Eric, don't you know?, Obama is the messiah, in 2008 it was temples etc for the convention, and his middle name is miracles. Watch the 2016 movie about him, it is scary how he slips through the cracks. Perhaps royalty is a better word, how many czars can you appoint, anyway.? http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/czar-search/
Cut spending? Eliminate some of the czars from both sides of the aisle.
You mentioned weather....
They moved the DNA inside, despite perfect weather for Obama's speech, the concern was too many empty seats. And Granholm was a joke at the DNA, a screeching diasaster, Michigan went from 49th worst state in business tax ratings under her watch, plus billions in debt, to Snyder, with a billion surplus and a ranking now of #7.
http://www.michigan.gov/snyder/0,4668,7-277--271304--,00.html

Obama complains that we need to raise taxes to pay for everything. I say, cancel some of the Purchase Orders, we don't need entitlements from birth to grave, stop spending and let the populance have a chance to earn their own way once again, and that means the 50% who don't pay a dime in Federal taxes should start sharing the tax load immediately, in other words, 'paying their fair share'. Right now they pay zippo...and do qualify for one of Obama's statements by paying no taxes, "you didn't build that!"

YOU SAID: Now here is what I thought of the DNC. To be quite honest, I believe it was a train wreck...

You clearly don't know what you are talking about. Obama is going to win big in November because most of the American people are going to realize that the GOP is running absolutely no one that can be trusted. Romney would be just another repeat of the GW Bush administration with many of the very same people that had crashed the economy and brought this country to its knees in 2008. And, speaking of taxes, Lee, it would seem that you might be paying even more US taxes than Mitt Romney. Don't you ever wonder what he's trying to hide in respect to not showing his tax returns? Would those returns prove that he's actually paying more in taxes more to some other country than he is to the US? That sounds like a security risk to me.

Mr Concerned... to use that 'tired' statement that however works so well, I am less concerned how Romney spends HIS money , than how Obama Spends my money.
You speak of wonder.. Don't you wonder why Obama has spent 4 million plus dollars to keep his educational records secret? Why the locked door to Obama's past? We know he did drugs etc from his bios, but perhaps can it be that he was a mite untruthful regarding student loans , saying he was a foreign student? Perhaps he was not the 'bright' lad we are led to believe. Any other president's grades are available, only Obama's are not....Wonder why....?? Of course, this is a diversion anyway from Obama's wonderful record of fulfilled promises that never seem to become reality. Our kids will be paupers with his spending spree. Only in Obama's watch has our credit rating been lowered. He has no business being president as he has no business experience, never signed a paycheck twice. Ryan is the same way, but he is not running for President. Ryan also has an economic education. Obama has a 'Chicago' education. Time for a change. Time for Romney-Ryan.

YOU SAID: There is absolutely no proof...

Well, isn't that Romney's fault for not doing what every other major Presidential candidate has done for the last 44 years in terms of releasing at least 10 years of previous income tax returns? When running for governor of Mass your Mr. Romney had pulled the same stunt and he had then asked the residents of that state to trust him. And, the way that turned out is that the man had in fact lied and he had not at all been legal tax-paying resident of that state as he had claimed. Any and all questions Romney's tax returns and whether the American people might approve of the way that he has accumulated his vast wealth could be cleared up in a moment if only he did the right thing. But, somehow the man and his clueless supporters seems to think that he's some kind of god-like character that doesn't at all have to follow the same rules that every body else does.

And, yes, your Mr Romney and his fellow investors at Bain Capital may like to claim that they've been job creators. But, that certainly hasn't been true of creating jobs here in the United States. Rather, for every job that they might have supposedly created in the USA they have probably created 10 or more in such places as Communist China, or Communist Vietnam, or Socialistic India. And, let me remind you young man, that once upon a time people in this country had used to be sent to prison if they had tried to trade anything with Red China because they had been considered the enemy. But, now you say that's perfectly all right and that there may not be any apparent violations of some very fundamental national security issues in respect to the long term health of this nation? You had better wake up and get a clue because we can in no way expect to remain a great nation if guys like Mr. Romney are going to be allowed to continue to ship both our jobs and our industrial base overseas. But, of course why am I even wasting my time trying to educate a supposedly all knowing Fox News viewer like yourself in respect to anything?

