. About 2 years ago, Time (I believe it was Time) did an article about the Iraq war. The story quoted Powell saying the information he received was BS BEFORE he testified. I had a positive opinion of him up to that point. I still can't figure out how he could have done that.

On GM, I was talking about GM stock the government received in exchange for bailout funds. This is not a loan. It's a straight exchange of money for stock. The info I read on the issue said the GM stock price will have to be somewhere in the $50 range for the government to break even. The price of GM stock is $25.79. The difference in the value is about $50B. On your prediction that auto workers would all be on unemployment right now - GM and other auto companies are selling cars right now. That tells you market demand didn't disappear. If GM had gone through a managed bankruptcy as Romney recommended, the government wouldn't be in the hole for $50B right now and auto workers would still have jobs making cars that people would be buying. What wouldn't have happened was the sweetheart deal with the unions that transferred money to their pension fund. The non-union workers didn't get the same deal. No politics there I guess, huh?

If you think our country deserves to return to the same Republicam policies of the Bush/Cheney era then be sure to vote for Romney...he is tied to big corporations and the billionaires that are dictating his platform. And if you give no credit to President obama for what he has done over the past four years then your head is stuck in the mud. Yes, our country deserves better...it deserves better than an obstructionist Republican party that prizes corporate welfare over the welfare of the country.

I think you ought to do some research so that you can have a clear view ....Obama has not been "too liberal"...why would he ensure the bailouts of wall St., the banks, the auto industry, etc. etc. He could have allowed them to go bankrupt and the country along with it. When you are President of the U.S. you have to be the leader of 'all' the people and that is what you are seeing in president Obama.

I think you're being optimistic that either candidate won't spend enough. Unfortunately, I think the real issue will be around what they spend it on, not so much how much they spend. The Republicans are getting support from a lot of independent voters who want to see a smaller federal government, but the Republicans haven't been "small government" Republicans for a long time. I'm not sure that you can even make the case that the Democrats have been worse looking at budget deficits over the past 20 or 30 years.

Marlene, it's the liberals who generally accept the blanket idea that it's the federal government's responsibility to solve all problems with the country. The bailouts that you called out were the result of an administration that doesn't have a whole lot of business experience negotiating with top executives in failing industries who knew exactly how to play their cards. Government bailouts are a symptom of liberal thinking. Even industry subsidies can be a symptom of liberal thinking, but there the difference is between which industries get subsidized.

I agree with you that Obama has promised a lot of things to "all the people". Unfortunately, he couldn't deliver on a good part of them. It's like taking a group of people out to lunch at a fancy restaurant, telling them to order whatever they want, and then asking when the check comes "Now, who should we have pay for this wonderful meal we all just had?"

Gary Johnson

Ya, his own...

Try comparing the mess Bush left.

Man, I hope your handle is ironic. Because it's not reflected in your comments.

Despite an obstructionist GOP House majority and Senate minority, Obama has been able to shepherd in nearly three straight years of non-stop job gains. His policies kept what would have been a Great Depression from occurring. He's got us on the right track, and Romney wants us to jump tracks - back to where Bush and his cronies got us set up to have the catastrophic economic failure we experienced. You think it was bad this time? It will be SO much worse when Romney does it to us.

If Obama wins and you move to Canada, be sure to let us know when you are leaving so we can give you a cheering sendoff.

I'll help you pack, friend. It will be a great day here in the states when the President wins his second term.

Romney is handcuffed to the evangelicals and right wing of the Republican party and will do what they dictate if he wins and wants to be re-elected. Yes, he will overturn Planned parenthood and do his utmost to overturn Roe. He will be owned by those who would buy him the election and don't kid yourself on that.

Kayla - I'd like to see your data. Where does Obama "give, give, give?" Show me numbers. Show me sources. Show me something other than talking points.

I can show you where Romney took jobs and sent them to China. I can show you where he has changed positions over and over again on the same issue depending on which way the political winds were blowing. I can document every claim I have ever made against Romney.

Do you have an iPhone? A smartphone? Show me the plant in the US where it was built. Go ahead. Show me.

Show me where President Obama does not enforce existing Welfare guidelines. Go ahead. Show me where looking for work is not already a welfare requirement?

I think you've got your facts wrong, Kayla....Obama did not put us into a recession. Please check your facts.

So are you saying that Romneycare in Massachusetts has failed and that Romney did a bad thing? And you are wrong about Obamacare vs. Canada all government health care system. The difference is that Obama care relies on for profit private insurance companies while Canada is all government. Get your facts straight.

Romney's scores on Massachusetts were those put into place by a previous gov. The fact is that Romney says he wants to 'privitize' education and take it out of the public domain...he has discussed this along with 'choice' for special education which tells me that the man does not understand IDEA and how special education law is enacted. Romney offers a reversal back to the Bush economics and a radical displacement of education and services to the elderly and disabled for whom he took from as Governor of Massachusetts to ensure the care and higher profits of his wealthy friends.

