The present jobless rate is part of a good trend to get our nation out of the financial hole that Bush left us with. It just confirms my decision to support and vote for barack Obama.
Judy Deutsch

I'm supporting Obama because I believe that OVERALL his policies are best for the vast majority of Americans in the long run. Making some sacrifices in the present to help ensure a better future is good policy for my home, my town and the country as a whole.
Donna Scalcione

There is no known cure for this type of naivety... it happens to the best of families, particularly in blue states.

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

Sure the unemployment rate is down but it's only because people who are looking for full time jobs have to settle for part time jobs. The real number is how many people who are seeking full time jobs and can not find them. Any buddy can play with statistics and the Obama administration are experts at it.

And I do mean "buddy" because that is how Obama portraits himself to people. He's their "buddy".

HE STARTED WITH 7.8. We are back where he started after TRILLIONS IN SPENDING. IF you can even believe these numbers.GASOLINE is through the roof. IF you recall OBAMA saying gas should be around 4-5.00 a gallon a couple of years ago, AS LONG AS IT DOESN`T GET THERE TO FAST. WELL it`s getting there dear leader. THE LYBIAN situation is a mess, what comes out in the insuing days will shake it up, EVEN WITH THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IN THE TANK. You can see the rats scurrying off the ship.OBAMA is the least prepared man to be president in the modern era !!!!!. IF elected it will be more of the same, however much much WORSE !!! HE has never run anything, not a lemonade stand. MITT ROMNEY IS A WORLD CLASS TOP NOTCH CEO, WHO HAS BUILT BUSINESS, AND SOLVED PROBLEMS. I`D SAY IN ALL THE BUSINESS HE HAS BUILT he created more Jobs than OBAMA HAS EVEN COME CLOSE TOO.YOU CAN`T BUILD THE ECONOMY BY JUST ADDING CIVIL SERVICE JOBS.This guy doesn`t get it.THE bulk of the middle class is not working in the civil service, in fact those jobs on average pay 12.30 an hour more AND MUCH BETTER BENEFITS. he wants more teachers, more cops, more firefighters, more janitors etc, HOW ARE WE GOING PAY FOR THEM ? prop taxes keep going up as it is. WHEN THE PEOPLE IN A COMPANY START MAKING MORE THAN THE OWNERS, IT`S OVER FOR THE COMPANY, the civil servents are making more than the bulk of the people who pay them, CAN`T CONTINUE, AND WORK !!!!!! unemploment rate in the government is 4.5% far cry from 7.8 %

Doesn't affect my vote, no. We should have spent more to climb out of this hole, but that was not his choice, and we compare with economies overseas to see what happens if you don't spend liberally in a crash -- they're doing much worse than we are, in general (England is particularly comparable since they control their own currency). Conservative policies are generally the worse ones, both right now, and in general.

It doesn't impact my vote as I was already voting for the President because as Donna Scalcione said, "overall his policies are best for the vast majority of Americans in the long run."

We're coming off of a credit bubble burst and any non-partisan economist notes that the recovery we're experiencing is about what one can expect under the circumstances. The President, no matter who they are or what party they belong to, can't really have a major impact on this though we all act as if they can and the campaigns play this game as well.

What a President or party can impact is how we take care of those most effected by the slow pace of recovery and other aspects such as how we ensure opportunities for "success" are fostered for the largest swath of Americans possible. Not to sound 'jargonistsic' but ultimately if we don't ensure there's a pretty strong middle class, demand for goods and services will remained suppressed and the economy will suffer. Economies with concentrated wealth tend not to be places most of us would want to live.

The unemployment rate being lower (now 7.8%) is part of a positive trend, but is volatile month to month. While some of the lower number is due to discouraged job seekers, some is also due to the high rate of baby boomers leaving the workforce for more typical reasons (retirement).

Yes, know to many people out of work or underemployed with no hope....Been out for over 28 months and most companies I know are not hiring.

The major reason for the financial melt down, by far was the Democrats, BARNEY FRANK AND CHRIS DODD, with there foolishness, of the idea everyone should own home in america whether they could afford it or not, forcing the banks to give loans to people, YES IN MOST CASES MINORITY`S who could not make the payments, going in with nothing down. DID BUSH GO OVERBOARD IN SPENDING, SURE DID, he was far from a fiscal CONSERVATIVE, OBAMA HAS SURPASSED HIM. ALAN GREENSPAN kept interest rates artificially low for years, he cut rates over 20 times in a row UN HEARD OF, HENCE MONEY BECAME CHEAP TO BORROW.

