Readers Select Romney as Debate Winner

By on October 9, 2012 in Current Events with 60 Comments

The first presidential debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney was held on Wednesday, October 3, 2012.

Shortly after the end of the debate, FedSmith asked readers for their reaction to the debate. While approximately 1500 people took the survey, the debate was actually watched by about 1300 people who responded to the survey. The survey questions were limited to those that actually watched the debate. This survey is not scientific and reflects the opinions of those readers who decided to participate.

From the responses below, it was apparent that most of those responding believed they learned more about each candidate’s position on various issues and that Mitt Romney was the winner of this first debate. About 85% said the debate did not change their mind but, in a close election, an event which can change the vote for 9% of those watching can be significant.

Note also that the majority of those who were watching the debate planned to vote for Mitt Romney (about 49%) prior to the debate while about 36% intended to vote for Barack Obama.

For comparison purposes, a Gallup poll after the debate found than 72% of those watching concluded Romney had prevailed while 20% thought President came out ahead.

Did the debate give you a better understanding of each candidate’s position on current issues?
Yes 74.1%
No 25.9%
Who do you think was the winner of the debate?
Barack Obama 19.7%
Mitt Romney 80.3%
Did the debate change your mind about who will receive your vote?
Yes 8.9%
No 85.4%
Not sure 5.7%
Who will you vote for in November?
Barack Obama 33.4%
Mitt Romney 58.7%
Other 1.6%
Undecided 6.3%
Who would you have voted for prior to the debate?
Barack Obama 36.1%
Mitt Romney 48.9%
Other 2.2%
Undecided 12.8%

As is usually the case, readers had strong opinions about the topic. Here are a few of the comments that are representative of the hundreds that were submitted.

  • Romney was able ot clarify some of his campaign issues, Obama seemed unprepared and confused, perhaps his handlers wrongly anticipated Romney’s strategy for the 1st debate.
  • To quote a comment I heard. I would vote for Mitt Romney if he danced across the stage wearing a lamp shade. I have been so frustrated with this administration.
  • I felt that the future strategies and goal differences between the 2 candidates were better explained in this debate. Debates with specific topics are much better than ads on TV for understanding the candidate’s approach to solving this nation’s problem.
  • Although I felt Romney was in control of the debate, almost everything he stated during the debate was different from his campaign message. He said he was not interested in half the country and at the debate he tired to come off as caring. It was as if he just decided to lie. That convienced me that he will say anything to get elected. He is not an honest man.
  • The debate made it obvious that Mr. Romney is a strong figure who knows how to solve problems, while Mr. Obama is still unqualified, even after almost four years of OJT.
  • It is not a true debate format being little more than an opportunity to see each candidate seek to overwhelm the other without ever saying anything of substance. It seems to be all about how to diminish the other verbally be never really getting into a meaningful and productive dialogue that is relevant to the American people.
  • Obama was too fixated on the rumors of what Mr. Romney wants to do that he was unable to successfully argue the salient points
  • Romney might have been the winner but again he changed so much from what he said in the past.
  • Romney will say ANYTHING to get elected.
  • I was not very sure before the debate and am now very committed to vote for the President, mostly because Romney managed to lie at every turn on many subjects and did so in a convincing manner with no hesitance ..I can’t and don’t trust him or anything he says, and can’t imagine him as our president!
  • It is obvious that the President is continuing to lie about his positions and only say what he thinks the American People want to hear. The fact is, if the people study the facts about what has been really going on, with President Obama’s personal agenda, they will realize his rhetoric is not truthful or factual as to what is really going on. The latest is the lies reference the Ambassador murder in Lybia.
  • Mitt Romney displayed leadership qualities, whereas Obama is a manager and not a very good one because of the economy and obviously, America/USA is not held in high esteem by our allies such as Isreal and Great Britain!
  • Mitt’s performance assured my vote for Barack Obama!
  • Romney-Ryan scares me. I think they will hurt the average person. Two rich men do not know how the middle class lives.
  • President Obama did a lot stumbling in his rebuttals all night long. President Obama expressions were like the kids who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Romney on the other hand, showed that he was well rehearsed on subject matters, showed respect by looking at Obama when Obama was talking and Romney brought out the lies that we’re being told thru the Democrat’s campaign commercials and set the record of the truth! I believe the 2nd Presidential debate will show Romney’s plans and blow Obama away!
  • Barack Obama stepped into a big mess, so I will stick with him while he try to finish cleaning it up.
  • Your choice is clear, “Live in: France in 5, Greece in 10, and Venezuela in 15 or get Mitt/Ryan and a conservative congress to change the direction of all policies NOW!