Romney reaped the benefits of work done by a prior administration, squeezed the "profits" out of it, took credit, and left. Just like he did with Bain.

When Romney left, he couldn't have won another election here. He had a 60% DISapproval rating.

the grownups are talking, Townie.

So Marlene, how long do we give this guy to make a difference? When he ran the first time, he said he wouldn't deserve a second term if he didn't fix the economy. Romney is not Bush, no matter how hard you try and convince us. You want us to ignore the deficit, people on assistance, unemployment, gas prices that are the legacy of Obama's first term. Instead, in order to avoid talking about Obama's failures, you want to come up with dubious claims about what Romney would do. None of which is based on anything but Democratic propaganda. This has been the playbook for the entire election. Ignore Obama's dismal record, and make up stuff about Romney hoping that you can deceive the voters. How about some intellectual integrity?

http://3chicspolitico.com/president-obamas-accomplishments/

Romney wants to cut taxes on the already wealthy, much of whom pay little to no taxes. His plan does not add up and the research does not support his plan. I have not "made up stuff" about Romney. All that I've said can be easily checked.

Planned Parenthood provides health care to all women in all areas of their needs, to include mammograms, etc., and does not "pronote promiscuity" . If anything teenage pregnancy is higher in areas where there is intollerance for teaching young people about contraception.

Obamacare will mandate insurance for all by 2014 so that those who do not have health insurance will have it and you will be less burdened. In Massachusetts, more people are now covered, nearly all are covered now. Yes, there is a difference between Obamacare and socialized medicine in Canada.

I would also say that if there is to be scruitny for a lacking in administration action then why is it that Bush/Cheney were not called into question for ignoring all warnings "Ben Laden to attack"....they were told over and over and warned by the Clinton administration, yet they ignored the warnings right under their noses until 9/11 happen.

Once again, we get "Oh yea, but Bush did it". When is this administration going to take responsibility. Did Bush miss some signs regarding 911? Mayby. But Bush isn't running, Obama is! And he screwed up bad on Libya. Every time someone brings up Obama's dismal record, the automatic response from the Dem crowd is, "its Bush's fault". When will Obama and his cronies take some responsibility? Who will you blame 4 years from now if he gets reelected?

Romney's wife has been well taken care of, but I work directly with the disabled and know upfront and personal on the cuts Romney made as Governor of Massachusetts. And I know that he is advocating "choice" for special education, which I am intimately involved in via the law. Romney has no clue that "choice" works directly against the required process of current mandates under state and federal law.

The U.S. Supreme Court found that Obama's Health Care Act was legal...please do the research.

So Obama is responsible for his relatives actions that they took to come to this country at the time that Barack was a very young child when they arrived here? So we should blame every young child for the actions of adults? Obama's father was an alcoholic...is Obama to blame for that...should all children be blamed if their parents are alcoholics...if they are abused, should children be blamed for the abuse their parents cause? Your reason for not supporting our President based on his remote relatives just doesn't fly.

Marlene, when you're the President of the United States and you have two close relatives who have been living illegally in the U.S. for years, and the country has a major issue with what to do with its illegal immigrants, and it just so happens that the dominant ethnic component of those illegal immigrants comes from a bloc your party is pursuing to build its strength, ethical conduct would have you recuse yourself from the debate because you aren't independent on the matter. That hasn't happened. In fact, in my view, Obama took the coldest step I've seen him take during his term as president when he announced a temporary two-year authorization for young illegal immigrants and went to some length to emphasize that this did not represent an amnesty. The message? Get everyone you know to vote for me or you may find yourself booted out of this country in two years of less. Pretty cynical in my book.

Indeed, Jim, Romney raised fees and added more...at least 57, via Executive Order and then said he didn't raise taxes. But, these fees, plus the added gas tax, affected middle class workers on a daily basis. His fees also affected people with disabilities , who have little money to begin. The other cuts he made to the budget to include police, fire and schools ended up raising our property taxes, with the crime rate in Boston going up due to lack of police. I don't envy his wealth either...I just wish he had a better understanding of life outside his unique business world that looks to higher profits through all means, to include lowering employment costs as well. He is not a job creator by any means. Our State has now had a good run with Gov. Duvall Patrick, with social programs to the elderly, and disabled restored, mandated health coverage, lower unemployment that the national average and announced this week, a surplus. Democrats at the helm and it works.

Dear Voice....never drink "Koolade" I do the research and keep myself very informed. That's my secret to being an informed voter.

If you served your country then try to have some respect for the office of the President as well. I've done volunteer work to serve my country and never got paid for it..how 'bout you? It's too bad you can't find anything good that the President's done. I suppose Bush did nothing but good. At least Bush was more open to illegals and getting the situation resolved...but you can't get through to Republicans now in Congress so Obama had to issue the presidential order for young students, at least. I give him credit for at least getting that done. Romney remains uncommitted except that he'll wait 'till illegals send themselves back when they have no work but you know that won't happen when their low wages are enjoyed for higher profits by the Romney supporters.

