Do you think Mitt and the Republicans can deliver on their promises? They have blamed Obama, but the Republicans got elected in 2010 on reducing the deficit and adding jobs. How did they do on those promises? In December 2010 after being elected they passed bills that added to the deficit. After that all they did was run on a platform of making Obama a one term president. So much for all the jobs they promised they would create.

Republicans are more likely to keep their promises, Logansdad. I'm still waiting for the oceans to recede...

It is President Obama.

I didn't hear anything from Romney that I can call a promise. I heard 3 days of them saying that Obama hasn't fixed all the problems with the economy and we should trust him (Romney) to fix them. Romney can't even divulged what is in his tax returns. Both Obama and Biden has turned over their completed tax records (google them for yourself, if you don't believe me) from the years 2000 through 2011. Romney has a complete 2010 and an incomplete 2011. To me, his refusal to provide the same years as Obama and Biden is troubling. We are supposed to trust him. What has he done to merit our trust?

"The Republicans only control 1 of three parts of government needed to get bills passed into laws. The Democrats have controlled 2 of the 3 since 2006 and all 3 from 2008-2010....If the Republicans could capture another unit of government or in a dream, all 3, then they could actually get their policies not just passed in one chamber, but made into law."

"The Republican controlled House has passed over 30 bills to create jobs."
Here is the truth about those 30 so-called jobs bills:
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/03/bogus-bipartisan-claims/

Meanwhile the President wants to campaign and ask to raise taxes on the small businesses of American:
Again here is the truth about raising taxes on small businesses
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/11/boehners-big-stretch-on-small-business/
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/gops-job-killing-whopper-again-2/

Who has a majority is a non-issue. If the parties are willing to work to get things done, they will. Instead you had one party that became the majority in 2010 and said their priority was "to make Obama a one-term president". That shows me that they did not want to work with the president to get anything done.

Just because a website has the word "fact" in it's title doesn't mean it has any less bias or more credibility than what I or you or anyone else says. It just means they are paying to have the word "fact" in their domain name. You can't get much more liberal that "factcheck.org" and the Annenberg Public Policy center that funds them.

Having said the above, nothing in Factcheck disputes that bills were passed by the Republican controlled House to create jobs. You can get picky if a bill is bipartisan depending on how many Democrats supported it, but it was still passed and the Senate won't even allow a vote on them. Of course the Democrats are worried about passing some Republican sponsored job bill that actually creates jobs - what will the President say then about a "do-nothing" Congress?

I don't think anyone will argue that taking more tax money from a small business will cut down on the number of employees that small business can have. Or maybe you can enlighten me on how taking more money from a business will create jobs?

You might want to pay attention to Washington if you think who has a majority is a "non-issue". Trust me I wish the Democrats never had the majority and maybe the deficit won't be over $16trillion and Obamacare won't be the law of the land right now.

Wow, that is the first time I ever heard anyone bashing factcheck.org. The truth hurts when you actually have to read it. Doesn't it.

"Trust me I wish the Democrats never had the majority and maybe the deficit won't be over $16trillion and Obamacare won't be the law of the land right now."

You act as if the deficit was created during Obama's term. It wasn't. The majority of the deficit was due to the two wars (one of which we are still fighting), the Bush stimulus package and the Bush era tax cuts. The tax cuts that the Republicans still want to keep. If you think you are going to reduce the deficit by only cutting spending you only fooling yourself.

Furthermore the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof, super majority majority in the Senate for 24 days between 2008 and 2010.

Do you honestly think, the deficit would have gone done if McCain had been elected?

Truth usually hurts. It just doesn't apply with factcheck that much :-) Do you take as 100% factual and unbias anything coming out of Fox News?

Deficit wasn't created by Obama, but he certainly didn't cut it in half as he promised in 2008. Who's fault is that? You don't need to answer - it's a broken record - Bush's!