© 2016 Ralph R. Smith. All rights reserved. This article may not be reproduced without express written consent from Ralph R. Smith.


About the Author

Ralph Smith has several decades of experience working with federal human resources issues. He has written extensively on a full range of human resources topics in books and newsletters and is a co-founder of two companies and several newsletters on federal human resources.

Post a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

60 Replies

Comments RSS

  1. Man says:

    Why should I vote for Romney when he is all against federal employees?

  2. Novaf314 says:

    The first debate was a fluke. Did survey 1 & 2? Romney continent to not give specifics about how he will accomplish. His plans. If I was not retied I would really be concered about my job being outsourced . If jobs continue to be sent out of the country, where will Americans get money to fuel the economy.?

  3. HR Manager (Retired) says:

    To FedSmith:  The 1st debate is old news – really at this date so are the 2nd and 3rd debates.  Your publishing this article so far after the fact is misleading and unbecoming to your status as an on line publication.  Now tell us what employees said after the 2nd and 3rd.   

  4. Fredieg1 says:

    I don’t know what debates your readers looked at but we must have looked at different debates. Or it was just certain peoples you all surveyed. I guess anybody can get up there and lie and certain peoples believe them. But it is only about getting President Obama out of the White House and they will put anybody in there, it don’t make any different how dumb he or she is.

  5. HR Manager (Retired) says:

    Lots of FedSmith readers in denial – or at least those to answered the
    poll. Even normally partisan Republican strategists admitted that the Prez “won”
    the 3rd, as well as the 2nd, debate.  I guess Mitt “won” by agreeing that the Prez’s
    policies are those we should be following. 
    Heck, even Mitt’s “fact checkers” were correcting him after the 2nd and 3rd debates.    

    • LR Specialist says:

      Please read the article carefully – as I pointed out to a few other commenters, this was summarizing only the first debate, not the second or third debates. Not sure why it’s so hard for people to read the article…

      • HR Manager (Retired) says:

        OK – you win.  Now are your going to pick up your marbles and go home.  Once you’ve made your point it is useless to continue to remake it – does not win your any more points. 

  6. PJ says:

    The title of this article is very misleading.  Readers selected Romney as the winner for the first debate and not as the overall debate winner.  There were three debates.  Remember?! Yes, the opening paragraph of your article referenced the first debate; however, your title made it seem as though he won overall. 

    • LR Specialist says:

      Did you notice that this article was released closer to the start of the month and was only covering the first debate? You need to read it more carefully.

  7. BRAGTIME says:

    Why is only the 1st debate cited. It is already widely known that the President was not at his best during the 1st debate but won the other two. Is the news slanted to the RIGHT.

    • LR Specialist says:

      Can nobody read anymore? This article was released right after the first debate (look at the date on it), so there was only one debate to cover. Please drop the conspiracy theories!

  8. dnokc says:

    Mr. Obama’s lack of leadership, vision, & inability to unite the people have been his biggest failures.  Had he exhibited these qualities…this race would not even be close!  He has failed to accept ownership of our problems. Granted he did not create them alone, but assigning blame puts us on a path to no where, not the road to recovery. He has had almost 4 years in office…other than generalities, what is his vision…his plan for helping the country out of this mess? Hoping it will Change isn’t working. The most needless of all…uniting the country…he’s supposed to be a community organizer, one would have hoped he could have made his case to the people who would insist lawmakers pull together. Instead, he drove a wedge so deep the people revolted at the ballot box two years ago to stop his liberal agenda. I am not certain Mr. Romney has the three qualities I previously mentioned…but I am 100% certain Mr. Obama does not.