Thank God for Marlene...She obviously bases her reasoning on the facts and not the hype and lies out there. How many of you have questioned the ridiculous comments that flow out of Romney's mouth, like his response to kids needing money for college?.. Ask your parents. (Duh, why doesn't everyone do that? Isn't everyone rich like Romney?) He is an embarrassment to the Republican party. Why have some congressman left? Have you heard their reasoning? Democrats and Republicans used to work together for the people. Now most republicans block anything Obama says. They aren't working "for the people". There may be a good republican again someday, but Romney isn't it.

I really have to agree with Marlene and Corrine on this thread here (and I'm an independant). Looking at Romney and how many times he has gone back-and-forth on the issues, it lends itself to believe that he is more of a flip-flopper than John Kerry EVER WAS. I mean, are we not all so tired of politicians lying to us...do we really want 4 years of that? And PLEASE don't try to lump Obama into this catagory...with all of his flaws I believe him to be honest in what he believes (of course no politician is perfect when it comes to truth-telling but Obama is farther away on the "pants on fire" meter than Romney is.)

Corrine, I'm curious....why do you prefer the socialism that's being shoved down your throat?

Corrine...you might find this article interesting. An analysis of Romney's capitalist dictatorship style/lies. http://www.juancole.com/2012/10/top-five-signs-of-capitalist-dictatorship-in-the-romney-campaign.html

If not for unions children would still be in the labor market, sent off to work for slave wages.

Obama isn't responsible for his remote family who came to this country when he was a child. They are being dealt with via immigration officials. As for the Fr. Hood issue:
"The Department of Defense is committed to the integrity of the ongoing court martial proceedings of (Hasan) and for that reason will not at this time further characterize the incident that occurred at Fort Hood on Nov. 5, 2009,"
On Fox News there was an explanation of why it is currently being termed 'workplace violence' as these initial court proceedings play through. The legal terminology may in fact change in the future, but those injured will get full medical benefits at this time. These legal terms that are being used is being used by the Pentagon/DOD, not the admin. But this initial court martial has to play through before changing the classification....
With regard to the attack on the embassy...the information is not all in on this...The Republican, Condaleza Rice make a public statement recently saying that investigations take time; that these events are complex in nature, and that she felt there was no conspiracy, nor lack of attention by the administration.

Dave, can I get a clarification on this "harem of virgins?" Are they male or female?

Female, as all men of their religion get their own planet (Mormon). Women have no place being a deity of a planet.

George was born to two American citizens living abroad on a Mormon mission. I think George's, and by extension Mitt's, citizenship is less of an issue than some others.

How do you know I didn't serve my country the same as Milford?

Hey Dan....ever hear of free speech? Now you want to tell people what they can and can not post? I too fought for this country to protect these rights. I may whole heartedly disagree with many of these posts but I defend their right to post them, son.

Voice, take it easy, "son"...no one here is trying to get rid on ANYONES free speech. My point was that if you're going to use a military service record, do it when called for and in the right context. It wasn't called for here and I was just ponting that out. By YOUR logic, anyone who ever pushed back on what someone said in a comment blog is trying to dissuade someone else's freedom of speech. Not so.

Gov Patrick is to Obama as Walter is to Jeff Dunham. IMO.....He'd make a perfect bobble-head doll.

In my town in Framingham over the past few years we have seen new infrastructure being built throughout the town...hundred year old gas and water pipes underground replaced; new roads, curb raising and new sidewalks...it's wonderful to see people being employed to rebuild what were old and dangerous structures. With Obama in office and the signing of his Job's bill, more and more states will be rebuilding old and worn infrastructure. It is high time we bring our service men home and use that military money to rebuild America. While Mitt Romney bragged that he didn't raise taxes, he took in hundreds of millions of dollars in revene by raising fees that were felt hard by middle class and working poor, when the very wealthy were never asked to pay a cent more to contribute to the state's well-being...with high fees levied and property taxes raised under the Governorship of Mitt Romney, I don't think he can honestly say he "didn't raise taxes"...he did so underhandedly to raise revenue and if he's president he'll do the same to middle class America while he takes care of his wealthy buddies shipping their money to safe havens overseas.

Actually, Massachusetts unemployment has been consistently LESS than that of the rest of the country. Our overall individual tax burden ranks in the middle of the nation. We have the best schools, and medical care in the nation, and are among the safest states.

All this, under a Democratic leadership.;

i didn't even know Ted Kennedy was on the ballot, Tennessee! "Oh!!! Chumley!!!"

Nothing is made up...all from Fact check.http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/romneys-jobs-record-is-best-or-worst/ As to the reference to 16 mill debt, I was responding to the lady above who appeared to be targeting Massachusetts alone with this debt and a 15 percent unemployment rate....I asked which Massachusetts she lived in because her statements are simply untrue.

