Facts devoid of context. But to some, context is irrelevant.

Here's what I would like to hear. Romney and Ryan both talk about how they want to simplify the tax code and reduce all rates to make it more fair. But to date, neither has been willing to offer specifics on how they would do this. (Which makes it impossible to figure out how what they would like to do affects me, or anyone else, for that matter.) So what I would like to hear from them are some specifics. They want to reduce the top rate to about 25%. How are they going to do that and keep the package revenue neutral? What deductions go away? How will that affect the average income earner? The working poor? The wealthy?

In the absence of specifics, I don't know how you could vote for them. Because it will always seem like they are hiding something. Until it's too late.

I suggest you take some time to research and stop listening to Debbie Wasserman and stop buying into the claim that Ryan wants to "change Medicare." Medicare is going to crash and burn, all by itself, going on as it is right now. Educate yourself before you speak and perpetuate these liberal mantras. This is so typical of what we can expect, just more of the same. Are you even aware of obamacare's impact already on Medicare? How do you think obamacare is being funded? Typical kneejerk foolishness. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxMZ1WdINs

Amen. The liberal machine is going to keep pumping that kool aid into the Karens of the world, Joe.

Better than the direction it is going now with Chairman Omao at the helm.

The 1% vs. 99% is a canard. There will always be a group at the top that has more than the others, and there will always be a group at the bottom that has less than the others. This is true even in communist societies. The difference is how well those below the top fare. They fare better in a free society than in a less free society. (Think South Korea vs. North Korea.)

The question shouldn't revolve around 1% vs. 99%, it should be about how well does the country perform as a whole. Free markets work to improve the lives of more people than non-free markets. The more government intervention to interfere with the free market the poorer we all become.

No, karen. It's much more important to focus on Romney's dog than the fact that we have a socialist muslim hell-bent on completely ruining America with zero regard for the rights of Americans or for our constitution. That is how mindless and silly your statements are. But what else can I expect of an obama lover to look at equally silly things and grasp at straws, when he has no record on which to run. He has to focus on silly things. You represent him perfectly and exemplify exactly why people are losing their homes, have no jobs, no health insurance...YOUR statements explain exactly why the US is in this predicament.

Lorbee, that whole 'Socialist Muslim' canard has got to die. It's ridiculous, and just makes the people say it seem ignorant. First off - being a Socialist and being a Muslim are totally Constitutionally valid characteristics for a US President. Do you have any idea what Socialism actually is? Because Obama is so far from it, it would be obvious if you did.

When my wife an I lived in Ireland, for a brief while in 2008, the nearest pub had a local Socialist Party meeting in the back room - I'll note that this was in the run up to the election when he was even more Liberal - and one night they had a few speakers come in for an event called "Obama: Hype or Hope?" - well, as Americans, that sounded worth sitting in on. They were a group of smart people, who knew a lot about global politics and political philosophy, and do you know what their consensus was? That he's way too Conservative for them to possibly support. For whatever that's worth, the Socialists of South Dublin didn't think he was remotely Socialist enough for them.

And, as far as Muslim goes - what, at all, would indicate that he's shown any sort of legal favoritism towards that particular religion during the last 4 years? He's pretty obviously a Christian: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myQx7JKM0ns
I'd it prefer he wasn't - maybe we could finally get some peace, understanding, and love for our neighbors if it wasn't already assumed of our leaders, because of a label they wear, but by their actions.

No voters who pay attention believe things will get better as long as the US Senate has the procedural filibuster.

Most voters believe things will get worse regardless of which party is in power.

Obama extended the Bush tax cuts because Congressional Republicans held the country hostage. Extending the tax cuts was part of a deal that funded the government and got the START treaty ratified. Oh and by the way...Senate Republicans would have blocked the recommendations of Simpson Bowles.

Don't know if you've noticed this, Kristen, but every president diverts money to politically connected elites. Like the defense industry. And the banks. And Wall Street. And Big Agriculture. Think this will be different under Romney/Ryan? Guess again.

Bear in mind, too, that Paul Ryan signed off on the disastrous Bush economic policies that took a huge projected surplus and turned it into a huge actual deficit. And set the table for the recession of 2008. (Yes, Bush had Republican majorities in the House from 2001-06 and for much of the same period in the Senate. And unfortunately, the Dems in the Senate did not have the stomach for obstruction that Mitch McConnell does.)

Read what I wrote above: I want to see/hear details. Not grand visions. Details.

So, you would knowingly vote for a man with dubious, no, deplorable character traits and would destroy and take your parents or grandparents Medicare, and focus on tax breaks for the wealthiest among us?

If a guy has the wherewithal to barbeque a dog and subject his own pet to 60 mph winds for 1200 miles how concerned is he going to be about you?

Go right ahead and vote for him and watch our country return to the same good old boy bush administration policies which bought our country to it's knees.

I believe there really should be a history/voter test before people are eligible to vote.

*facepalm*

But you gota love the ADS. Not really , it like two little kids. They should only be allowed to say what they would do , atleast a little bit. You only hear how bad he other guy is.. Darn one has Mitt killing someone . Not thats not nice.

Ike: I agree completely. Today's political contests are more like toddlers fighting at the playground.

We get no respect for being adults who can understand complicated problems and how the candidates would address them. Instead, it's just one guy throwing mud at the other and then the other guy throwing it back. Romney ran the nastiest primary campaign in recent memory. (Don't believe me; go read what his opponents--Gingrich, Santorum, Perry, etc. said about it at the time.) And Obama is going to "fight fire with fire."