They had a fillabuster proof majority for over 100 days, but again let's not get too picky with the facts. They passed Obamacare without a fillabuster proof majority, so what is your point? When you have the majority if only by the VP tie-breaker you get to decide what the agenda is, that is powerful.

Of course the debt would not have gone down with McCain, he wouldn't have had control of the Senate. Would it be at $16 Trillion - 100% NO - it would be lower!

Remember the deficit is the yearly number and the debt is the overall number.

Factcheck.org is legit. You can find information there that is counter to both parties' interests. Just because you are unable to discern credible sources from garbage like Fox News doesn't mean others aren't.

Todd Sweet - You really do not understand how the Senate filibuster works. The Senate Republicans in the 111th Congress used the filibuster 117 times to stop or attempt to stop any legislation that Obama wanted. Why do you think it took so long to pass Obamacare? The rule of the filibuster is that you only have to have 40 senators to continue a filibuster. You don't even have to actually debate any more. You only threaten debate! During Obama term, he had less than 6 months of an actual filibuster-proof majority and during some of this period, the congress was in summer recess (2009).

Democrats, If they wanted to, could use the same process to obstruct Republican agendas. This filibuster rule is wrong and should be fixed.

Randy - I understand filibuster and don't understand your point since the Democrats passed Obamacare without a single Republican vote. Therefore having a filibuster proof majority or not shows you can still get your agenda through Congress if you contoll the Presidency, House & Senate. The real advantage of controlling the Senate or House is controlling the agenda of what actually gets to the floor for votes.

Todd Sweet - My point of the filibuster discussion is that as president, you really only control your own branch (The Presidency), If you have a majority in the House, you would probably get what you what from your leader there, as if happened with ACA. However, in the Senate where you did not have a filibuster-proof majority you have get members from the other side to vote with your party. The Republicans had vowed to make Obama a one-term president. You are right about not a single Repub voted for ACA. There were 58 Dems and 2 Inds that provided the filibuster-proof vote. Two months later, Paul Kirk (Ted Kennedy's replacement) was out and Scott Brown was seated, wiping out that filibuster-proof majority. I will agree that more could have gotten done, if there was more negotiation and compromise on both sides. I don't see that the newly elected republicans are willing to compromise. They are all their way or nothing!

You are giving me hope for a change!!!

I still predict that Obama wins even if that thought almost makes me physcially sick :-)

So... You really , really want to give big oil their nice big R&D accounts. And let them pollute the biggest water aquifer in the midwest that, incidentally we will probably will have to rely on if we want to grow crops to feed ourselves and our livestock due to the fact that burning shale oil will speed up climate change. Hey another great plan would probably be to bring back no health coverage for pre-existing conditions or for young adults. I'm also sure that you are really, really looking forward to all the security a health care voucher will bring you.
Hope you never get seriously ill or want clean water to drink, good thing you are not woman either!
Oh that's right, you are a man..
Figures

How did they sell themselves??? More promises they can't possibily keep. Where is Obama going to get money to hire 100,000 new teachers? Cutting the deficit just means they won't increase spending as much as they want and they call that savings? Oh I wanted to spend $150 next year after only spending $100 this year, but I'll save $25 by spending only $125 next year. To anyone but a politician in Washington you have increased spending by going from $100 to $125, but not in Washington, that's cutting spending because you wanted to spend $150, but are only spending $125. No wonder they can't figure out budgets and keeping our country solvent when they can't understand basic math :-)

"Since Obama has taken office he has created more food stamp recipients than jobs."
You are comparing apples and oranges here. Almost half of the counted food stamp recipients are children and the elderly. It's a super neat soundbite, though.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3239

"Blaming the Republicans in the house for Obamas failures is ridiculous,"

The Republicans ran on a platform of creating jobs and not adding to the deficit during the mid-term elections in 2010. Why are they not being held accountable. They are 0-2 in both of their promises

"The economy is not on path to recovery as you state"

Really, the housing market is starting to bounce back. Jobs have been added for the past 18 months. The down jones is up 5,000 pts since Obama took Office.

The Dems did not have a majority to override any filibuster in 2009-2010. They only had a super majority for 24 days. Do your research.

"The Republicans ran on a platform of creating jobs and not adding to the deficit during the mid-term elections in 2010. Why are they not being held accountable. They are 0-2 in both of their promises."

Haven't you overlooked the fact that the Democrats control the Senate and the White House?

Perhaps if the Republican party could come up with some real candidates, you might have a better chance. Instead you have McCain and Palin. In Illinois, you had Topinka as running for Governor, Keyes for Senator. Seems like the Republicans pick extremeeists.

I do not think you can compare recoveries from different types of recessions as if the economic downturns were all the same. Not only were the recessions very different, the political landscape and world economic marketplaces also varied significantly. The manufacturing base of the US was not overshadowed by China in the 1980's, and neither Reagan or Clinton's recoveries were slowed by a nagging European economic crisis. Finally, while there was a healthy amount of political discord during The Reagan and Clinton administrations, it was not as severe as the extreme polarization we see today. I believe the Senate also has different rules now that has allowed the minority party to block legislation that would have been passed in earlier periods of time. Whether it was 24 days or 7 weeks is insignificant when looking at a 3.5 year period of time.

@logansdad
Excellent point that would have strengthened my argument. The slashing of public sector jobs has hurt employment levels significantly. I believe the private sector job growth of the current recovery exceeds that of the Reagan recovery. This, as well as the current situation in Great Britain, shows us what to expect if we continue with the austerity measures proposed by some.

Whether it was 7 weeks or 24 days, it still isn't a lot of time to get things done in Congress.

BTW here is support showing the 24 days that I was using:
Summary:

1. 1/07 – 12/08 – 51-49 – Ordinary Majority.
2. 1/09 – 7/14/09 – 59-41 – Ordinary Majority. (Coleman/Franklin Recount.)
3. 7/09 – 8/09 - 60-40 – Technical Super Majority, but since Kennedy is unable to vote, the Democrats can’t overcome a filibuster
4. 8/09 – 9/09 - 59-40 – Ordinary Majority. (Kennedy dies)
5. 9/09 – 10/09 - 60-40 – Super Majority for 11 working days.
6. 1/10 – 2/10 – 60-40 – Super Majority for 13 working days

I agree with you in that compromise is needed to get anything done, but I don't see that happening anytime soon with the make up of this Congress.

True, no President can create jobs. But his policies (and those of his party) can certainly impede the growth of the economy. The Democrat party excels at that.

Just like the Republicans getting elected in 2010 and then becoming the party of "NO" by using the filibuster every chance they had. Wasn't their platform making Obama a one term President - way to impede.

Saying "yes" to policies that impede economic growth and are harmful to the country would hardly be commendable.

True. The Senate Minority leader from Kentucky let it slip that Republican legislators' main goal is to ensure Obama's defeat. Legislating is a secondary concern. In order to defeat him, it is necessary to block any and all of his initiatives.

If you believe that Obama's policies and leadership are detrimental to America, then of course you are going to work to defeat those policies. It would be ridiculous for Republican legislators to support policies that they believe are harmful to the country, or to support a president whose policies they view as detrimental. By the way, how supportive were Democrats of GWB?

Dave, the Bems didn't need to be supportive of GWB for the 1st 6 years because the Republicans had a majority in both of houses of Congress. During the last two years the Dems controlled both houses.

How have the Republicans been supportive of Obama's policies? That's right they won the House in 2010 and said they would make Oabma a one term president. That is really supporting the President and helping the American people.

You're assuming that supporting the president and helping the American people are one and the same. If a legislator thinks the president's policies work to the detriment of the American people, then naturally the legislator will -- and indeed should -- oppose the president's policies.