"Look to quote a great movie; if Obama is reelected you people who voted for him "have weakened the nation"

You're quoting a character who was both a sociopath and a criminal.

Funny, trying to steal "Rmonesia."

Thing is, with Romnesia, it makes sense.

So Marlene, I hope you give Mitt Romney credit for recommending a course of action for the government - letting GM go through a managed bankruptcy instead of a government bailout -- that was clearly NOT in his personal interest, based on the information you have just provided. Sounds like a man of integrity to me.

When you write a statement a person should not have to guess what you mean; you should write with more clarity. Still, your numbers on unemployment, nationally, are way off. So it's not a matter of "liberals' vs conservatives; it's a matter of writing with both clarity and factual accuracy. And I do believe that our President is doing a great job. Trickle down economics has never worked administered under Republican administrations and they will not work again under a Romney administration. The experiential comparison has been tried and we're still cleaning up after the trickle down disaster of the Bush years. Obama has created more jobs in the past three months than Bush did in eight, while still trying to clean up after one of the worst economic disasters since the big depression of the '30s.

Actually, Mort Zuckerman on the McLaughlin Report last night quoted an unemployment statistic that was around 15%. I think he referred to it as "E-6", with the rate we usually hear being either "E-2" or "E-3". I think the "E-6" rate includes people who have stopped looking for work because they haven't been able to find a job and have just given up for the time being. You can't compare that with historic rates using the other statistic, so there's no insight on trends there, but it might be a better indicator of exactly how many people who would like to be working aren't working.

I hope you mean you are done supporting Mitt Romney and will cast your vote for President Obama....we need to move F O R W A R D not back to the same old trickle down economics that has not worked in the past and will not work under a Romney re-institution of the same ole, same ole. Take some time to do the research and don't allow yourself to be indocrinated by the Rush Limbaugh sound bites. Become an informed voter. I'm passionate about my choice in our President...that's not warped, that's my educated, well considered choice and my position.

I'm smelling the hope of an America where people come together once again as fellow-Americans to do what is in the best interest of our nation and of and for our people; not what is in 'self-interest' alone. It's called "Patriotism".

Dear Voice....there are many ways in which we can serve our country: When Ann Romney was asked about her husband Mitt and their son's having not served in the military, Ann responded that they did their services for their couhtry via their missionary work overseas, working hard, as Mitt did in France to convert Catholics to Mormonism, as did their sons. In fact, Ann said that their sons went on their missionary service as "boys" and returned as "men". It was hard for them to leave the comfort of their homes to canvass others in their homes, often being turned away by those who wanted to retain their own religion over Mormonism. It's a hard job but somebody has to do it. So even the Romney's feel that service to the country is unique to one's own perspective. More recently Mitt said that his son's did not serve the military, but served their country by working for his campaign...to him it's an American thing and a great contribution. As I said, service is always in the mind of the beholder. You can take what ever you want to the bank...I hope your financial situation impoves and you will be taking money to the bank, not using it as a methaphor to determine what I, or anyone else has done to serve.

Marlene, I think you would have a hard time making your case about the broad equivalency of what constitutes "service to our country" to someone who had lost a son or daughter in any one of the number of conflicts we have fought over our nation's history.

GM ...I did not say I agreed with the Ronney interpretation of 'service' to our country; I merely offered it up as an example of how others' do and may interpret 'service' My support goes to our military first. In fact, I am dismayed at the cuts Romney made to veterans when he was gov. of MA; and, terribly disappointed that Republicans in Congress recently voted against the Veteran's Job's bill. So please don't take my positing of the Romney's equivalency of service as my own personal preferance.

Hi Marlene,

Thanks for the clarification!

I appreciate your comment, Robin. As an advocate for the disabled and their families I was witness, both personally, and for those I represent, to the deep, heartless cuts the then Gov. Romney made to the disabled population, people with developmental disabilities, autism, physical disabilities, etc, etc...gutting jobs for those who worked for and with the disabled and making it much harder for the population of children, adults and their families to survive in their daily lives. If not for our Democratic legislature disallowing the number of other dismantling of such services and programs, Romney would have caused far more unbelievable devastation to this population. Romney is a business man who's focus is on profit-making at any cost to others. It works for him in the capitalist market and that's where he ought to stay, but he is not a leader for 'all the people'. His style of business does not carry over to a well-working nation. His wife's equine therapy that she says helped her most overcome MS was also turned into a business with the cost of the horse's care and service used as a $77K tax deduction on the tax return he did release. Others suffering disability are not so lucky and family out of pocket costs are higher than most family costs.

It's quite easy for the Patch editors to verify.

Well, let's pause a moment and consider the Romney campaign reaction...ask for dry goods donations at one of his rallies (which the red cross does not want) and then go ahead to purchase items at Walmart for a well-timed photo op of him helping him load the trucks. Vote for who you want, but the president, with his promise of immediate aid/no red tape comes out the winner on this one. Just ask his republican nemesis, Chris Christie.

