TCTI: Too Crazy Too Ignore
 Dave Ross

Question number one

BY Dave Ross  on October 17, 2012 @ 8:00 am (Updated: 9:02 am - 10/17/12 )

First question in last night's debate. Jeremy Epstein asks:

EPSTEIN: "What can you say to reassure me, but more importantly my parents, that I will be able to sufficiently support myself after I graduate?"

ROMNEY: "We have to make sure that we make it easier for kids to afford college."

That helps pay off the student loan, but what about the job part?

ROMNEY: "I know what it takes to create good jobs again. I know what it takes to make sure that you have the kind of opportunity you deserve."

So -- Romney's answer: Trust me, I'm a businessman.

Mr. Obama?

OBAMA: "Change our tax code so we're giving incentives to companies that are investing here in the United States."

Maybe another stimulus:

OBAMA: "Let's take the money that we've been spending on war over the

last decade to rebuild America, roads, bridges schools."

But when will that kick in? Jeremy graduates in 2014. Candy presses the candidates:

CANDY: "What about those long term unemployed who need a job right now?"

And that's when Romney said:

ROMNEY: "That's why I put out a five-point plan that gets America 12

million new jobs in four years and rising take-home pay."

To which the president said:

"Governor Romney doesn't have a five-point plan."

But even if he does: Two forecasting firms are predicting that the economy will create 12 million jobs by 2016, no matter who is president.

That's why the race is tied-- it's Romney's mysterious budget numbers...

ROMNEY: "Of course they add up!"

...versus Obama's unimpressive jobs numbers.

Or maybe -- it's a growing suspicion the economy is going to do what it's going to do, and all we're really debating is who gets to watch from the White House.

Dave Ross, KIRO Radio Talk Show Host
Dave Ross is co-host of The Ross & Burbank Show on KIRO Radio (weekdays 9-Noon) and never too far from the spotlight.
More Dave Ross

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (44)


  • Add A Comment

  • sportsguru wrote...
    Romney has no clue
    October 17, 2012 8:19 am

    Or perhaps he does, let's pull the wool over the American public's eye so that I can help the elite continue it's favorable tax code advantage over the American public and continue to profit for moving all the jobs out of America to 3rd world nation and pay less taxes while without any penalty,lol.

    Romney was exposed last night, he was unable to answer substantively any question asked of him, he left Mass in a deficit as mayor, he has obamacare in Mass and he doesn't care about 50% of the American public, all this is public knowledge. Romney will continue the Bush policy and drive us to another economic collapse after the POTUS has finally pulled us out of the debts of collapse.

    What a flip flopper.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • logical open mind wrote...
    sports- what specificly can you say about Romney's time as Govenor of Mass that you find troubling?
    October 17, 2012 9:14 am
    Be specific.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • sportsguru wrote...
    logical open mind
    October 17, 2012 9:37 am

    Oh boy, were do I start with your flip flopper ech a sketch candidate.

    Cuts in funding to local communities by 20%

    Fee increases and Business tax collection increases (the same thing that he is has now flip flop on and now says he will not do?): The state of Massachusetts raised $500 million in new revenue during Romney’s first year in office from fees and business taxes, more than any other state surveyed.

    Unemployment and new jobs creation: Massachusetts was losing manufacturing jobs,Job growth in Massachusetts rose at a rate of 1.5 percent (compared to the national average of 5.3 percent), placing Massachusetts 47th of the 50 states in new job creation over the course of Romney’s term,lol, yeah we really believe he knows how to loose and ship jobs.

    And more importantly :Mitt Romney claims that while governor of Massachusetts, he cut spending and balanced the budget. The Reality: Governor Romney left behind a $1 billion budget deficit for the next governor and saddled Massachusetts taxpayers with more debt per person than any other state.