  9. msgrowan says:

    For the first time in his presidency, Barack Obama was faced with having to defend his policies in a public  adversarial setting on a man-to-man basis where he was not in control of the process.  It was highly evident that he was most uncomfortable in such a context.  In 2008, as a challenger with no record to defend  and with the headwind of a war-weary public and a very recent financial meltdown (not to mention an adoring news media), he could indulge in attacks on Senator McCain with impunity during that election’s debates and put forth a vague, glowing vision of a paradise on earth “which will begin to heal itself,” and the public just lapped it up.  Now four years later, with a a mixed record at best of his own, he seemed to recoil with distaste from the necessity of justifying his policies.  It was almost as though he was outraged that he – he! – had to defend his record.   One of the less lovely aspects of the President’s character that became evident as time went on following his inauguration was an overweening confidence – amounting to hubris – in himself and a countervailing total contempt for those who opposed him, as they must by definition be evil or stupid or both.  That attitude appears to have led directly to his less-than-lackluster performance during the first debate; he clearly seems to believe that because his policies – in his own eyes – are ipso facto good and beneficial, it’s evident that he perceives it as outrageous and appalling that he should be expected to have to explain and defend these same policies.  Indeed, the President’s hubris is awesomely Wilsonian in nature, which is ironic as that predecessor came to grief in 1919-1920 entirely due to that same flaw.  The real Barack Obama was on display last week in Denver, and it wasn’t a pretty sight.

    • Kdk17 says:

      wow – fedsmith now pushes comments to the top, not based on when posted, but based on their own partisanship

      • FedSmith says:

        We do not have any control over the sort order of comments that appear on the articles on our site. In fact, it is up to each individual user to set the sort order to his/her liking when viewing the comments. This is done by choosing the desired setting from the “sort by” menu at the top right of the comment listing. In other words, if you don’t like the display order of the comments, it is due to your individual display settings.

      • sb says:

         step away from the koolaid, and get a clue

        • Randy Musick says:

          Stop with the racial slures. It is because of statements like this one about Koolaid that only helps support the real reason voters don’t like Obama.

  10. fedworker says:

    Romney won the performance,  he lost on the truth.   Americans eat up hutzpah, unfortuneately.

    • Tim says:

      Fed worker, of course you failed to elaborate on those lies. Don’t feel bad. Obama couldn’t either. It’s easy to call someone a liar, it’s another to back it up.

      • Fed Up! says:

        Willard flip flopped more than a fish on stage. 

        So you don’t care that Willard now tells you he is for RomneyCare and won’t be giving a tax cut and claims he won’t run up the deficit by 5 trillion RomenyBucks with the tax cut that he now doesnt’ support.   
        You sucked down the Willard kook-aid by the gallon.  

        • kettlecorn says:

          We have done so well under the Marxist Odumbo, how come all you parasites that have never earned a dollar in the private sector hate a man who is probably paying at least several thousand of you leeches with the millions he pays in taxes every year?  Don’t tell; me you pay taxes too because every dime you dead weight crybabies get comes from someone earning money in the private sector and then having some marxist “spread the wealth”.  Your BS and fawning over the most imcompetent clown to occupy the whitehouse grows tiresome, go tune in to Rachel Madcow to get some new whining points.

          • IT GUY II says:

            konc, do you print your own money in the private sector?  No, you trade your goods or services for money.  Like it or not, the government provides goods and services for a fee also.  The difference with the government is that you usually have to pay the fee whether or not you use or want the services.  No business creates wealth. They put out a product that people trade their wealth for.   Those people got their money by doing the same thing. 

          • Hopeisnot A. Plan says:

            Over the years I have read a lot of stupid statements in these posts but I think you earned the crown for the funniest “Bidenism” when you wrote that “No business creates wealth”.  Where do you think wealth comes from?  All wealth is created by the private sector.  Government creates no wealth, it simply takes it from those who do.  Some politicians gain riches from government and the taxpayer, but they do not create wealth.  Exxon, GE, Apple, Microsoft, etc. all create wealth, hire employees and pay taxes to government entities.  Those taxes pay the salary and benefits of government employees.  There are some government services and employees that truly contribute to the public welfare.  There are others that contribute nothing and are simply living off the tax dollar which would be better spent in the private sector creating wealth instead of supporting services that are not really needed or wanted.

      • Hank says:

        Romney did in fact lie, he has been touting lowering the taxes on the “job creators”, their theory of trickle down econmics.  The one percenters incentive for creating more jobs is they will be paying less taxes and have more money to invest.  Well Wednesday night he indicates the he will reduce the rates and reduce the deducttions so the rich will be paying the same amount of taxes.  Duh, no incentive to creat / stimulate the econmey.  As far as his 47% comment, the people that don’t pay income taxes, well I am sorry Mr. Romney but the vast majority have paid a higher tax rate over their working life than this flip flopper.  Social Security recipients have paid into the system and are entitled their the benefits, they are not on the public dole, they have earning those benefits.  How many veterans having sacrafised themselves are receiving benefits they earned and pay no federal income tax?  You have to look no further than Romney’s tax returns, and the 100 million he has stashed away in his IRA.  His life time allowable contributions ($2,000.00 per year – 18 to 50, and $7,000.00 per year 50 to 65) is $169,000.00, how in the heck does someone grow that into a 100 million?  Well the way you do that is you take an investment or stocks that have appreciated in value and put them into your IRA claiming a value up to the annual limit on contributions. 

        • Retired in MA says:

          you know not of what you speak…man are your listening? Obama is a complete failure domestically and now in overseas….romney dealt with a 80 pecent democratic bicameral legislature in Ma, put ma in the black by balancing the budget, created the best schools in the country thru mcas, and raised the bond rating—obama will tax you to death and middle income families, wealth in these families is down about 4,300 dollars on average since the big spender got elected  as gas, food, energy, and health care premiums rise–let me repeat as health care premiums rise…you do not know what the hell you are taking about…in ma gov romney created 4.3% unemployment—read the facts and weep…your guy is going down on Nov 6 because most americans are NOT drinking this he koolaide

          • Hank says:

            And you think you know what you are talking about retired MA, how do you think Mittens plans to pay for the tax cuts to the one percenters, by reducing the deducts for the middle class.  And if that is not enough he will borrow from China to pay for them, and to pay the wars in Iran and Syria he is planning.  Just like George W, lied about Iraq’s supposed nucleur weapons, gets the US involved in two wars, cuts taxes and has to  borrow from China to pay for them.  Mittens does not have a clue about the middle class, he thinks they are in the $200,000.oo  t0 $250,000.00 annual income range.  Mittens is the ultimate pitch man, telling his audience what he thinks they want to hear, no matter that it is not inagreement with his prior statements.    His 47% comment tells it all, he does not care about the middle class, he has written them off.  People that now are receiving Social Security or medicare that have paid into the system over the years and he refers to them as on the Government dole.  You know not what you speak MA.

          • Steve says:

             There has been an on-going, deliberate, and I feel – malicious effort to muddle the distinction between ‘earned’ and ‘unearned’ entitlements. 

            Do not fall for it.   When you have been forced to contribute to a program such as Social Security and Medicare, or to any other mandated program, and those programs carried with them a promise of getting something back in return at retirement time – then you deserve that money.  You earned it.  It’s yours and you are not a free loader for expecting to receive what you paid for.

        • sb says:

          The evil rich, like Romney, paid 40-50% on his total income.

          First, he paid 35% on the original earned income.  Then, when he reinvested it (into companies that create jobs), he paid 13-14% on the unearned income from those investments. And when he dies, Obama will want to confiscate — at minimum — 50% more of his estate.

          You need to stop watching Chrissy Matthews on MSNBC, and spend the time taking a class about earned income  vs. unearned income tax rates…. plus learn about how Obama’s death tax shuts down family businesses (who create jobs) because they can’t pay the taxes.

          And …anyone can contribute large amounts to an IRA.   It doesn’t mean it’s all tax deferred or sheltered. 

          You are really clueless.

          • Hank says:

            Maybe you should check you facts, anyone can not contribut large amouts to their IRA that exceed the $2,000.00 / $7,000.00 per year.  You are the one that is clueless sb,  by law Romney could not contribute more than the $169,000.00 in his life time – check the Internal Revene Code – clueless.   He has not paid 35% on his earned income, his “management” fees from Bain which would normally be subject to the 35% as you indicated were converted over to capital gains which are only taxed at the 15% rate.  Then when he reinvests this money he stole from bankrupting business he invested in Switzerland, Ireland, Caymen and the Bahamas not to create jobs, at least not in the U.S. but to not have to pay taxes on the money.  You should take a look at Mittens tax returns, and stop listing to the spin master O’Reilly.