Look at Christie....he's a heart attack waiting to happen. If he ever even gets to that point look long and hard at his VP selection. Besides, Sandy will take a huge toll on him.

There are a number of myths going around: First, President Obama's Administration has spent less than other Presidents in the past 60 years. There is no indication that our President "wants to bring America down". Our President has accomplished a great deal since he's taken office and the country is on the right track to coming back even stronger: the stock market up from 6K to 13K; months of steady growth and adding 5.5 million jobs; bringing unemployment down from 10.5% to 7.9%, had Republicans passed the Obama Job's bill we'd be far lower by now; by cutting taxes; By signing the Ledbetter act to ENSURE equal pay, whcih contributes to everyone's economy; By getting us out a bloddy, costly Iraq war that Bush lied us into; and, drawing us down from Afgahnistan. By killing Osama bin Laden that Bush joked he didn't give much thought to; By decimating Al Queada; By regulating Wall ST and creating a consumer board to stop abuses and on and on. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/

Our debt problem dwarfs anything Europe has. Sooner or later we WILL have a debt crisis, then what? I know, Obama will still be blaming Bush.

If you think our debt problem is soon to be a "crisis" then are you suggesting what Obama is asking to be best for the country i.e. that the millionaires and billionaires pay a few percentages more in taxes; that the tax loop holes their using to dodge paying much at all; or perhaps those big oil companies making huge profits no longer need the U.S., tax payer subsidies; and that it's time to bring our soldiers back from Afganistan and spend the high costs of war to rebuild our oun country? Sounds like you are an Obama supporter.

Voice....where do you get your information? Do you work for the CIA or FBI? Please provide us with your credentials and your evidence ASAP. Help the rest of the country know your information source.

Marlene take off the rose colored glasses and pay attention.

This is simply not true, but way to rhyme. You've really got that down well. Now work on the truth.

4 men died, yes. So, who is to blame for those that died under Bush in Iran and Afghanistan?
Simple question, who is to blame for those?
Who is to blame for Viet Nam? WWII? I await your answer.

Voice, take note:
Bureau Of Labor Statistics: 5 Million Private-Sector Jobs Added Since February 2010. The Bureau of Labor Statistics' Current Employment Statistics (CES) survey found that in February 2010, the U.S. economy employed 106,773,000 people. In August of 2012 the survey found 111,400,000 people employed -- an increase of approximately 4.6 million. A preliminary revision released by the BLS in September, which incorporated more accurate state-level data, found that there were an additional 453,000 people employed in the private sector. The revision combined with the results of the August survey show that the U.S. economy has added over 5 million private sector jobs in the last 30 months. [BLS, accessed 10/4/12 (CES), 10/4/12 (revision)]

Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: "Private Employers Added Over 4.6 Million Jobs To Their Payrolls In The Last 30 Months." In a report published the day the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its benchmark revision, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted that "the pace of monthly job losses slowed dramatically soon after President Obama and Congress enacted the Recovery Act in February 2009" and that "private employers added over 4.6 million jobs to their payrolls in the last 30 months." The post included this chart:

Marlene wake up and smell the coffee....these numbers are ficticious....they DO NOT take into effect jobs lost in the same time period, people whose benefits have been exhaustes and those who have just given up. Do more reserch....the net gain is less than 350,000.

show me where Obama claimed he created 5 million jobs.

Marlene.....no comment....what a surprise.

Stephen Pohl .....no comment....what a surprise.

Yoo hoo Marlene.....comments?

Yoo hoo Pohl.....your comments?

Even Bill O' Reilly was against what she said on Fox News ...no doubt she's a Romney supporter and wanted to further Romney's propaganda and since Romney seemed to be the one who developed this story against the President. Even Sec'ty of State under GW Bush, Condaleza Rice, made a public statement that she felt no one would know all the details for awhile and that's not unusual. Rice also said that it was her opinion that there was no conspiracy involved by the administration. Romney created campaign propaganda while this event was happening...he jumped the gun. Too bad. I don't want him to ever be in a position to make this type snap judgement under critical conditions like this. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/02/oreilly-denies-foxs-history-of-slandering-obama/191113

Barney Frank was the king of fuzzy math. Another of your hero's Marlene?

LOL....why doesn't that surprise me.....gotta love those rose colored glasses. . Hard to believe his absolute incompetance either.....so you grab those glasses again.

$ Goodbye Romney , Goodbye Romney, Goodbye Romney, We love to see you go. Da da da da da da da da da da da da, We love to see you go. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. $

Voice....I'm so sorry you feel so distraught and negative about the future. Please tell us your implementation plan for the economy and job development. And who is it that best represents these political, and philosophical ideals that you are soon to present to those on this forum?

Marlene, just pointing out the facts maam....read slower you should be able to figure out the math.

Voice...let's hear your detailed economic plan please.

Marlene, you ask who best represents the political/philosophical ideals that are in play this election. For my money, it's Sean Bielat, if you've ever heard what he has to say. Not Romney and not even Scott Brown, although I think they adhere to a lot of the principles.

