Yeah, you would think he would have won his own state. Maybe it was let the auto companies go bankrupt so vulture capitalists could come in and take away pensions, benefits and send the jobs overseas thing. It cost himMichigan and Ohio.

So now will he just go away? I am sick of looking at his smug face.

"Take Michigan" where?

You mean the ones that voted for Romeny? I hear ya' sister.

Speak for yourself.

Don I think that is exactly what she meant.

I am not stupid and you Obama lovers will be sorry you voted for him.

Well, we re-elected him, so obviously we are NOT sorry.

Sure hope you never have a fire. That would be...awful!

What do you mean stockpile guns? How is that possible? Didn't your personification of the Devil (Obama) rob you of all your gun rights shortly after he won the election in 2008?

whatthefrack, take a good long look in the mirror. You have no idea what you are talking about. You have no idea what SOCIAL security is. Thankfully you are in the minority and probably will be until the Republican party makes major, major, pro-people changes.

It took many years to recover from the Great Depression (over10 years) and so it will take time to recover from the Great Recession.

Spot on!

Wow...you've not only drank the Kool Aide, you've peed it back into a jug and drank it again.
Please take a little lesson in history...and do some research while you're at it.
Regan and Clinton ruined this country.

Banking deregulation and predatory lending for homeowners ruined this country. And that was signed into legislation under their watch. Because the failure didn't come to fruition until several years later...doesn't make it Bush's fault.

it is foolish thinking and lack of any real reason or research which will cause this country to continue to stumble backwards instead of moving forward.

Wealthy guy? Which one, Romney or Obama? Both are very, very wealthy...please tell me you realize that as well.
Who spends millions upon millions to take a job paying less than 500K a year?
WEALTHY individuals...period.

Marium, do your research instead of jumping on the bandwagon of lest blame the past administration...that speech is old and tired.

Who is the current administration going to blame now? Himself?

Marium, very true, Though some do not want to face the historical facts. These are the same folks that follow their leadership on birth certificate and Muslim assaults. Disillusioned souls.

The point is that Obama has not always been rich and understands the struggles of those who were also not born with silver spoons in their mouths. I would expect that any Presidential candidate has been successful enough in their personal lives that they are now rich. The question is attitude. Romney joking with unemployed workers that he understand their situation because he has also been unemployed is a slap in the face to the struggling families who, often through no fault of their own, are watching their homes and savings vanish. Telling autoworkers who are afraid of losing their jobs and their health care benefits that he loves Cadillacs and his wife loves them so much that she has two of them was also a slap in the face. He has two Cadillacs? Good for him. I don't say that he doesn't deserve them or anyone should take them away from him. Talking about owning two Cadillacs to a crowd of people who are worried about sending their kids to college and paying for their health care is extremely tone deaf and shows a callousness (whether intentional or simply due to cluelessness) that people reacted to when they went to vote.

Why didn't the Republicans under Bush fix it, they had 8 years to do so.

You forgot the two wars under the Bush/Cheney presidency maybe.Your money is in Baghbad and Afgahnistan folks!

Cheryl,
A recession was coming, it's cyclical. It shouldn't have hit until after Bush left office, but because of the housing bubble popping, the crap-hit-the-fan in 2007. He wasn't going to fix anything. The plan was set in motion in the mid-90's, thus leaving it in Obama's lap. It WAS Clinton's fault (along with Freddie Mac & Freddie Mae). Clinton even bragged about it in 2009 saying, "...my Administration has put tremendous emphasis on promoting homeowners and making housing more affordable for all Americans. Our housing programs and institutions have been a success. The homeownership rate is at an all-time high, with more than 66 percent of all American families owning their homes..." He didn't make it 'more affordable', he made it more accessible to people that couldn't afford it. And when the recession was coming at us, all those people walked away from the homes.
The Dem's believed home ownership should be available to all and basically forced the hands of banks to not turn anyone down. Clinton was proud of this accomplishment. They got it and that it what led us to the mess we are in. I don't blame Obama for not completely fixing it, but we should be in much better shape than where we're at right now.
Duke, as for the wars, you don't attack our country with our own planes, kill thousands of innocent citizens and get away with it. We had no option but to go after those scumbags. I'll give you the argument on Saddam, but not Bin Laden.

The mortgage crisis was due to the practice of offering credit default swaps with not enough assets to cover a default - but it easier to say "a bunch of poor people bought houses they couldn't afford".

Mark, the people who lost their homes lost them because the unregulated bankers on wall street screwed up! Nobody tries to lose their homes! Up until 2009 I had only been out of work for 2 weeks out of 30 years. The financial melt down of 2008 put me out of work for a year! Stop listening to your talk radio and put 2 and 2 together!!

Brad. You're right. I agree with you - not enough assets to cover a default. And default they did. Too many people did get houses that were high risk. They shouldn't have. 3 co-worker's of mine were a few of them. 5% down and they were moving in. Each one of them walked away from their homes because they were upside down.

Mike, I never said anyone tried to lose their homes. The financial meltdown wouldn't have been what it was without the housing crisis and though I was all for it back in the late 90's, in hindsight it was a very bad idea. And that falls on Clinton. Bush's two wars didn't help. And yes, the bankers screwed up too. Sorry to hear you lost your job. I had 5 co-workers (of 13 of us) laid off - 38% of our workforce and then I was on 40 hours for 3 years. Drained my 401k to save my house.

I'm not Dem or Republican and if you read in another reply of mine below you'll see that. Clinton was one of my favorite presidents because he worked with the Republicans. I'm fine with Obama being pres. Never said I wasn't, but, he and the Republican Congress have to both do a little give and take.

You misunderstood. I said that the bankers did not have enough money to cover their default swaps. Banks were giving bad loans (which they new were bad) because they could bundle them and sell them to someone else. People would buy these toxic assets because they could insure them against defaults (default swaps). The rating agencies lied and gave these "shitty deals" high ratings. Everyone got rich. Everything hit the fan when the home owners started to default an it turned out that those who were providing the default swaps (the banks) had no money or insufficient money to cover the assets that they were insuring.

So, is the home owner at fault? Possibly. They listened to the guy in the suit and the slick office telling them that they can afford this house and the way that the market was going, they can flip the house for even more money if the got into financial problems. I know because they tried that with me. They told me I should buy a house twice the price that I had in mind. (I didn't)

So the banks were like the crack dealers and the home owners were like the curious teenagers. Who do you blame? The guy who made a bad decision, lost his house and his life savings - or the guy who got rich advising the other guy to make that bad decision? Or maybe the guy who got rich telling the banker to tell the home owner to make the bad decision because knows he can bundle the crap and sell it to some unsuspecting investor?

Don, very intelligent and unbiased comment.

Face the facts. After 8 years of President Clinton great financial leadership, my Republican/Tea Party friends were giving the credit to President Reagan. UHMMMMM 12 years earlier......RIGHT!

Ray totaly agree.

Thank you Marcus. Regan and Clinton ruined this country...the fact it all didn't come to fruition during their presidency doesn't mean the blame shouldn't lie with them. It should.

After 8 years of Bush/Chenney and 6 years of a Republican/Tea Party Congress they left the mess behind. Now you going back 20 years, please.

Hilarious! "Get off the Bush kick it is getting old" and in the same sentence "problems that we face date back to the Clinton era".

So a President has no right to blame the previous regime - unless they were Democrats?! Marcus, do you realize how nutty that sounds?

Before you start reading this as though I'm a Democratic or Republican, I'll come clean with my voting record now. In every presidential election since 1980, I've picked the elected president, except for this year. I'm neither a Dem or Repub.
Reagan didn't ruin the country. Reagan is looked upon as one of the greatest presidents of all time. Clinton is viewed as one of the greatest Dem presidents ever. They both did fantastic. Clinton put us in the housing crisis which pushed our recession very close to depression. You have to look back at the root cause whether its 8, 10, or 12 years. This will always happen. There is a cause. Clinton wanted everyone to have homeownership. That was great, as long as a recession didn't come along because that's when people would stop paying their mortgage. Once they got upside down, they walked away. With the help of the wars, kaplooey went the economy. Nobody saw the housing mess in the late 90's-early 2000's. Nobody. But if Clinton doesn't get the blame for the housing collapse, who does then?
Don't think I'm Clinton bashing, because he was a great president. Clinton was coming into his own in '94 but lost the Congress. Not wanting to be a lame duck pres, he reached across the aisle and governed fantastically. Perhaps the best in history.
And that is where I find fault with Obama. He doesn't reach across the aisle. To get, you have to give a bit. Though, the Republican congress is as much to blame.

Jen,
Have you ever seen or read what a partial-birth abortion is? Anybody participating in that deserves hell. Look at Obama's record on that, if you're part of that, God bless you, because you're going to need it.

Here's an excerpt from fundraising letter by Mrs. Obama:

"We have all been concerned lately with the rise of conservatism in this country, especially as it relates to women. You’ve read the alarming news about the Justice Department’s request for hospitals to turn over the private medical records of dozens of patients. This cynical ploy is designed to intimidate a group of physicians and force them to drop their lawsuit seeking to have the so-called partial birth abortion ban ruled unconstitutional.

The fact remains, with no provision to protect the health of the mother, this ban on a legitimate medical procedure is clearly unconstitutional and must be overturned. "

In my view, "life suppression" trumps "voter suppression" as an issue...

Marcus! Glad you brought that up because I brought my Bible and I happen to know it very well. in Genesis it says God formed man out of the dust of the earth and he breathed into him and he BECAME a living soul. Notice Body + breath = Living soul. So, according to this it is not fully human until it has been given the breath of life from God. Also Exodus 21:22 is where it shows that if a pregnant woman is hit and miscarries and is not harmed herself there is to be a fee paid but if she is harmed it shall be a life for a life and an eye for an eye. This shows that while the fetus has value, it has less value than that of the mother. Genesis 38:24 talks about Tamar who was 3 months pregnant with twins and they were going to burn her to death because they believed her to be a whore. they eventually decided not to but the fact still remains that they did not care that she had two fetus in her, they were going to kill her despite them. This shows they had less value than an already born human.

So, there is NO Biblical proof that abortion is a sin because the Bible does not give a fetus full human status. It does say that God knew them from the womb. This still does not mean they are fully human in the womb only that God new them as they were formed in the womb. This would also imply that God knows who will be aborted.

Marcus- Also, although I believe in God and understand His word, it does not belong in politics. To make a law simply based on religious reasons is not acceptable. Christ, while able to make any laws he wanted, NEVER once made the Roman rule of the time accept any laws formed by him. NEVER! He offered them choices. They could choose to follow him or not, it is up to them. Christians should not make laws based ONLY on religious reasons. When we make laws ONLY because of religious reason, we risk allowing someone else to vote in a law that goes against our religious beliefs.

Oh and one last thing... when someone gets all high and mighty about the abortion issue why is it always some old man who never had to give birth? If you have never had an 8 lb bowling ball split your genitals in half and fall from between your legs, you have NO RIGHTS to make decisions about such matters.

Jen, I'M a Catholic and attend Mass weekly and was never told to vote for Romney.

Duke- Some of the Perishes did not do what the Bishops asked them to do but a large majority did. I heard it from a few of my catholic friends who go to different churches and I read about it online that it was happening elsewhere. I am glad that at least in a few of the parishes the Bishops did not get their wishes.

Please report any Catholic church that has endorsed Romney to the proper authorities. Not sure if it would be the attorney general or someone else. Does anyone know the answer?

clueless.
give it up.
nothing you said is true.
go back to fox news and their lies.

Sue - the natural gas industry is what's "shutting down" the coal industry. Gas is much cheaper.
It's called Capitalism - letting the market forces do their thing -

Actually many in the military DID support him. They were afraid that Romney would start another war with Iran. Get your facts straight. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/10/armed-forces-show-overwhelming-supp.html

I was paying $4.35 a gallon for petroluem under the Bush/Cheney Presidency.

Keep up your stereotypes if it makes you feel better. Ignore the fact that the Blue States are also the richest States and that the Blue States are donor States. People with the highest level of education voted for Obama.

That pretty much nails it.

Well said Mike.....4 more years!!!!

I agree, let Obama have it his way...hence, no blame of obstructionism can be used.. Tax the rich, kill coal, kill oil drilling, kill all other energy related initiatives except the green energy, more solar panel factories, more battery factories, mandate more electrical cars from the car industry, etc etc. Let the Democrats fix what they consider to be Bush problems and root causes.. Eight years should be enough..After his second term the answers will be vey clear...Just follow what is going on in Europe for the rest of the story..........

So, you're in favor of what? No health care for the poor or sick, dirty energy, and higher taxes on everyone? Is that it?

I know you're next comment. Spend less. Well, we spend all the money we take in on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on the debt. Which of those would you like to cut first?

If jobs were to be created under the Bush tax cut for the wealthest Americans were are all those jobs, it has been over 5 years.

Umm, your math is a bit off. 1% is always 1%.