    All of this is public record by the way?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • kata wrote...
    public record at Obama's campaign website?
    October 17, 2012 11:42 am
    http://www.barackobama.com/romney/economics/debt/debt-slide-01

    *lol*

    Here's a better source (and it's even slightly (D) flavored : http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obama-twists-romneys-economic-record/

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • logical open mind wrote...
    sports-please provide me a link. I would like to see what you are looking at and IF your statements are correct.
    October 17, 2012 3:39 pm
    In the past you have posted obviously off-base apples to oranges data to support your premise. AJ and I have called you on it and you wont provide the links. Just give me your source-what harm can this cause?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • sportsguru wrote...
    Logical open mind
    October 17, 2012 5:00 pm

    You and AJ, lol, now you have jokes,lol. Kata just provided you with 2 links, both of them show that he is not what he is claiming and his governorship is not close to what he is claiming. Stop asking me to do your research for you and find out what your candidate is all about without listening to fox news and/or AJ, lol. You fall over a cliff listening to any of the two,lol.

    I am tired of helping you uninformed voters quit falling for the banana in the tailpipe trick,lol.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • kata wrote...
    erm.... SG?
    October 17, 2012 6:30 pm
    Link One conflicts with Link Two. I brought it up only because you quoted it verbatim.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • sportsguru wrote...
    Umm Kata
    October 17, 2012 7:34 pm

    Did you even read the link that you provided? One said Obama was over stated but not untruthful and mine were not verbatim as I got my information from various sources and not just one to make sure what I was saying is correct. I gave percentages and amounts, you might want to read mine again and check it against what you THINK I wrote verbatim,lol.

    Oh boy, and btw the fact check says the same as I just indicated? He did all the things that I indicated,lol.

    Your dad would be dissapointed in you.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • kata wrote...
    yes I did read it.
    October 17, 2012 8:44 pm
    Re; Deficits (the Campaign Slide and your closing statement) : Massachusetts requires a balanced budget. That's not an "overstatement". We apparently disagree on if something is just being hyperbolic or just flat out fibbing/misleading.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • sportsguru wrote...
    Umm Kata
    October 17, 2012 9:39 pm

    It’s true that the long-term debt went from $16 billion on Jan. 1, 2003, just before Romney took office, to $18.7 billion on Oct. 1, 2006, three months before he left. That’s an increase of $2.7 billion. Massachusetts requires balanced budgets

    This is from your own link

    Widmer said the state has always had a high debt load, and a governor would have to cut — or stop — capital spending in order to address it. As for Romney, Widmer told us that his approach was typical of other governors. “He didn’t put his foot on the accelerator any more, or really take it off.”

    again from your link source

    So were in my post other than your claim for which I said 1 billion but it actually was 2.7 billion did I verbatim quote the Obama website, nothing in my post comes from Obama's website? These are public records and can be obtained by anybody, YOU are the one that told me to research and I did and now you are saying that I plaguerized Obama's website and it looks nothing like it or comes close to what his website posted.

    Man, you jack boots always trying to put those jack boots on somebodies neck when something get's posted that you don't like. No hyperpole here, JUST THE FACTS.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • kata wrote...
    >.
    October 17, 2012 10:53 pm
    debt not deficit. He closed the budget deficit (obviously in a way you didn't care for) and took on more debt (bonds) for road/water & sewer projects including the "Big Dig" which has been going on since the 1970s. Now I don't hold Obama responsible for everything Bush committed to spending. I don't think Romney should have this pinned on him either.

    And jeepers-louise, SG. I was not accusing you of plagiarism. It was a ribbing because your closing statement was the exact wording in the Obama campaign PowerPoint slide. Now I'm arguing just on principle because I am tired and sick and can't sleep. :P

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • sportsguru wrote...
    Ok Kata
    October 18, 2012 5:45 am

    Just as long as we agree that my numbers in my post are correct and are not untruthful.

    The 1.5 growth rate to a 5.3 national average, 47th country ranking over the WHOLE term of his governorship in JOB CREATION.

    The cut of 20% in local community spending.

    fee's and business tax his first year the most by any state surveyed, including California, New York and Washington (I had to throw our state in there).

    And he did leave a debt for the new Governor when he left office.

    I hope you feel better

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • kata wrote...
    sure SG
    October 18, 2012 10:25 am
    As long as you use context to explain them I have no problem whatever numbers you might use. Tech heavy Mass. was 50th in job creation at the tail end of the tech bubble recession. When Romney became governor unemployment went down from 5.6 to 4.7 - that's 4 tenths of a point difference from the national average. And by the time he left Mass., it was 26th in job creation. Was he responsible for the improvement? No, because the fact is that it's pure bs that Government can "create jobs".