1. Adhering to the Enumerated Powers clause of the Constitution that differentiates federal and state authority. Even President Obama doesn't understand the implications of this clause when he says that because MA health care law is in place in Massachusetts, a similar law is just fine at the federal level. And he's a lawyer!

2. Adhering to the rule of law. At both federal and state levels we have executive branch leaders who believe they can ignore enforcing laws that they don't like. With regard to the enforcement of our immigration laws, both have violated their oaths to enforce the law. I'm in favor of reform of immigration laws to enable immigrants we need in this country to enter more easily, but I am against the deliberate (and I believe politically motivated) neglect that both Chief Executives have displayed in this area.

3. Respect for individual freedom, coupled with individual responsibility. This is a huge point of debate in this election cycle. There are those who want to see a "Euro-socialist" approach to social issues in this country and others who are adamantly opposed on the grounds that it is financially unsupportable.

I think this is where the polarization really comes from.

There is very strong evidence that this is not true and that reducing taxes on the wealthy does not create jobs. There are many studies and evidence of that along with the number of years that we've used the Republican theory and it hasn't worked. So there are many years of actual, experiential comparitive: http://www.slate.com/blogs/spitzer/2012/08/02/romney_s_tax_plan_historial_data_shows_it_won_t_create_jobs_.html

Marlene, Why do you keep saying tax breaks for the rich? As you know, we have a progressive income tax, the more you make, the higher your tax. Only long term capital gains are equal for everyone - designed to encourage investiments. Maybe you should instead be complaining about tax on long term capital gains.

Some corporations pay little to no taxes: http://www.businessinsider.com/16-more-profitable-companies-that-pay-almost-nothing-in-taxes-2011-3?op=1

OK, a couple of questions for anyone who can help me out --

1. Regarding the claim that there's no relation between job creation and tax rates -- I've gotten into several discussions with people on this point. I believe that they are correct when they cite periods in our history when upper income tax rates were WAY above the levels we're discussing today. My question is this -- Is there any point at which tax rates on high income individuals has a detrimental effect on jobs? I mean, could we impose a tax rate of 100% above some arbitrary, government specified income limit and not have to worry about the impact on our national economic activity?

2. When President Obama says "the rich" just need to pay "a little bit more", what does that actually mean? I recognize that we are defining "the rich" as anyone who makes more than $200,000 as an individual or $250,000 in joint income, but what I want to know is, how much is a "little bit more" when you are part of "the rich"? Romney has come under a lot of heat for having a financial plan that doesn't work. Isn't it time for someone to question whether or not Obama's plan will work? When Al Gore was running for president and offered a similar approach to taxation, he had to admit that tax increases would extend all the way down to people making over something like $80,000/year to work. What's different this time around?

Marlene, just trying to keep the data flying around in this conversation straight.

If FactCheck states that Obama inherited a $2 trillion deficit (I heard it was $1.3 trillion, but let's stick with your number), and we now have a $5 trillion deficit, isn't that 2 1/2 times larger? I'm looking for good news here. Do we not, in fact, have a $5 trillion deficit?

I think you were referring to Grover Norquist's "no new taxes pledge". Rehnquist is a former Supreme Court Justice. Were he still alive, and had he committed to a "no new taxes pledge", I suspect that the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare would have gone the other way, seeing as the individual mandate was determined by the Supreme Court to be a "tax" - albeit not any type of tax recognized as being legal in the Constitution. (In my view, the Supreme Court decision was a very curious finding, the main benefit of which may have been to establish limits to the extent that the federal government can invoke the Interstate Commerce Clause to justify expansion into new areas of our society).

Voice ...we're all paying attention to you and waiting for your economic plan...where is it? Please forward it ASAP

Marlene, good article to back your point. And I appreciate your drawing on an article in Forbes, which is hardly a mouthpiece for liberal thinking. I had one clarification that I think you will agree with -- The article talked about the slow growth of the budget under Obama, not Obama spending less than any president since Eisenhower. He's not the smallest spender, but it looks like he may be the smallest "increaser". Sounds to me like you have done a good job backing up your position on this point. Thanks!

Marlene, I think Harry Reid made an ill-considered charge that he hoped would stick to the wall when he threw it there. I have read articles to suggest that Romney has been reluctant to release more of his tax returns because it's just possible that the losses generated from his investments in some earlier years might have been sufficient to give him a taxable income that would be below the tax threshold. I don't think that the pattern would be there for an extended period of time, however, because he has had earlier tax returns vetted when he previously ran for office.

While it doesn't sound likely that you would ever vote Republican in our lifetimes, I do catch a glimmer of conservative thinking (which doesn't necessarily mean Republican thinking) when you argue against corporate welfare. You're right, the government has no business picking winners and losers by offering targeted subsidies to particular industries or companies. There may be times when the government wants to encourage particular types of investments by offering tax breaks and the like, but when those incentives become entrenched, we waste government money because of the political constituencies that grow up around the subsidies.