          • sb says:

            it’s called a roll-over contribution to an IRA.  Anyone can do it from other qualified retirement accounts. Those include profit sharing accounts that some private sector employers have.

            There is no limit on IRA contribution roll-overs.

            you can do it with your TSP balance. Retiring federal employees do it every day so that they can have options for investing outside of what the TSP offers.

            The rest of your drivel is partisan nonsense, and clearly based on class envy. That’s sad for you.

          • Randy Musick says:

            First of all he did not pay 35% on the original investment. He uses other people’s money. No risk, no loss. Then from the millions he makes from other people’s money he paid 15% or less.

        • konc says:

          Thanks for the long winded babble and the DNC talking points, you have convinced me, now I’m sure I’m voting for Romney.

        • Steve says:

           Hank, I want to start off by saying I literally despise Obama.  I retired after spending 36 years of my life working for the Dept of Defense, and the #1 enemy we faced was Communism – and when I walked out of my organization on the day I retired, on the wall on the quarterdeck was the picture of a Communist smirking at me as I left my workplace for the final time.     My blood still boils over this memory. 

          However, I think I despise RINOS and neo-cons with even a greater amount of passion than I usually reserve for liberals, socialists and Communists.    The current GOP is RINO’d and neo-conned to the point of toxic saturation and these factions are rendering the GOP a party that is a clear threat – even as much so as is the Democrat party – to the continued survival of this nation.   Globalism is the mortal enemy of every American citizen and both of these parties are infested with globalists.     Globalism is a sugar coated acronym for Treason, Hank. 

          This tired old claim by establishment GOP flag wavers that we need to give the wealthiest elite business owners a tax break because, as we keep being told, they will invest the savings in expanding and growing their businesses and that will create new jobs for Americans – has been proven to have been a bald faced lie.

          What those wealthy, greed driven, treasonous elites did with their tax break savings – was to finance their ability to move their businesses and factories off-shore and out of America and relocate them in the third world, where they were then able to pocket massive amounts of profits due to the enormous reductions in employee labor costs.    For the few businesses that, for various reasons, still have to operate  with a physical presence in North America – they slide some money under the table into the pockets of the treasonous politicians on Capital Hill, who then vote to increase H1-B visas being offered to foreign workers – who flood into America, and who American workers are forced to train and then the American worker gets fired and replaced with the H1-B visa immigrant, who works for rock bottom scale wages and who has no benefits or retirement pension. 

          Once again, the dumb Americans who consider themselves conservatives and who are too dumb to recognize a treasonous RINO globalist or a treasonous neo-con globalist with an R next to his or her name on the ballot – and who continues to swallow the lies that are fed to them via the golden EIB bull manure spewing horn from Florida or from the team of lying rats on Faux News Network – clap their hands and cheer the idea of giving even greater tax breaks to the treasonous elites who’ve been knifing them in the back for well over 20 years?  

          I really do believe that neither of the mainstream political parties in this nation deserve the support of any American voter. 

      • Kdk17 says:

        Why should I elaborate on them?   Everyone knows what the lies are….it’s just that Romney supporters choose to ignore them.

    • Retired LR says:

      and obama is covering up the truth in fast and furious, bengahzi etc..please this man is our president and he is indeed a liar…romney is not a liar …but you are beyond persuasion obviously … go to the record of this criminal president ….he is collapsing this country, destroying freedoms, and causing us to be less secure in the world..wise up you and your kind

      • Kdk17 says:

        Fast and Furious was Bush’s program.  No cover up there.  Benghazi is an unfolding situation and ofcourse new facts get discovered over time.  Refining information is one thing, changing one’s position, e.g. on abortion, within a 2 hour time frame, is a lie and a coverup, or is that a coverup and a lie.  Romnesia- the act of lying and forgeting which way you lied last.

  11. IT GUY II says:

    The one comment that Romney said he did not care about half the country…  That is not what he said.  They were talking about getting elected.  There is a large group out there that would never vote for any Republican.  If I were on some kind of welfare I would not vote for Romney either.  He cannot waste his time trying to sway them.  He needs to focus on the undecided group.  The same is true for Obama.  The are both really fighting for the swing votes only. A majority is 1 more than 50%.  After the win, 100% are stuck 

    • ATCS says:

      The problem is that’s not what he said, he said 47% are victims and beholding to govt, that includes people on welfare, social security, and veterans who are disabled. If he said the country is split between the ideologies of dems and repubs he would have been correct, HOWEVER that is not what he said and the reason our politics and economy is in shambles is that, regardless of ideology everyone wants to put a spin on what “their” person said instead of holding them accountable.

      • Hopeisnot A. Plan says:

        I heard it when it was shown on the major networks and you have certainly embellished what was said.  What you are paraphrasing is what the Democrat spinmasters are saying.  He said that 47% consider themselves victims and are dependent on government and would not be interested in a plan to reduce taxes. He was clearly stating the obvious as those that do not pay income taxes have no real interest in tax reductions.

        • grannybunny says:

          The real victims will be those who buy into the BS that it is somehow wrong for Americans to receive benefits from their government.

          • guest3 says:

             oh for sure.  I know I can’t wait to sign up to get me some that Sandra Fluke Gubmit Care Packages, which includes cradle to grave birth control, unlimited free abortions, and three deliveries of gubmit cheese per month for life.

          • GmanQA says:

            Dear Granny, it is absolutely wrong for anybody to become a full-time, career welfare receipient, and to propagate that as a way of life for their children.  You’re the one who spreads the BS.  Instead of extending your hand for a hand-out, extend it to pull yourself up. 

          • IT Specialist says:

            The real victims will be all of us when the Government can’t continue to afford to pay those benefits out because it is bankrupt.  Oh wait we are already bankrupt and so are all those benefit programs which is the real issue. Raising taxes doesn’t shore up any of these benefit plans. There is not enough money even if you raise taxes 100 percent.

          • grannybunny says:

            The 47% include members of the 1%, retired people, Veterans, disabled persons, members of the Working Class and a small percentage of people who don’t fit into any of those other categories.  Benefits from Government include national security, police, infrastructure, communications, education, scientific research, protection of the environment and sources of food, drugs, energy, etc., from which all of us benefit, most of which are paid for by taxes.  The biggest expenditures currently go to defense spending, which no one is proposing we cut, only that the rate of growth be slowed.  The fastest growing expense is health care costs, which our government is addressing and will need to continue to work on.  Social Security also needs some tweaks, and will — undoubtedly — get some, regardless of who is elected.  People need to work together to address all of these issues, not write off half of the population before even starting.

          • guest3 says:


          • sb says:

            “The fastest growing expense is health care costs, which our government is addressing and will need to continue to work on. “

            I hope you have a gig at your local comedy club with this line, because there is no govt. program that is below budget, and ObamaCare certainly isn’t reducing health care costs.

            The 47% also includes all USPS employees, as the last time I checked, it’s bankrupt and being bailed out by taxpayers as I write this.

          • grannybunny says:

            I don’t know where you’re checking, but USPS hasn’t received taxpayer funds in decades, and — in fact — has been bailing out the taxpayers for quite awhile, as Congress siphons off all Postal profits and uses them to render “revenue-neutral” spending that the taxpayers would outwise have to fund.  Congress has treated the Postal Service as its cash cow, and has taken it from being debt-free and profitable — as recently as 2006 — to the very brink of bankruptcy.  You’re entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

          • sb says:

             right.  so USPS continues to operate in billion dollar deficits.  Where does that money come from?  Money does not grow on trees.  That is not an opinion, but fact.

          • grannybunny says:

            Most — over 80% – of the Postal Service’s losses are “paper” losses attributable to the $11.1+ billion installments to prefund future retiree health benefits upon which USPS defaulted in the past month.  The remaining losses have been covered by the almost $15 billion the Postal Service has had to borrow from the Government — AT INTEREST — since 2006, only to have to turn right back around and give it back to the Treasury, allegedly to prefund 75 years’ worth of future retiree health benefits within 10 years, a draconian requirement to which no other entity, public or private, has ever been subject.  There was no need for the prepayment; USPS was doing fine on a pay-as-you-go basis.  It was just a cheap Congressional accounting trick to transform off-budget Postal revenues — paid by Postal customers, not taxpayers — into on-budget moneys within the control of Congress.