One thing you know for sure is that it will not be a detail oriented campaign.

Karen: At this point, I believe he is the lesser of two evils, no longer do I believe that he is "Change You Can Believe In." No Wall Street banksters in prison, didn't close Gitmo, no single payer option, caved to Republican ransom demands to extend the Bush tax cuts and again over raising the debt limit. Yes, there were tough choices but I believe he has proved himself to be more of a political pragmatist than someone who is going to greatly change the way things are done inside the Beltway.

You just described yourself perfectly, karen. an ostrich with their head in the sand stupid partisan voter.

You are aware that Romney is no longer at Bain?

I missed any mention in the article that the state of Illinois is an economic disaster. That could not not possibly have anything to do with a Dutch company moving to China?

Really? This is an attempt to prove what?

Karen - you are misinformed. Romney did not barbeque a dog. Check your facts. In 1959 a current fundraiser for Romney was supposedly involved in such an event - not Romney. If you want to stay on dogs then why do you avoid the fact that Obama ate dog? - it is in his book.

Bush was not good, but far from the worst. Carter and Obama have that honor by a great distance.

You also complain that Romney wants to cut medicare. You avoid that fact that Obama's health tax plan cuts over $700 billion to medicare. If Romney does repeal Obamatax than he also repeals the medicare cuts.

You see, Karen...this is why I say you are a liberal with their head in the sand. Saying that "Romney barbecued a dog" is as stupid as all of you insisting that Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her front porch as they so enjoyed guffawing over on Saturday night live. These ridiculous accusations are grabbed onto by the pitbull teeth of you seething democrats, and have no basis in truth. Romney earned donations from a man named Malek, who is accused of committing a heinous act of animal cruelty in 1959, (and was later found to be not guilty with another individual admitting to acting alone! How can anyone take you seriously? Good God, can you really be this anxious about this election that you wouldn't even take the time to research what is truth and what is fiction, when people are jobless for years, have lost the bulk of the net worth and are being tossed out of their homes? The same with Palin, who once said that you could actually see some of Russia's landmass from Alaska. This is the problem that people have with democrats. They can't seem to decipher what is really important and what is required of a president. Sad and pathetic that you can turn a blind eye to the completely shameful report card and shady background of obama. Re-read your childish post and IT should make YOU sick in the stomach. What a joke you are, Karen. Spare me.

Malek told the Post he was in no position to stop the crime at the time of the incident.

Through May 2012: Obama job gains 0.1 million; unemployment 8.2%.

Health care reform - an enormous tax on the middle class and job killer for small business.

Against gay marriage until it would benefit him politically.

Went to war with Libya on his own authority; never went to Congress.

He has no record especially if you actually look at the big picture.

If he had a record to run on, he wouldn't have to be pathetically grasping at straws and launching unfounded attacks at Romney first, and now Ryan. I can't wait to see the commercial with Ryan pushing the old lady in the wheelchair off the cliff. In fact, the entire presidency, complete with biden's incredible and outrageous "gaffes" (a kind word) is a comedy of errors. So sad that this is what obama's USA looks like today.

Kathleen, I hardly recognize my country anymore.

Thank you for publically posting your comments and I share your views.

After the manufacturing of divisiveness of the previous administration, i.e., red states/blue states, rich vs poor, etc., perhaps there will come again a day where we are truly the UNITED States of America....

Yes, Kathleen. Karen is just so factual that she believes Romney barbecued a dog. Go and have another glass of Kool Aid. Apparently you have not had enough yet.

Republicans did and do create economic mess, especially when it comes to defense spending. The Democrat answer of using Keynsian economics does not correct the problem.

Democrats do not clean up the mess, they spend even more. Taxes and spending without cuts does not do the job.

Keynesian economics does not and has never fixed anything. The "mess" left by Bush has been made considerably worse under this administration. I do not know where you see that the "train is back on track".

Our deficit is far larger than it has ever been. Spending is out of control. Unemployment is still over 8%.

His first 2 years in office he had control of Congress. It was filibuster proof and he complains that Republicans will not let him get done what he wants to get done. Labeled them the party of "No". Again he had all the votes he needed to pass whatever bill he wanted. Still waiting on a budget.

I agree with you that Republicans do make an economic mess. I disagree when you say that Democrats need to fix it ... blind leading the blind.

"Didn't democratic president Bill Clinton leave a budget surplus?" No, he did not. Fiscal year 1994 (still Clinton's budget) had a defecit of over $281 billion per the US Treasuy.

Republicans do spend much to much on defense. No argument here.

Democrats spend much to much on social programs. While I agree there needs to be a social safety net it should be at a much more local level and not at the federal level.

Lyndon Johnson started the War on Poverty and it has done nothing but keep the poor poor. It is a failed policy that creates dependence rather than offers incentive.

It does not matter who is in office They will spend. Even if they raise taxes they do not use it to pay off debt. They create more programs on which to spend it. The federal government is a failure at creating and sticking to a budget. They should read Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution and stick to that only.

Admirable attempt but not quite the whole truth.

Clinton had deficits all 8 years of his presidency. If there ever is a true surplus then the debt would have gone down.

In 2000 he claimed to have a $230B surplus but he borrowed money from:

$152.3B from Social Security
$30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund

$18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund
$15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
$9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund
$8.2B from Military Retirement Fund
$3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds
$1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund
$7.0B from others

Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit. ($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit).

Funny how accounting works especially when you are only given a part of the story.