Hi Marlene,

Thanks for both responses. The Bush tax cut issue will play out however it plays out. As interesting as the run up to the election has been, the dynamics that will be in play between now and year-end around tax cuts and sequestration may make the election look like a pre-season game - regardless of who wins the election.

On immigration, the problem at least goes all the way back to the Reagan era, so it's not a partisan issue. The fact that the legislature hasn't figured out what to do about it is irrelevant to the executive branch's obligation to enforce the laws. When the executive branch at either federal or state level decides that it won't do that because it doesn't like the law, that represents a breakdown in the respective roles of the three branches of government. That's what's happened in our country and our state right now.

On Christie, I think it's a shame when political factions attempt to squelch sincerity. I think you could see on Christie's face how saddened he was about what happened in New Jersey. I suppose so close to the election it's hard to not have some impact on the race, but I agree with you that it's not appropriate to criticize Christie's willingness to express appreciation for the administration's response. I've concluded that we should schedule all of our natural disasters less than one month before our general elections. We would all like ourselves better after seeing how we respond to the situation!

Liz Warren received a no-interest loan from Harvard, and does NOT pay the voluntarily higher tax rate in MA. I know that there is no mechanism in place for "the wealthy" to pay more under federal statutes.

I was merely pointing out that in a place where they've already had the opportunity to lead by example on the issue(MA state taxes), a VAST majority have chosen not to up to this point.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/04/20/warren_says_she_did_not_pay_voluntary_higher_tax.html

Its only "their fair share" in taxes when the "other guy" is forced to pay...apparently.

Liz Warren advocates ending the GW Bush tax cuts, which would be, in part, a mechanism toward resolving some of our complex federal economic issues. We've been in two costly wars without tapping much needed revenue.

Elizabeth Warren has said that her position is for everyone to play by the same rules, not arbitrary or voluntary rules. Thus paying a voluntary tax in MA would make it a contribution, which is not the same as 'everyone' playing by the same rules as she suggests. "The Buffet Rule is about making sure millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share, not about funding government through voluntary contributions; it not even entirely about economics but about our values," she told CNN.
Brown, as expected, also did not pay the optional tax rate.

Two problems with your last point about Elizabeth Warren, Marlene. First, a lot of the politicians who are making the case that they want everyone to play by the same rules are attempting to change the rules to be what they think constitutes "fair rules". Unfortunately changing the rules in the middle of the game is inherently not fair.

Second, Elizabeth Warren has already benefited from not having to play by the same rules when she took advantage of minority preferences in seeking a job. The idea that she had NO idea that designating herself as a minority could give her an advantage is patently ridiculous. Her behavior at the time was rational. When government decides to put its thumb on the scales of fairness, it's good to be on the side of the scale the government's thumb is pushing down. But her subsequent denial that she had any idea that this would set her up for preferential treatment is laughable and speaks poorly of her integrity. She would have been better off just saying that she answered the question as honestly as she knew how at the time she was asked and that she had no idea of whether or not her claimed minority status gave her an advantage in her career, but that she did her best to do whatever job she had -- or something along those lines. Political corruption (not necessarily personal financial corruption) creeps in when the government seeks to intervene by distorting the playing field.

maybe you could find a 3rd party...less-vested-in-the-outcome source to cite.

GM....your statements re: Elizabeth Warren are unfounded and unproven. They are simply a Scott Brown devised distraction to try to derail a woman who turns out to be a highly intelligent challenger to Scott Brown. In fact, my respect for Scott Brown diminished as a result of his use of these tactics.

Marlene, I have no idea how old you are, but if you were old enough to be aware of what went on in the area of civil rights and equal opportunity at the time Elizabeth Warren was growing up, the idea that she would have NO idea about the implications of designating herself as a member of a minority group is ludicrous. Scott Brown didn't make something up here, but Elizabeth Warren has not been truthful (and incidentally, Harvard University was also deceitful in its readiness to claim that they had a Native American on its faculty without verifying the fact). As I said in my earlier post, when the government introduces distortions - economic or social -- into the system, people will quite rationally scramble to cast themselves in the most advantaged light. I don't blame Warren for doing the same thing, but don't try to put a veneer or honesty on it. And don't trivialize it as just something that Scott Brown has invented. You can tell the degree of deceit in this debate by the fervor that arises in response to plain statements of truth.

Concerned Citizen....Since there has been a shorage of doctors around the country, especially Primary Care Physicians, since students have gone into specialties to earn far more money, Obamacare has opened up incentives to medical students. And doctors and hospitals will be rewarded, not by the amount of patients they see in a day, but in the 'quality' of the service. http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2012/07/10/primary-care-doctor-pay-jumps-past-200k-as-obamacare-market-push-new-pay-methods/

Marlene, your link is confusing if the reason you provided it was to demonstrate that Obamacare won't involve rationing. The whole Wikipedia article was on how the rationing process works. Obamacare may shift the rationing process from being governed by the processes of a free economy (people who can afford health care can get it and those who don't won't get it) to a process administered by the government (people who meet government specified criteria will receive health care and those who don't won't get health care) but nothing in the article suggested that health care rationing will go away. Was your point just that Obamacare didn't CREATE rationing because rationing has been there in one form or another all along?

Concerned Citizen....check the U.S. infant mortality rating against the rest of the world and the numbers of people who die each year as a result of not having or being able to afford health care coverage. Do a little more in depth research on the subject of health care if you don't like the figures I've given you. We have a high level of people who die each year from lack of coverage. Obamacare will provide the kind of preventative care that will detect life threatening diseases before it is too late and ensure coverage to all. The U.S. has good health care, as you say, but not the best in the world...it's if you are among those who have been able to afford it. I don't have time this morning to do your research for you...try to do more on your own. And the money taken from Medicare that went into Obamacare amends the medicare Rx system to strengthen coverage for seniors. Paul Ryan's proposed plan takes the same amount but gives it to private insurance companies....please do some research.

As I said in my earlier post, Marlene, I don't fault Warren for answering the question the way she did, even if her only basis for doing so was that her parents told her she had a Native American background (i.e., I don't fault her for not insisting on documentary proof). What I don't accept is your assertion that there is no evidence that designating herself in that way worked to her advantage. The whole point for asking these questions is to give a prospective employer information about possible minority status in this case. People are also asked about veteran status, woman-owned business status, and small business status, etc. in other situations where the government has established preferential conditions. I'm not suggesting that she campaigned for a job by actively touting her minority status, but I find it ludicrous for someone to say that she had NO idea that designating herself as a minority might help her out. I also don't buy the argument that her status didn't play into Harvard's decision to hire her when Harvard published statistics identifying her as their only Native American faculty member. Harvard has a vested interest in touting the diversity of its staff -- and objective verification of claims clearly isn't something they required. You don't have to read minds to see what went on here. I just object to the protestations of total ignorance and surprise that this is how the process works.

lol! Unbelievable! You took off the rose colored glasses and borrowed Stevie Wonder's!

Marlene, for your interpretation to be correct, you would have to acknowledge, first, that a person identifying themselves as a minority in a system that is deliberately designed to increase minority representation, for some reason, in this particular case, failed to perform in the way that was intended.

Second, in defending the idea that Warren had NO idea the information she provided would be used in any way in considering her for a position, you would have to conclude that Warren is stupider than either you or I think she is. She may have been ultimately hired based on her eminent academic qualifications, or maybe people really liked her when they interviewed her, but your contention that her identification as a member of a minority group was of absolutely no influence in the process is ludicrous, particularly in light of Harvard's taking "credit" for having a Native American on their faculty.

To your point about the Law School Dean -- first, he is probably thinking twice about running for the Senate, and second, at the time that Warren was on the faculty, she was the only self-identified Native American there according to the Boston Globe reports when the story first broke.

It's not so much that she did something terrible in this situation. It's the subsequent subterfuge and evasiveness (to include your attempts to lay this on Scott Brown's shoulders) that makes this a much bigger deal than it otherwise should have been.

Warren lied....sho knew she was lying....and continues to live the lie.

I think Brown's point was that Warren took advantage of a process that is designed to provide opportunities to under-represented minorities. From what I've read, it sounds like she is really 1/32nd Native American, so I don't believe there is an issue of false claims here. The issues here involves whether someone with that small a degree of minority background is really intended to be the target of an affirmative action program, and whether Warren knew when she answered the question that she was putting herself in an ethnic group designated as deserving of special consideration. Your suggestion that Warren was just sharing information about herself and didn't have any idea that she was putting herself into an ethnic category targeted for special consideration suggests to me that you are either unaware of the workings of the country's affirmative action programs over the past 40 years or you are bound and determined to contort your logic to fit a preferred explanation and claim of total innocence. This was not a big issue in and of itself. What has made it a bigger issue than it would have been is the ludicrous claim that Warren was unaware that questions of this type were part of the country''s affirmative action program and that they fed into the diversity statistics published by Harvard. The more the blanket denials go on, the deeper the hole gets.

Gm...I am well aware of Affirmative Action. Once again I will say that there is no evidence or proof of violation or use of special treatment in claims under Affirmative Action against Elizabeth Warren. This is hype raised by a man trying to keep himself in office. You can think as you like but unless there is evidence of proof and absolute certainty then the allegations remain false. The New England Geneology Association has identified Ms. Warren's Native heritiage; there is no evidence that she used it in anyway to benefit her circumstances and she is within her right to report her religion, eithnicity and heritage to her employer or anyone else she may choose, or who may solicit such information with her informed consent. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/11/1090857/-Records-Show-Elizabeth-Warren-Did-not-Claim-Minority-Status Please let us belabor this issue any longer ...it really serves no productive purpose.

:-D