    So, I read the transcript for the last debate last night (because sleep is overrated anyway and what else was I doing, right?) and first question is about jobs. Both candidates answers prove the reason why I am voting (L).

    As for your other numbers - the 20% cut info was behind a subscription firewall. Given my experience with the local towns here in WA "bringing out the hostages" of fire, police, 911 and letting "all the criminals loose" whenever there is a budget shortfall -- I hesitate to grasp that number without a full accounting.

    And lastly on taxes? Well I lived in the tri-state area, SoCal, and here (as well as slightly less (D)-strong states) and I have never seen people vote yes for taxes so often. I am happy to see Washingtonians finally applying some push-back and demanding accountability. Romney worked with a nearly 90% (D) congress who could have overrode him on those cuts (and did on many occasions) but they all still managed to get the business of governing done.

    Which is all I really want. Cooperation without collusion and corruption. I can't wait to get my ballot so I can send it off again and not think about politics for at least six months.

    Anyhoo... I am operating on 3 hrs of sleep so I am likely rambling. But you're a much more palatable person to speak with when you're not sloganeering. I am going to drink my coffee banana smoothie and get some work done.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • sportsguru wrote...
    kata
    October 18, 2012 3:24 pm
    Lol, ok Kata. Sloganeering,lol. You must be tired, you didn't even correct my use of the word debt to deficit again.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    The President's job isn't to be an employment agency...
    October 17, 2012 8:30 am
    I don't trust either one of those guys, and they didn't give the kid an honest answer.

    Romney? You can bet he'll create jobs. 28-hours a week at $9.00 an hour. The kid will need at least two of them to pay the rent- college education or no. Benefits? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. "What's the matter kid, you never heard of personal responsibility? Your health care plan? Don't get sick. Pension plan? Don't get old."

    Obama doesn't really get it, either. I have to agree with Romney that Obama seems to favor "trickle down government", while Romney favors trickle down economics. The heck with both of 'em. Hello, totally removed elitists, maybe the American people are sick of being trickled *on* by both of your corrupt parties?

    They *should* have told the kid; "Hey, it's up to you to go to college for the right reasons. Getting an education should be your goal. Why do you think you somehow *deserve* a job when you graduate? What did you learn? Did you choose a field where there are current and future employment opportunities? If not, then just enjoy your BA in English Lit or Art History while you're pouring lattes at Starbucks or sweeping out the offices of the business majors and engineering students."

    Far more kids should lean technical skills. A good plumber can earn well over $100,000 per year, and that's an example of a skill that isn't going to outsourced soon. When the toilet is overflowing, nobody worries about flying somebody over from India who will fix it for $10 a day.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Well, Chuck. If it's not the government's job to be an employment agency, they've been hearing you loud and strong fot the past 4 years.
    October 17, 2012 9:08 am
    So, all that talk about Bush loosing jobs (at the end of his term) was hooey?

    The kod had a good question in that a very high percentage of college graduates are jobless. ... And too many who ARE working have found those jobs are lower paying.

    Granted, too many kids go to college when the job needs of America don't need college. But the answer is creating BETTER and better paying jobs (not just more jobs) so the economy can actually grow.

    But, ultimately, we need to remember that wealth comes only by CREATING something.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Ron, the POTUS does not set wages
    October 17, 2012 1:34 pm
    Yes, many jobs pay less than they used to. Not just when adjusted for inflation, either. Fewer actual dollars. We compete with workers all over the world, but when wages are lowered they are lowered by employers, not the government.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    But employers reacting to government, Chuck.
    October 17, 2012 6:32 pm
    If my company makes $100, less $10 tax, I can pay 9 employees $10 each. ... But, then, if taxes are doubled and I'm left with only $80, I either fire one employee to keep wages at $10 OR I cut wages to a shade under $9.

    .

    BTW: It's not 100% true that the POTUS doesn't set wages. .. Nixon did do that once with his wage and price controls.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Absurd example, Ron
    October 17, 2012 9:33 pm
    A couple of flaws with your example. First of all, I can't remember a time when taxes have "doubled" on businesses. As Romney correctly pointed out, most small businesses file as Sub-S corporations and pay at the individual tax payers rate. And oh my gosh do I get weary of hearing from you guys over in right field about how badly Obama has "raised your taxes" during his first term. Really? When did your tax go up? By how much? I pay tax on income from a smorgasbord of sources every year, and my tax rate has *not* gone up.