Lee Says:Our kids will be paupers with his spending spree.

Don't the brains of you GOP supporters have any memory cells? Yes, it couldn’t have been more than a half dozen years ago, whilst G.W. Bush was running up record setting sky-high deficits, that your Vice-President Cheeny was all over the media for having smugly made the now very famous remark that “the Great Ronald Reagan had apparently once and for all proved that deficits didn’t matter.” And, that’s certainly the way that Ronald Reagan, George I, and then George II had acted during ALL the while that they had been in office. Deficits didn’t matter. But, I guess back then you might not have much cared about the future of your grandchildren future because you had probably voted for each of those snake-oil peddling politicians anyway, didn’t you? Basically, after the last time that the GOP had wrecked our national economy the one and only way that the country would ever be able to get out of the deep hole that it had been placed in would be by means of the national government having to front the money that would be then be necessary so as to restart the economy and prompt a recovery. And, I myself think that President Obama has in fact done an outstanding job of getting a very difficult situation turned around. And, that now would certainly not be the time to return back to power that very same irresponsible GOP politicians that had so effectively crashed our economy the last time.

Dear Mr. Lee Jacobsen, You seem to be so sadly misinformed about EVERYTHING. You seem to have spent too much time dwelling amidst a hollowed out right-wing echo chamber where what is really up becomes down and what is really down become s up. You’re presently complaining that current US taxes are too high (they’re not), but you’re probably all for the US continuing to spend more money in respect to its very over bloated defense budget then next 17 industrial advanced nations COMBINED. Yes, I know your type. You’re probably all for the US continuing to house troops in over 100 foreign countries around the world, or the US having every kind of gold plated and state of the art weapons system imaginable BUT YOU DON”T WANT TO PAY FOR IT. Yes, instead of you manning up so as to pay for what if should take to keep the US the world’s number one nation you would rather see this country’s very last vestiges of a civilized social contract torn up and even hungry school children be made to starve or go without healthcare so that huge defense contractors like GE, can continue to pay absolutely nothing in the way of taxes back to the government. That's your blueprint for the future? [continued]

Dear Mr. Lee Jacobson, [continued] Then, you go on about Ireland’s tax rate being only a supposedly meager 11% ? Just how in the world do you think that any comparison at all can be drawn between us and them? Are the people of Ireland currently having to being taxed so as to sustain a two-ocean navy, or to fund trillion dollar pie-in-the-sky missile defense schemes, or are they currently having to wrestle with the right-wing mind-set that would have them attempting to preform the task of policeman for the entire world? Empires are not cheap, Mr Jacobson. And sooner or later they have all got to be paid for. But, I do suppose that in your very peculiar alternate universe you keep imagining that you might still have it both ways if only by driving everyone in this country who is NOT LIKE YOU into a permanent state of destitution and pauperism so as to try to pay for that finally unaffordable empire? Yes, just how can you claim to be both concerned about out of control federal spending and a supporter of Mr Romney when he’s promising to eliminate even more taxes for the very rich and corporations whilst at the same time increasing this country’s already over-bloated defense budget too even more astronomical heights? Neither your or his position would really seem to make any long term sense.