The only way the jobless rate WOULDN'T affect your presidential vote is if you are not concerned with working or getting a job. There is no other excuse. Don't forget those advertised jobless rates don't include the millions who stopped looking for work, just the ones on the books who are continuing to look for a job. ENORMOUS fact that shouldn't be ignored.

So a few days after Obama gets spanked in the debate the jobs numbers come out like this. Sure they did. The minions will eat this up and spread the word that their Messiah has saved America. God help us.

A drop of the unemployment numbers of such magnitude would have to mean a growth rate of FAR more than we are having. I suspect foul play. It just doesn't make sense for such a precipitous drop in unemployment to occur without some huge change in the manufacturing numbers, the housing numbers or durable goods numbers, which there hasn't been. (those would have made headlines too)
Keep in mind that how the unemployment rate number is figured is from paid workers going door to door interviewing folks in their homes. These workers work for, you guessed it, the government. Their INTERPRETATION of what constitutes "employment" is key to the numbers they submit. And they DO have leeway as to how they lean from what they are told.
"Do they want to continue to work for the government? Well then, Romney is going to fire all of you if he is elected! Now get out there and find us some employed people!"
I can't know for sure that is what is happening, but such a huge drop in that number without a corresponding jump in the numbers in other sectors or statistics is rather....unheard of.
Oh? You say the election is only one month away? Huh...what a coinky dink!

Mike Fleming has hit the nail on the head...such a precipitous drop with no corresponding positive economic numbers to justify the reduction....I smell a rat.

Even WORSE THAN THIS THOUGH....Judy Deutsch has found the INTERNET..GOD HELP US ALL!!!!

If her OP/ED comments in the Sudbury Town Crier didn't kill me this will!!

From the 47%: I will vote for Obama, despite my 2 years of unemployment or underemployment. I believe the financial problems in this country were created at Wall Street, under Bush. Romney, in my opinion, is an elitist, too rich to understand that people like me who previously belonged to the middle class are now the underemployed poor. Essentially, I belong to the 47% group, and Romney serves Wall Street...finally, I feel with Romney as Driver-in-Chief, I will be put in cage on top of car roof, forgotten about, driven around to no where.

I hope that you Dems are following the travesty of the dead US Ambassador and his three guards killed in Bengahzi on 9-11...and how the Ambasador was begging for US troop protection prior to his being attacked and killed. And the Obama administration thought that a group of Libyan soldiers who get paid 4 dollars an hour and was called (and I'm not making this up) the "17th Martyr Squad" was adequate to protect him. Obama knew this was terrorist attack 12 hours after it happened, yet he sent his surrogates to all the major talk shows 5 days later, saying the attack was because of anger over a video that had been out and available on YouTube this summer.
MSNBC is not covering this scandal. Watch Fox News and you will hear things that WILL turn your stomach.
He is outright lying because he doesn't want to add another screw up to his list so close to the election, and so close to his failure in the debate .
For this reason ALONE he should lose his job.
C'mon people! Lift your eyes out of the liberal muck and obfuscation that surrounds this empty suited narcissist. Pay attention to what is actually going on. Put aside your jealose envy of rich people. They are wealthy and you're not. Who's fault is that? THEIRS?? Get over it and wake the heck UP!!

Who will be the candidate to give me health insurance if I go into a 3rd year of unemployment/underemployment. Keep in mind, I am mid-50's, single and self-supporting. Tell me who my candidate is? Thanks.

Also, despite my efforts in securing a job, and I have been ready to relocate, work for much less, work night shifts, work last minute, still I cannot get a job. I have made my car ready in case I have to live in it. This is not an exageration, it is my reality. Jobs are not there for all of us. So who do you think my candidate should be?

Gary M-
ALL efforts at collating survey information that utilizes human beings in its collection has an inherent error factor known to exist. But sir, when was the last time you have heard the unemployment numbers discussed along side ANY mention of a "margin of error"? Let me answer that question for you: NEVER.
Now suddenly we have discovered that there is margin of error that we must also be discussing? No sir. No one has ever introduced what everyone knows to be the human factor of sampling into the discussion because that factor remains constant. So the validity of the number remains constant from month to month.
Just do a reality check: take a discussion of this subject, pick ANY talk show, left or right, newspaper or magazine article, google search, whatever you'd like, and try to find any part of that discussion EVER mentioning a "margin of error" associated to that number. Send it to me. Mfleming52@gmail.com or on this blog site. If you can, I will publicly and graciously concede defeat. You are confusing this number with opinion polls which mentions a margin of error EVERYTIME they are posted. And Sonny? When someone uses the word "Census"
It doesn't necessarily refer to the National Census that is done every 10 years. A census taker is anyone tolling up information for any question, at anytime on any subject. Look the word up in the big thick book collecting dust over there in the corner of the basement proping up your video game box.