    The second flaw in your example is that taxes are a universal expense that affect the entire supply side. To whatever degree the market will accept the increase, the supplier simply raises the price to cover the increased tax load. (the increased tax load that doesn't exist anywhere except in Sean Hannity's imagination).

    Wages get rolled back simply because the employer can do so and get away with it. Taxes make a great excuse, but any decent business person is leveraging his labor expense with productivity. If you pay $10 an hour to a guy who spends one hour building a widgets, and you sell that same widget for $35, and if there is an active market for your widgets, it actually *costs* you $25 an hour to can that employee.

    Guys like Mitt Romney made gazillions taking American jobs offshore. Not a problem, if Mitt hadn't done it, somebody else would have done so. But now we compete with people who live in socialist countries where the government really *does* provide a very crappy but basic subsistence. The workers we are competing with can work for a dollar or two an hour and be cutting a fat hog.

    It's ridiculous for you or anybody else to lay the new reality of the world economy on the back of any POTUS, democrat or republican.

    Employers will hire as cheaply as they can, and many are not above canning a worker with seniority to bring in an eager newbie willing to work for close to nothing. That's the result of the free market, that you guys love so much, at work- not democrat government policies.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Come on, Chuck. It's a allegoration
    October 18, 2012 7:42 am
    First: Taxes doubling is no more absurd than having only $100 to pay taxes and 9 employees.

    Secondly, my allegory doesn't refer to Obama (or Romney, for that matter). It's an at least 50 year old basic example of how taxes impact wages.

    And thirdly, your expressed view of economics isn't even Keynesian, let alone Adam Smith. .. Government certainly DOES seek to control any economy - from the old kings of France to Nixon to Obama. ... And to think that a $10/hr wage that sells a $35/product yields a $25 profit ignores all other factors and costs of production - rather like absurdly giving an example of taxes doubling.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    ron p "Wealth comes only by creating something"
    October 17, 2012 2:16 pm
    Tell that to the folks that play the stock market or speculate in things like oil.They create NOTHING.This guy Hansen who got the city to loan him $300 million made his wealth as a Hedge Fund salesman and now manager.What does a Hedge fund create?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Paul Kersey wrote...
    Listen MessedUp101
    October 17, 2012 2:30 pm
    Even speculators are creating something. Take Obama's boss, the speculator George Soros for example. He is creating a New World Order by manipulating markets. Maybe it is just you that creates nothing.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    OK, messiah (and I sware you're getting worse than lawnboy as a stickler.
    October 17, 2012 6:25 pm
    I should have said TRUE wealth. .. Or TRUE value.

    For most of the existence of civilization, that came from growing things - plants and animals. As we gained surplus, craftsmen were able to create lamps and art and other things not actually needed for survival, but of value none the less. And later all in this world we actually use.

    What the stock market is - ultimately - is a Ponzi scheme. It depends on investments and continued money contributions, not actual production. And all Ponzi schemes ultimately collapse. 400 years ago Hollanders speculated on tulips. Made paper money, then lost it all when the bottom fell out. In 1929, the same thing happened here when the stock market collapsed. But, of course, what was lost was PAPER assets. Save for the dust bowl, America still grew crops and agricultural wealth remained.

    Regardless of WHO promotes stocks (or even gold) as wealth - Obama OR Romney (and they both do), you can't eat money and you can't eat gold. ... And when the scheme is exposed, it won't matter WHO is the little man behind the screen.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Ron p" Stock market is-ultimately a Ponzi scheme"
    October 17, 2012 7:55 pm
    I heard that before and at one time I believed it was but I was WRONG.The Stock market would still exist if trading dropped in half but the Ponzi scheme is finished when new money stops
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    messiah - SOMETHING would still exist (like in the Depression)
    October 18, 2012 7:51 am
    Or, maybe no ???

    When the Ponzi scheme burst in Germany in the 1920s, they inflated away the problem. .. Wiped out the middle class and paved the way for Hitler, but...........

    .

    And in the past, there was always something that could be done (like exploit colonies). The real problem today is that with a true world economy, there ARE no suckers left. Maybe China and their 'loans' but how long will that last if WE go broke. How long can Europe prop up Greece?