Mr Concerned,

Apparently you are not 'concerned' about the fact that 'entitlement' spending now dwarfs any other kind of spending in America, taking 83% of all taxes. Defense, as a percentage of GNP which used to be 25%, is now 17% and Obama wants to cut it even more. Hard to enjoy all those entitlements when someone else threatens your security. There is a saying, keep your friends close, and your enemies 'closer'.
Why are we still giving money to Egypt when they are attacking our embassies? The political chaps in Egypt are extreme, the military, who call the shots, are moderate, better to settle differences on their land than ours....
Regarding Ireland, they do not compare in might, but they do have considerably lower taxes, and a draw for our industry and jobs to go to Ireland rather than stay here, Why? taxes are a fourth of ours. A simple solution? Lower our taxes, bring jobs back, and pay for the lesser taxes how? Let folk live less off the govt and be more responsible for their own costs. With more jobs from less taxes, more folk will be working and paying taxes, quickly making up the difference. Look here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
It's title tells the tale. Obama is spending us into a big fiscal hole, way more than his 'whipping boy' Bush ever did. Pauperism? Americans are chubby, and most, if not all, have cell phones. The rest of the world only wishes such destitution. We need jobs. Romney Ryan time.

Dear Mr. Lee Jacobsen, YOU SAID: “the fact that 'entitlement' spending now dwarfs any other kind of spending in America, taking 83% of all taxes, defense, as a percentage of GNP which used to be 25%.

First, I’m not stupid. What you are so very unfairly trying to compare there is apples and oranges. Your numbers are deceitful. First, social security expenditures are part of a quite separate self-perpetrating program that should NOT be counted as part of the general US budget. Second, you are talking about two quite different things. You must also answer exactly what so-called ‘entitlement’ spending is as a % of GNP, just as you must also answer exactly what % of all taxes (excepting SS) is currently going to the military. Either compare them both as a % of GNP or as a % of the budget, but do not split them in the way that you have. Defense does in fact seem to take up over 54% of the budget.

See: http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

Also, please note that the deceptive practice of combining trust and federal funds was began during the Vietnam War, and that it thus made the human needs portion of the budget seem larger than the military portion smaller. About 8% goes to service the national debt. And, that ALL US veteran services and retirement costs should have to be more correctly added to the defense and not the human services side of the US yearly budget. Now, please go and have a good evening!

Dear Mr. Lee Jacobsen, YOU SAID: A simple solution? Lower our taxes, bring jobs back, and pay for the lesser taxes how? Let folk live less off the govt and be more responsible for their own costs.

Unfortunately, I regard practically everything you say as very wrong. The only thing that is ever going to bring the jobs back to THIS country and which will help those smaller US business concerns that you always claim to be so concerned about, is the re-institution of stiff TARIFFS at the nation’s boarders and the gradual phasing of all of the current so-called free trade agreements. TARIFFS were in fact precisely the means that had allowed this country’s industrial base to be have been originally nurtured so as to grow. And, TARIFFS must once again be regarded as the only means as might finally save this country from complete and utter ruination that is now facing. Even as a life-long Democrat I’ll never be able to forgive President Clinton for having pushed those first so-called free trade agreements though Congress back inn the early 1990's. No wonder you Republicans now seem to so love him so much. Everything that is now wrong seems to be in some way traceable to that disaster. Yes, H. Ross Perot was surely mocked when he warned the nation of that soon to be heard ‘giant sucking sound’. But, history has since proven him to have been entirely correct.

Concerned,

Tariffs are a short sighted solution, and are quickly countered by other countries doing the same. It also hurts the consumer, who would supply all those low cost goods to Walmart and Harbor Freight?
http://useconomy.about.com/od/glossary/g/Trade-Protectionism.htm
Buying a shirt would cost at least $75 if made by union shops in the USA, instead of the $4-$12 each of the same quality but made overseas.
Concerned, with tariffs on clothing, you would force Americans to either pay extremely high costs or go naked in the streets! You would be denying our kids a Christmas...most of the toys in stores like Toys R Us are made in China, now you want, with tariffs, to be a Grinch to our kids. There are numerous examples of how tariffs would raise costs on consumers, but you don't seem to care.
http://useconomy.about.com/od/glossary/g/Trade-Protectionism.htm
Obama doesn't care about energy costs, now at record levels, yet he still fights the Keystone pipe line, which would be built where numerous other lines have gone for years without issue. He plays with wind and solar, would you buy a Volt for $40,000 to save a pittance on gas costs.? So far, each Volt sold has cost the taxpayer over $250,000 each http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/16192

All tariffs will do is raise consumer costs, and eventually stagnate our industrial base. An example is the telephone. With a monopoly, we got the dial phone. Without a tariff, we get innovation, ie Apple.

YOU SAID: Buying a shirt would cost at least $75... Exactly where are you getting your numbers from? In any case, there are probably already plenty of $75 shirts and blouses being presently sold out there (just ask any woman). But, those are shirts and blouses that are now being produced under third-world sweat-shop conditions that are currently costing their importing manufacturers but mere pennies to produce. So, please tell me how US consumers have been getting any kind of bargain from the country’s current trades polices when that shirt that only costs but twenty-nine cents to produce in Thailand should end up costing $75 by the time it is placed on a store shelf in the US ? Indeed, it’s probably entirely a myth that lower foreign labor costs also result in US consumers paying much less for those goods than they ordinarily might. Rather, any supposed savings are probably being almost completely swallowed up that importing company’s then very much greatly inflated executive compensation schemes.

YOU SAID:...made by union shops in the USA... That sounds like an excellent idea! How is there any actual downside to US taxpayers when US workers get adequate compensation for the thing they produce? The historical records are there. Didn’t those communities that had the highest unionized worker rates also tend to have the lowest food stamp rates/ the lowest medicaid expenses? The lowest crimes, jail and prison incarceration rates? As well as both the highest high school and college graduation rates? And, for that matter they might have even had the highest church attendance rates? Yes, it would seem that the very most effective way of ensuring that the general rate of taxation should go down for quite nearly everybody would be by means of ensuring that every working person be properly compensated for the work they do? Indeed, having a lot more union shops in the country would also mean that many more smaller mom and pop business operations should also be able to thrive just as they did through the 50's, 60's, and 70's when overall union membership had been highest.

YOU SAID: You would force Americans to either pay extremely high costs or go naked in the streets.... That is nonsense! Haven’t you ever heard of the industrial revolution? Thanks to industrialization labor rates do always tend to constitute but a small fraction of the total cost of any mass produced item. Indeed, labor costs for the big-three auto producers - even when they are paying supposedly big UAW type wages, must generally average out to be only about but 10% of the total price that the consumer is currently paying for a car. Make the executive of those companies be compensated at the very same rates as are paid to business executives in Britain, Germany, or Japan, or alternatively, re-institute the top income tax bracket-rates that had been in use during the Eisenhower years in conjunction to implementing a program of national health insurance for all, and there should be absolutely no reason why American industries couldn’t once again compete with anyone in respect to production costs.

YOU SAID: You would be denying our kids a Christmas... Sometimes you do come across as sounding like such a phony. Obviously, if you really cared about the welfare of the children of this country you also would want them all to be signed up for universal health care services, wouldn’t you? Or, how about that other thing that might be of even greater benefit to today’s children in respect to their having stay a home parent who might then provide them with proper nurturing that every person needs so as to be finally transformed into a civilized person? Yes, let us once again re-institute those pay-scales that had allowed the American workers of the 1950's, 60's, and 70's to support not only themselves but also their families as well. Unfortunately, far too many American youth are being presently brought up with barely any supervision at all because nowadays both parents are being forced to work too many long hours for usually very minimal wages at such places as Walmart.

YOU SAID:...most of the toys in stores like Toys R Us are made in China... Isn’t that appalling? And, you think that it’s a good thing that US industry is no longer in a fit a state to even build toys for the country’s children? Doesn’t that strike you as being awfully sad? But, I bet if you asked any young child what they might actually want the most, their answer would probably involve something old fashioned in respect to the attentions of a stay-at-home mother.