          • sb says:

             “The remaining losses have been covered by the almost $15 billion the Postal Service has had to borrow from the Government”

            Again, who is the “government”? — it’s tax payers.  A reminder to you, the government has no money of it’s own — it’s all money from tax payers.  So borrowing from the government is borrowing from current and future generations of tax payers.

            And “paper losses” is just more of the nonsense of “borrowing”  on paper IOUs like the Social Security trust fund.  News flash: there’s no real money there.

            I hope your job does not involve finance, as math is not your friend.  Government math perhaps is your friend.

            Any private sector company doing these “paper loss” and “borrowing” tactics to cook the books would be put in jail, or at least would go bankrupt and put out of their misery so that stockholders could move on to better investments.

          • grannybunny says:

            The taxpayers are gaining from the Postal Service’s borrowing, since — unlike every other Government agency that receives taxpayer funds — USPS is having to pay interest on its loans.  And it’s Congress, not the Postal Service, that is “cooking the books,” abusing its ability to extort money out of USPS — allegedly to satisfy the non-existent need to prefund 75 years’ worth of future retiree health benefits within 10 years — but actually using the money to render “revenue-neutral” other spending that would otherwise have to be borne by the taxpayers.  You are correct that the paper losses do not involve real money.  Congress created those liabilities — and the resulting Postal financial crisis — and Congress will need to fix it, preferably sooner rather than later.

          • sb says:

             don’t worry, grannybunny.  Obama is doing plenty to remove the stigma of folks living on the dole by running ads for free cell phones and to sign up for food stamps in record numbers (including coordinating with the Mexican government). In the last 4 years, he’s been doing a great job of recruiting tens of millions of people willing to be part of his adoring class of new democrat party voters.

            He’s even willing to pay someone like this woman $11/hour to follow Romney around on the campaign trail in Ohio…

          • kettlecorn says:

            Sorry Granny, the only BS is you receiving benefits that some future generation is going to have to pay for, you know like SS and Medicare, your generation seems to think that because you tossed in a handful of nickel, dimes and quarters into some government program you are entitled to a handful of twenty’s fifties, and hundred dollar bills.  Here’s a quarter for you to buy a clue.  THE GOVERNMENT IS BANKRUPT.  Every time you get a SS statement there is a notice on it saying in effect if things don’t change you may only get 72% of what was promised, but hey you got yours, screw your children and grandchildren, they can pay the bill when China quits loaning America money because we won’t be able to repay it.

        • ATCS says:

          Enlighten me then Hopey, who encompasses the 47% ?

      • Palomino55 says:

        ATCS you are so right about ideaology.  However, the President (Repub. or Dem.) should not be saddled with the entire load.  We as voters should be holding the entire system accountable.  Are our individual representatives being held accountable for the mess? No.  Are we examining them with the  microscope or are they operating with impunity.  Does your representative push the agenda that is important to you.  Let us not forget how the process works.  The cost associated with the Presidential races have become absolutely disgusting and needs to be examined and revised in relation to our system.  Let’s examine the amounts of money acquired and used  in our political process in relation to our financial difficulties

    • Hank says:

      He said he did not care about the 47% that does not pay income tax, when in fact a majority of those on Social Security are Romney supports, and most do not pay any income tax.   Yes they do consider themselve entitled, after all the vast majority did pay into the Social Security System, Medicare and did pay income tax when they were working.   And now Romney wants forget about them and through them under the bus as they have not taken resposibility for their lives.   Romney needs to focus on all Americans, not just those that support.   

      • IT GUY II says:

        Romney is a candidate, not the President.  He does not need to focus on all Americans, just the ones that he can get to vote for him.  He should not waste his time thinking about those that would never vote for him or any Republican.  Once he is elected he needs to do what is best for the country.

      • Hopeisnot A. Plan says:

        You apparently did not hear what Romney said and are just parroting Democrat spin masters.  You really should listen to what people say when they say it rather than listen to the spin masters interpret what was said.  It is never accurate and you come across as an idiot and uninformed when you repeat it.  What he said was that 47% of the population would not be interested in his plan to reduce taxes since they do not pay them.  He acknowledged that his tax plan would not sway them to vote for him. His statement was accurate.  For your information people on Social Security can be taxed on up to 85% of their SS income so your implication that SS recipients are part of the 47% is just dead wrong.  Some of them are while some of them aren’t.