    Yes, SOMETHING will exist after the scheme bursts. We just might not like it - at all.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • logical open mind wrote...
    chuck the lefty who wont admit it-The fed gov should not put in place things like Obamacare, class warfare and envy and poorly written Dodd-Frank regs that hurt business and hurts employment.
    October 17, 2012 9:17 am
    Quit being in love with ANY polititian. It will set you free!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    logical ???
    October 17, 2012 2:25 pm
    class warfare? and envy?Please give us some examples of this occurring.The Rich have made greater gains then the middle class so you mean that the Rich are fighting the middle class to get even more of their money Right? What specifically do you dislike about Dodd-Frank do you believe the banking community should have LESS regulation?If so why?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HLC wrote...
    sportsguru is scary
    October 17, 2012 11:59 am
    It's easy to tell you have no clue as in clueless. When you said Romney was the MAYOR of Mass. pretty much explains how much of a grasp you have. Must have taken your clue from Obozo, a complete failure. Good luck with that.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    HLC Mayor?
    October 17, 2012 2:31 pm
    Do you disagree with the valid points Guru brought up about Romneys time as Governor?Because your post didn't have anything useful in it about what Guru wrote in his post.Why not post some info that off sets the facts that Guru brought to the table instead of talking but saying nothing?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Paul Kersey wrote...
    Whoever wins will inherit the biggest financial catastrophe in U.S. history
    October 17, 2012 12:40 pm
    states will begin to face bankruptcy, probably starting with California. That could be a catalyst that starts a collapse. The world is already skittish about our financial state. If investors lose more confidence, panic could hit an overbought treasury market. At that time, no one will want our bonds, interest rates will rise along with hyperinflation. With already high energy and food prices, it won't take much to kill the overburdened middle class and send them all into Obama's favorite class, the dependent poverty class. Then we will officially be where the anti-colonialist Obama hopes to take us, into third world status.

    This little boy who is now our president has spent four years complaining about the hand he was dealt. He wanted the job and then complains that it is too hard. It is too hard to work with Republicans. Romney will not do that. He will not waste time blaming others, like the narcissistic child, but will face the problems and work with both sides.

    Yes, there is "a growing suspicion the economy is going to do what it's going to do", but most economists have a different outlook than the two unnamed forecasting firms.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Get me to the Dr, right away- I agree with Paul Kersey! (or, at least his first few sentences)
    October 17, 2012 3:13 pm
    How dumb are we, collectively, the American voters?

    It's over. It's been over. It was over before Obama took office, and it will still be over- irreversibly so- if Romney takes office next January.

    The US federal budget is already past the point of no return. If our federal budget were a private enterprise, our creditors would force us into bankruptcy.

    For the Obama haters out there; it's not a case of Obama spending too much . If the government didn't spend one discretionary cent, we would still have a situation where cash outlays for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense, and interest on the existing debt *exceed* all tax revenues collected by the FEDGOV. This is with just the earliest years of the Baby Boom now collecting old age benefits, and with the biggest bulk of the Boomer demographic poised to start cashing in during the next few years.

    There is nothing Romney, Obama, or anyone else can do to stop our spiraling deeper into debt except eliminate Medicare and/or Social Security, or slash defense spending, or default on all of our existing debt. Romney wants to *increase* defense spending? Where is that money supposed to come from?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    CG
    October 17, 2012 8:03 pm
    I don't agree.The chicken littles predicted the sky would fall in if our debt hit 1 Trillion.Here we are at 16 Trillion and my life has not changed much in between.The USA is still the BIG Dog and every major country in the world has huge financial problems when the dust finally settles the USA will still be top dog.Whats happening now is simply positioning. Remember China and the USA NEED each other
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    M101, whether you "agree" or not, consider the following exercise:
    October 17, 2012 9:40 pm
    Go to this site:

    http://usdebtclock.org/

    Check out the number for total federal tax receipts, year to date.

    Now subtract Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Defense, Interest on the current debt, and Federal Pensions. All of that spending is pretty well set in place, unless we want to start cutting people off of old age benefits or really gut the military.

    Notice that the amount of money committed to be spent *before any president spends a dime running any other portion of the government* exceeds the money collected?