YOU SAID: ....now you want, with tariffs, to be a Grinch to our kids... Who’s really being the Grinch? Me or those super- industrialists like Mitt Romney who have for the last nearly 35 years have been quite refusing to pay average US workers the money that they would need so as to properly sustain their families? Low wages must always be inevitable seen to destroy both the family and this nation’s overall cultural fabric as well. And, how can you still be so wantonly blind so as to not yet realized that truth?

YOU SAID: There are numerous examples of how tariffs would raise costs on consumers, but you don't seem to care... Temporarily, re-induction of stiff tariffs are likely to in many instances prove discomforting and painful. But, finally, that’s the only thing that might turn this nation around and make its overall economy healthy again. As it is only the top 1% , like Mitt Romney, would seem to be really benefiting from the nation’s current economic model.

YOU SAID: Obama doesn't care about energy costs.... Just what kind of magic mushrooms are you are you smoking today? That’s a joke, right? Do you really think that President Obama doesn’t care that the country should be presently suffering from sky-high gas prices at the very same time that he’s running for re-election?

YOU SAID: ... now at record levels.... Proving what? That G.W.Bush’s and his former Vice-President’s secret schemes to greatly inflate gas and oil industry’s profits are still working? Gee, weren’t we once all told that we would soon be literally swimming in a whole sea of cheap oil just as soon as we invaded Iraq? How did that work out?

YOU SAID: ...he still fights the Keystone pipe line, which would be built where numerous other lines have gone for years without issue... Please, get a clue1 Tar-sand oil products are in no way like ordinary crude oil. Rather, their in fact probably inevitable contamination of already scarce US ground and surface water reserves is sure to prove as nearly toxic to the population of this country as nuclear waste. The transport of tar-sand oil contaminates can in no way be thought worth the risk that it posses to this country’s fresh water resources. History has already proven that mankind can somehow manage to get along without even so much as a drop of oil. But, for not so much as a week can anyone get along without a ready source of fresh drinkable water. The Keystone pipeline project s quite utterly insane for environmental reasons and will never in any instance be causing the nation’s overall energy costs to go down. Rather, quite the opposite is probably true.

YOU SAID: He plays with wind and solar, would you buy a Volt for $40,000 to save a pittance on gas costs... Sure, it may all sound a bit like a joke except for the rather unfortunate fact that both polar ice caps are currently seem to be very rapidly melting . And, if that should continue as it has, then probably within no more than just another 100 years such places as New Orleans, New York City, San Francisco, and Washington DC might well be lying under many feet of water.

YOU SAID: Volt sold has cost the taxpayer over $250,000.. Still more right-wing and oil company sponsored rants? But, in any case what’s your point? Didn’t the taxpayers have to in one way of another subsidize every gasoline powered cars and trucks that is currently being driven on the nation’s roads? Or, had it really been the oil and automobile companies that had actually built and paid for those roads? Obviously, sometimes new innovations do sometimes require major investments by governments so as to make them come true.

YOU SAID: All tariffs will do is raise consumer costs... Please but those tariff costs could still be no where near the increased social costs which all consumers and all taxpayers are currently paying as result of billionaire industrialists like Mitt Romney or Sam Walton refusal to pay their workers enough so as to properly sustain themselves. Stiff tariffs and higher wages is likely to prove the only way to get this country moving again.

YOU SAID: ,.. and eventually stagnate our industrial base.... Get a clue! As if the industrial base of this country isn’t already quite stagnated and near death? Indeed, just what industrial products might this country still be exporting besides hideous weapons of mass destruction?

YOU SAID: An example is the telephone... That is plainly a rather poor example. Because of the very fact that the telephone industry has not been properly regulated for the last nearly 30 years, everybody in this country is probably paying at least ten times more than what they should otherwise have to for basic telephones services. Though the technical changes has since came fast and furiously and have changed the nature of communication services almost completely in the decades since, the average consumer really did get a whole lot more for a whole lot less when the nation had been served by a properly regulated telecommunications industry.