Not sure a liberal is capable of intelligently refuting..

"Liberals feel; conservatives think."

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

Sonny-
The point is that such a jump, or I should say drop, in the unemployment numbers was totally a surprise to the economists and market guys who watch the national numbers very carefully. They did not see this coming. Why? Because in order for such an improvement to occur, OTHER numbers must move in advance, thus suggesting a drop or rise in the unemployment numbers coming up in the near future. Kind of like the "futures" market the morning before the NYSE opens. If the futures are down, we usually see a drop in the Dow at the opening bell. We can almost predict unemployment numbers about a week in advance, roughly. One of the things we see in advance is "jobs created" numbers. Yet this months jobs created number was 114,000. It takes over 250,000 added jobs in one month to move the unemployment figure a single point. One single point. This months number moved Down THREE percentage points, without the required jobs number moving with it. Nor did housing starts, manufacturing, durable goods or warehousing numbers move AT ALL. Where did this miraculous drop come from?
Now, Sonny, if you are capable, respond to what I am talking about, and try to curb your natural tendency to call people you disagree with a "poopy-head", ok? The unemployment numbers, Sonny, concentrate, ...what do you think is the explanation of this un precedented, un explainable drop in the number 4 weeks before the election? Use your bright penetrating beacon on this question...

Gary
My call to "intelligently refute my comments" were aimed at Sonny boy, not you. Yes, I KNOW that there is sampling error in any collection that is collected by human beings. We ALL know that. I've already stated that. My point was that when I ask the question about a relatively huge drop in the unemployment figure, a valid response is NOT a comment about a "margin of error". It doesn't work with this number because that margin of error is always, consistently there, thus negating its importance in discussions about that number. See? NO ONE...even smarter people than you and i doesn't bring it up in discussions because it is moot. You'd look like a dummy on live TV if you did. YOU, dear Gary, have not suddenly discovered a new twist in the way we discuss this important fact.
I will ask you the same question I asked Sonny above: what is your explanation of a traditionally very slow moving number that suddenly jumps an astounding 3 percentage points without any corresponding accompaniment of other closely related economic data points...four weeks before an election?
Do you have one or two curious or skeptical bones in your body or does that only apply when a Republican is speaking?

The unemployment numbers do not matter too much to me. Because I know of too many people like me who no longer collect unemployment and have not for 6 months or so, and have not been able to get jobs in their field or or related to their field/skill-set. Back in March of 2012, early 7 AM when I stood in the "unemployment" line at my local job center, the line was 32 people long. I counted 28 people who looked 50ish. Also, I asked a few what they did for a living. There was medical, accounting, electrical, operations, computer programing, etc. THERE WAS A FULL COMPANY IN THAT LINE, alot of talent. SOME said they had been out of work for over a year. Many are still at the networking meetings I attend. So it does not matter to me about the numbers. I know locally of the reality of longterm unemployment. It is a humbling and stressful experience.

The numbers are a lie. Unemployment, illegal aliens and rising prices are crippling the America we grew up in. Obama had his chance, even the liberal media has lost the ability to cover for him.

Sonny, you win. Not by insightful comments, but sheer weight. You're too heavy and I'm not strong enough to carry you. You gotta cross that finish line on your own.

Wow. I said . 3 percentage points when I should have said .03 percentage points. You got me. That totally proves I was wrong on the entire argument that I was making...which had nothing to do with that number whether it was .3, .03, or .00003.
You failed to concentrate when I told you to concentrate, sonny.
Answer this question: how did such a big drop occur when all other economic factors didnt change? Usually such drops are accompanied with other numbers that show improvement too.
Can ya answer that question sonny, or are you gonna distract away the fact that you can't and concentrate on a number that has nothing to do with that question?
Look, if you don't want to trade insights or cogent arguments, go home, please?
I don't have the energy to teach you critical thinking here on these pages.
You are getting boring. Sorry.

You got me. Now leave me alone. Please.

Go away.

POPPAONE, I know things are bad...and they have been for such a long time, through Republican presidents as well as Democrat presidents..I think 'we're' just afraid of things becoming worse. How can any of this be 'fixed' in reality? All the jobs being sent overseas are due to the owner's of those companies trying to save their own companies....and keep their profits high...how can that be fixed..as it is of course 'trickle down' devastation..I don't see them bringing back their work here, when it's so cheap in other countries. I think that is my main question, how can any 'magic wand' that Romney has change things so dramatically and get our finances in the upswing again, so that unemployment truly does change for the better...I do NOT believe those 'numbers' at all...there are too many people that have just been dropped off the lists..it's disheartening to have read that from my President, along with the facts about the embassy security..but the overall intent of President Obama is still good for our country...Romney didn't make anything better for our state at all, all those insurance plans he had people take, well it's a rare MD office that accepts them...people pay for them and still go without care. That is a fact..

Kate, obviously you have never voted for a conservative candidate, and you probably never will. Unfortunately, we are all in this together. We all have to live with your decision. You are the one who will loose sleep in November once your conscience catches up to your logic. Good luck to you and may God have mercy on us all.

You can throw all the figures in the world out there, all the google facts you want. The fact is, 7.8% from 8.1% is nothing! Take a look, how many people are no longer eligible for unemployment? how many people are working part time jobs because full time work is non-existant? Look in your neighborhood, how many people are out of work? Fact is, it's everywhere. Many suffer in silence, many are losing homes and businesses. Do we not owe it to ourselves to try a change? This administration has failed. We need to try a different route, Sure it may not work, But Romney and Ryan are making more sense and clearly want to take this country back to prosperity. Time to change the bathwater!

Agree with Walt. Where is the logic in giving a president 4 years to at least change the direction of our decline, and when he fails, give him another 4? Where is the reason to give him 4 more years of policies that have clearly failed? How many out there can survive another 4 more years of either under employment, or no employment at all? Obama has been clearly anti-business, from his anti-success populist rhetoric to his stick it to the small businesses tax policies. Does ANYONE think he has the flexibility to completely pivot from the stance that he has assumed since January of 2009?
No, he will not pivot or adapt. We must pivot for him.

Hi Michael. I am one of the lucky ones. I just transferred up here for a new position in my company. I start in on Wednesday. I am truly lucky to have been with the same comapny 16 years now. I leave behind many family members and freinds who are searching for work and just trying to get through each day as best as they can. And get this: most had manufacturing jobs that went away, most went to China, some just ceased operations because it became no longer profitable in the current economy. That's why I believe we need to change it up. Also Hi to you too Sonny,as for throwing out the "baby" you mention? Well, I guess if that "baby' is The current President, then throw it out along with the water. You all have a great day. I need to go see about registering my car up here, and getting a Mass license. I hear I'm in for an aggravating afternoon.

Question for Romney supporters: how could a man known best for breaking up American companies, outsourcing American jobs and stockpiling his wealth in offshore acocunts turn around American economy? Specifically, I would like to know opinion of the the majority of not-so-rich 98%-ers - how could Romney/Ryan policy benefit YOU?

Welcome to Massachusetts Walt. Congrats on keeping your job, even though it required you to relocate. You are truely one of the lucky ones in this economy, given the anti growth sentiment eminating down from Washington and "The Great One". Stay strong. If you are new to Boston and unfamiliar with all the historical events that occurred here in This area at the beginning of this great countries journey, study it's rich history, and you will be heartened at what our Founding Fathers went through, and the sense of liberty and freedom they were motivated by in fighting for our independence, an independence that is surely threatened by the culture of "victimization"and entitlement that pervades todays Leftist vision of a reconstructed America. Where government is the "giver of all good things" and the center of society, and the family unit, individual responsibility and freedom is subsumed into the maw of that ever hungry giant.

Answer to rvd: your central theme seems to be, if a guy is rich, how can we possibly vote for him for president? Mitt was a venture capital guy. Do you even know how they work? They look for troubled businesses that have potential, buy them and then try to turn them around. They make good profits if the company survives. They WANT the company to thrive, as that results in a profit. There is a long list of companies that they have fixed and turned around. There is a short list of the companies that were beyond saving, who would very likely would have gone out of business anyway. Those companies, after an infusion of PRIVATE money, if they don't recover, are sold again or broken up. The likely scenario for that company anyway.
Now, look at America as a company in trouble that has enormous potential. Who better to fix this country than a guy who DID THAT FOR A LIVING AND WAS VERY SUCCESFUL AT IT?? Or, you think a guy who's only job before getting into politics was a professional political agitator called a "community organizer"? An organizer along the same frame of thinking as "Occupy Wallstreet" kind of organizer.
YOU tell ME...using all your logic circuits, who is better equipped to pull this country out of its doldrums?
P.S. John Kerry had money in off shore accounts too. Still does. That didn't seem to bother the socialist crowd too much back then. It certainly didn't bother me.

To: trexdad
I know several people who are on the verge of losing their jobs as a direct result of Obamacare.
--
Obamacare is not even enacted yet but you've already blamed Obama. Lets say you are right. Some people will be hurt by ANY reform no matter how good it is. There are always winners and loosers. The real question is what is the win/loose ratio and will it improve over time. The only other choice is status quo - those who profit now will continue to do well, those who suffer will continue to suffer, while healthcare will continue to deteriorate until it collapses and our nation debt skyrockets.

rvd- Here is your comment: "how could a man known best for breaking up American companies, outsourcing American jobs and stockpiling his wealth in offshore acocunts turn around American economy? Specifically, I would like to know opinion of the the majority of not-so-rich 98%-ers - how could Romney/Ryan policy benefit YOU?" I will answer them as best I can. I have already answered the first part of the question explaining how a venture capitalist CAN help America. Unfortunatly, there is no on the job training for president, nor is their a training position that one can go through before becoming president. One has to use the experience that one gets in his life before taking up the very difficult and unique job as POTUS. Lincoln was a lawyer, Carter was a peanut farmer, Obama was a community organizer, and Romney was a venture capitlaist. We NEVER know how these jobs will affect their performance of being president. FDR, Kennedy, were men of wealth prior to their election. Kerry was when he ran. So wealth, per se, is not a disqualifier. In fact, I would say it reflects WELL for someone who has executive experience and has the know how and intelligence to become successful before becoming president.
Your comments about wanting to know what the not-so-rich-98% have to say about who should be president tells me you are trying to play the "He's-rich-and-the-rest-of-us-aren't" card. Simple class envy. Yeah he has put money in off shore accounts? So what?

Most rich people shelter their taxes. A perfectly LEGAL way to reduce their tax liability. Kerry did it too. Many other Dems do it as well. If it would benefit me, (It wouldn't, I don't make enough money) I would do it too. Why is this part of your faux outrage? How does THAT fact disqualify him as a president? Make your point.
SOme of the companies that he tried to save were sent over seas? THAT is your objection? And how many of our jobs were sent over seas under the Obama administration that Bain had NOTHING to do with? Dude, when labor costs in China or Mexico are cheaper by far than the standard union wages that are found and enforced here by the administration...where would YOU get your labor? You think that all jobs that were ever sent to Vietnam or China were Romneys doing?? C'mon. You can't be that nieve. They go because the tax and labor cost environment in this country is high and the benefit is low. Onerous regulations? EPA compliance? Frank-Dodd compliance, Sorbains-Oxley compliance? The unsure future restrictions and fines of Obamacare? When THAT is reversed, you will see companies come back to the US. Under ANY president.

You need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia and Google searches. They are a valuable tool. Here are some of the companies that Bain has bought and helped become successful: AMC Entertainment, Aspen Education Group, Brookstone, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Clear Channel Communications, Domino's Pizza, DoubleClick, Dunkin' Donuts, D&M Holdings, Guitar Center, Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), The Sports Authority, Staples, Toys "R" Us, Warner Music Group and The Weather Channel. Also, they bought Isotoner. Sealy Mattress company, and Calumet Coach, a maker of medical supplies.
There is a complete list of all their successes and failures available to any who know how to do a Google search. So a good bumber sticker for you, Sonny, would be "Google Search".

RVD-
You are sorely misinformed. Off shore tax shelters are perfectly legal. Google it. Do you think that if Romney was engaged in ANY illegal tax strategies, that he wouldn't be the subject of a dozen IRS investigations? He is not. Get your facts straight. the U.S. tax code is encouraging Americans to move money offshore, and has counted a dozen legal ways to minimize taxes by doing so. Off shore investments must be reported, and Romney has comported with all those laws. It is the SECRET accounts that are illegal, because they hide income. You think in your mind that you know something the IRS does not? Then sir, you should immediatly stop wasting your clearly prescient mind here on these humble pages, and should report your knowledge to the NYT, complete with the documentation to support this accusation. right away.
Your objection is "how his money is made" am I correct in that assertion? Sorry, I am having a hard time pinning down your exact objection, except for a general and vague problem with him having money and you don't. Your comment cut and pasted: "We need LEADER for all people, not just strong, healthy and rich"...this seems to underline your objection to a Wealthy-American being president. If I am off base, please focus your attention on the exact issue you have. He made his money honorably, legally,and is paying all due taxes, and contributing to charities at an above normal levels. No wonder he offends you so much! An evil rich guy who pays his taxes!

trexdad
Romney ... introduced a mandated healthcare system in Massachusetts which created jobs within healthcare. Obama has created Obamacare which has cost healthcare jobs and will continue to cost healthcare jobs.
--
I hope this is not a joke. Obamacare is inspired, copied over, advised from what Romney signed in MA. Same advisers, same approach. Main mechanism also mandate, paid via tax. Even Romney does not object it.

Sigh...you are right of course, Poppa. Somehow, I am compelled to help the sick and infirm, even if that means intellectually. Hopefully, others who aren't so invested in their cocoon of mis information may read a sliver of truth in what I say, and a spark of curiosity will take hold, maybe inspire a reader to get their news from someone other than the immersed in Kool-aid Ed Schulz or Rachel Maddow. It is THEY that I speak to, not the paid echo chambers that frequently populate blog conversations.
But I hear ya Poppaone, I hear ya...

In your case, it would be "ineffectually" thanks for clearing that up.

I am an independent voter and I will wait until the last minute to decide who will be my candidate. I will watch the debates. I will give both candidates a chance to impress me, admittedly, neither has done too much to impress thus far. Both sides kiss babies, talk, talk is not action. My gut is leaning towards OBAMA in a very lukewarm way, despite my long-term unemployment. Speaking of which, lots of anger here on this site, apparently, others lost their jobs too during this administration? In between looking for a medical job, a once-safe place to work, hospitals cutting and not hiring permanent people, patients are without insurance, or unemployed and do not have the funds for a co pays, so they do not seek care...I spend my time consoling a friends who lost her son in the war that Bush started... we all are suffering lots of losses with wars, bad economy, the overseas slaughter of our ambassador, vets, etc. We can all point to a particular party for our suffering. Lots of losses. How to heal? Will congress work with the next president. Will we funnel our anger at our congress and make both sides together? Will we put our words into actions? Is there any compassion here?

Divamarie,

Waiting until now to decide...? Obama is your man:

He said, "We are the ones we have been waiting for."

There is probably little else we can do or say to help you. Try to stay away from sharp objects and hot stoves. You would probably not survive in many other states, but should be okay in Massachusetts.

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

Poppaone
rvd - it is not the same. Massachusetts healthcare is a statewide solution for a statewide problem. It was set up because of the hugh number of uninsured who kept showing up at the emergency ward when they were hung over, or had a cold or a hang nail. Hospitals were being overwhelmed and those that could afford health insurance but chose not to buy it. Those costs were passed onto the hospitals or the taxpayers. A state solution does not translate to a national solution.
--
It does translate. The problem is exactly the same, and solution provided is similar. Again, Romney confirmed that. His only complain on last debate was "each state should be able to decide for itself".

Rvd - Obamacare is not even close to the Massachusetts mandated plan. You really need to start reading about these things and looking at the details. Obamacare is strictly funded by taxes and by lower reimbusements to healthcare providers. It is driving healthcare providers into forming these big healthcare systems and driving providers out of healthcare. This drives these providers to eliminate jovs which is cuttibg into the ability for healthcare to provide timely services.

I suggest Romney supporters learn from Mr. Carnegie: “even after I pass away the [wealth] that came to me to administer as a sacred trust for the good of my fellow men is to continue to benefit humanity for generations untold…”
But hey, all is not lost. Romney can still turn philanthropist after he loses this election.

I am the 47%.

Divamarie,

Obama is definitely your candidate. He committed to slow the rise of the oceans and begin to heal the planet. Sorting out any of the issues you have raised should not be a problem.

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

ANOTHER great screenshot to send off showing Karla Vallance has disapproved of a comment that follows terms of use simply because it is against her personal opinions. Borderline Harassment, how professional!