    We will continue to spiral into debt, regardless who we appoint Fool on the Hill.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Paul Kersey wrote...
    Well, blow me to Bermuda
    October 18, 2012 6:40 am
    Chuck agrees (partially)

    So Chuck, are you still an undecided voter? You did mention "outlays for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense" , but failed to mention Obamacare. How do you suppose that will be funded (when it is fully implemented)? Which group will have to pick up that tab? Why do you suppose it will not be implemented until after elections?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Paul asks: Are you still an undecided voter?
    October 18, 2012 8:06 am
    I'm disgusted, and torn. I may not decide until I send in my ballot- and I just might not vote for anybody for POTUS. When presented with two terrible choices, and no realistic alternative, why take either? Nothing compels you to actually make a choice between two piles of offal. (My wife will be voting D, however).

    If I take a personally selfish perspective, I should support Romney. I would clearly benefit by some of his philosophies of government, taxation, etc.

    However, I always try to strike a balance between what might be good for my personal wallet and my desire to live in a just society. I want America to be the place where everybody has a chance to succeed (through hard work, sacrifice, and good luck). I hate to see us become a nation where the playing field is increasingly tilted in favor of those who are born the richest and increasing numbers of other people are dismissed as collateral damage along the supposedly more deserving folks' "road to even more success".

    Obama is a masterful politician, but a mediocre executive. I voted for him because the prospect of Sarah Palin being a heartbeat away from the Oval Office was horrifying, and he has been a disappointment during his first term. Despite all the cover up since, I believe Romney was speaking candidly and from the heart when he said, "It won't be my job to care about the bottom 47% of Americans, they all think they're victims and they expect the government to give them free housing, free food, and free medical care." I can't support a guy who sees the world from that perspective, either.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Forrest wrote...
    I see MyNorthwest
    October 17, 2012 4:28 pm
    is doing what it can to lower the unemployment. They must have hired some homeless people with no computer skills to redesign their web site.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    So, what's so wrong, Forrest?
    October 17, 2012 6:38 pm
    EXCEPT posting the 1st independent comments to far to the left (but YOU should like that), it's about the same as it was. Except now we don't need that &%#@* Facebook to comment on Dori.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • when reality hits you wrote...
    If big wishes and nice thoughts created jobs, I would vote Romney.
    October 17, 2012 5:13 pm
    I don't think you can take money lost in war to fund schools, but if every dollar spent in Iraq and Afghanistan went to education and roads, everyone of us would have a degree and we could drive around on brand new asphalt, but jobs would still be outsourced. So the question was really about philosophy and how to invest in ourselves going forward. I don't think either candidate should get credit for their answers.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleD wrote...
    "What about those long term unemployed who need a job right now?"
    October 17, 2012 6:32 pm
    "That's why I put out a five-point plan which the unemployed can burn to keep warm in their homeless camp."
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Ironically "D", once unemployment has run out,
    October 17, 2012 6:41 pm
    that would actually be more than Obama has done.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleD wrote...
    Are you talking about the unemployment extension the Repubs were against?
    October 17, 2012 7:08 pm
    How about the jobs bill that would have employed 20,000 unemployed Iraq/Afghanistan war veterans that you Republicons killed last month in the Senate?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Regularjoe44 wrote...
    Yet another victim..
    October 17, 2012 7:41 pm
    Assure me I'll be able To support myself...give me a break. Well how bout take any job that's available, part time if necessary, minimum wage if necessary, dedicate yourself to it, work hard at it, and make the sacrifices necessary to get promoted and move up. Or how bout start your own business, work 100 hour weeks if necessary, and get it done. But nope...I went to college so I'm entitled to a 9-6 Mon-Fri gig that has a starting wage of 60k because I got a degree. Well guess what... your degree comes in a distant second to the heart and commitment you bring ...that has more value than your degree. I hire dozens a year that say they want a job. People that will put in the work and make themselves available rise quickly and too often stand out because most just don't want to do the work. You want assurances....assure your dang self you'll be able to support yourself by doing the work. Roll on victims...roll on 47%.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • sportsguru wrote...
    Regularjoe44
    October 17, 2012 9:44 pm
    I actually totally agree with your post other than your last statement. You obviously have never met the other 47% because they are some hard working folks and most don't take a dime from the welfare system, they have paid into it and earned every penny.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }