James, Ohio must by law have a balanced budget, it does not matter who is sitting at the desk in the Gov's office. Last year, Gov. Kasich assured us the state would go to ruin if Senate Bill 5 was overturned. Oddly, things are gradually improving. Was Gov Kasich telling us the truth? And star, my natural gas bill is less than half of what it was just a few years ago. My fill up for my car is also lower than it was a few years ago.

Mr. Rosen,
You are correct. I should have said balanced the budget without raising taxes.

A Village Voice, at this point in President George W Bush's first term, unemployment was .8% higher than when he took office, it is now .7% higher than when President Obama took office. Mr. Bush made the case we were at war in two nations so he should get another term, Mr. Obama ended one of those wars and has plans to end the second. He clearly deserves a second term.

Mr. Rosen, who cares about a .7 or .8 diff, what the rate right now! And you can thank Bush for the surge to win in Iraq, not Oblamo and Biden who wanted us to pull out way before it was won. And check the death tolls in Afghanistan, they have gotten worse and worse under his leadership.
And from your comment above on another post. Where are buying gas for your car that's less than years ago?? Gas when Oblamo took office, $1.80 a gallon, over $2 more right now??

I've gotta hand it to you "Voice"...you sure know how to cherry pick your facts. I think the verdict on whether we won in Iraq will take decades to decide, and I'm sure historians are waiting until we see whether they sink into civil war. Your statement ignores the fact that we had no business starting a war there. Sure, Sadam was an evil dictator. Are we going to take out all the evil dictators? Good luck with that.

The death tolls in Afghanistan went up when we finally started to try to win there. Unfortunately, Bush left the war stew there long enough that the Taliban were able to reconstitute themselves. So we had to start all over. Maybe it wouldn't have made a difference anyway, because every foreign army that has tried it has left Afghanistan licking its wounds. Like in Vietnam, how can you ever tell who's with you there and who's against you?

And finally, gas was cheap when Obama took office because we were teetering on the brink of a depression. Now that the economy is improving (though not all better), the oil companies feel they can get away again with reaming us. Ain't the free market wonderful? The world is awash in oil, but they can sell it wherever they can get the highest price. They're selling US oil to China. So much for energy self-sufficiency.

Robert you also cherry pick your facts. The surge in Iraq was widely proclaimed as the pacifier in that country. A surge our president opposed. When he took office he instituted the same tactic in Afghanistan in order to curb the violence. As far as gas prices go the oil and energy companies consistently show profit margins in the 8 to 11% range. This is far less than other industries, check Coke and Pepsi, and any pizza company. Their profit margins are two to three times greater but you do not complain because you see $5 pizzas. But what were you paying five years ago when the cost of living and cost to produce were far lower. The cost of oil is most notably shown at the gas pump but it is reflected in everything you buy because of the manufacturing and transportation processes. Unfortunately you only look at gas prices when they go up or down. Do you notice the price of everything else simply rises? When the cost of oil goes down the cost of durable goods is stagnant when the cost of oil goes up the cost of durable goods rises in kind.

Tim, anyone who doesn't know that the price of oil determines the price of pretty much everything hasn't been paying attention since 1973, when OPEC put the screws to the whole world. It's in plastics, fabrics, and all kinds of things most people wouldn't imagine (food preservatives, soap, vitamin capsules, antihistamines, Cortisone, deodorant, dyes, you name it). It affects the cost of transporting everything. And it's rare that the prices of any of those things go down when oil prices dip. You're right about that. But I don't cherry pick. There's only so much you can put in any individual comment. If you exceed the character limit, you get the message, "Slow down there, Tolstoy." And it just kicked in. (to be continued)

(Continuation)
Tim, I was just interested in seeing where these comments were going...and they pretty much reflect that we may have the rotten Congress we deserve. When people are talking but not listening, you get nowhere. There are two well-known books that spell it out: "The Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track (Institutions of American Democracy)" by Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein; and "It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism" by Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein (May 1, 2012). These are co-written by a liberal and a conservative, both members of think tanks, and they conclude that the so-called liberal media is wrong to blame both parties equally for the dysfunction of Congress. They refer to what they call "asymmetric polarization," with the Republican Party refusing to allow anything that might help the Democrats politically, no matter the cost. If you don't see it that way, read it.

BTW, profit margins are just one way to measure performance. Total revenue is another, and there, 6 of the top 10 companies in the rankings are in Oil and Gas.

I had to make sure I was still on the Patch and not at the Onion. ha

It's Bush's Fault! LOL. Oblamo's been in office for over 3.5 years. He had super majorities for the first 2 years, could get ANYTHING he wanted and look where we are! Throw more money to the unions for infrastucture! LOL And by the way, Ford is was and is doing just fine without being bailed out! And there's something called bankrupcy that allowing companies to restructure, which is what should have happened. Where is the $40 million GM still owes us???

Robert- Very well said. I couldn't agree more!

Village Voice - Do we have to go into the explanation again of why GM and Chrysler could not have gone thru a "normal" bankruptcy?? I guess so: Under a bankruptcy of restructuring during "normal" times would mean that GM and Chrysler would be able to gain financing from banks or private equity for them to continue operations and eventually leave bankruptcy protection. Since these were not normal times, no private money was available (remember the banking crisis?) Therefore, GM and Chrysler would have surely liquidated all assets in bankruptcy and closed for good. Government loans were the last resort in saving these two companies. By the way, Ford would have gone down with GM and Chrysler since most of their shared suppliers would have gone out of business as well. All loan monies have been paid back except for the GM shares that are still owned by the U.S. government, which the government will sell eventually.

Lastly, we all know the infrastructure of this country is in bad shape. You seem upset that we would invest money to fix this just because it would go to unions....OK....so should we not fix anythng because there are unions out there? Let's hope this thinking is not widespread, or we're in trouble.

Wrong, Voice. The so-called super majority was a fiction. Unlike the Republican Party, which has done everything it can to banish "RINOs" like George Voinovich and Steve LaTourette, the Democratic Party is all-inclusive. From the time Obama took office, he had a majority that included enough Blue Dogs to make it unlikely anything but the most centrist policies would become part of legislation (and I actually mean right of center).

Ford took a huge gamble before the crash. They were fortunate to be turning around the company when it hit. GM and Chrysler didn't have the most enlightened leadership. But, because we didn't risk busting them up in a traditional bankruptcy, they're doing much better, thank you. 40 mill? What about the 5 Trillion Bush burned through and left the check for us?

Mr. Mihaly,
Democrats are All Inclusive, what a farce.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/08/06/democrats-disavow-tennessee-senate-candidate/

James, there are troglodites in the Democratic Party too. That doesn't mean we have to support a bad candidate like the one you site. I'm surprised you didn't also mention the Texas felon who somehow got his name on the West Virginia Democratic ballot and actually won some counties thanks to disgruntled coal miners. So what?

Mr. Mihaly,
this was a Democratic Primary candidate legitimately elected by the Democratic voters of Tennessee and he was disavowed. Some Big Tent.

Mr. Mihaly,
it may not be the time for it but it is the only option I see other than complete collapse of the economy.

If only Ohio didnt have that pesky law that required a balanced budget. Dang it! If only we could usurp the law like California we would be a more successful and prosperous state!

So James, do you want the US to follow Europe into yet another recession? That's where their austerity has taken them. Consider this. Despite all the hand-wringing about our level of debt, we are far better off than any nation in Europe, with the possible exception of Germany. Yet the world is not switching to the Deutschmark as the default currency. They are all investing their excess funds in the US dollar, and they are paying US to hold their funds...no interest to them, but a fee to the US Treasury. Why? Because the dollar, despite the size of our debt, is the most stable currency. We can devalue it if we need to. The European nations are stuck with the value of the Euro. They converted from their individual national currencies, and now the nations that are struggling economically cannot adjust the value of their currency. We are NOT Greece, and we never will be.

evan I have an idea lets just print more money and just give it to the poor to spend .........oops....obama did that already.....

james: stimulus plans that "gave money to the poor" actually happened under GWB before obama. and you'd be blind to try and claim they didn't actually boost the economy. (long or short term, that's another argument.)

they didn't, however, "print more money."

James, It's called "trickle up poverty", and the democrats love it. Without the entitlement class, they only only have union support. You can't win elections with just union members.

evan, by referring to collective individuals as "entitlement class" and from the many comments you've made before, I get the impression that you do not like poor people.

Mr. Mihaly,
you are wearing blinders. "We are not Greece and we never will be". We are not Greece yet but we certainly can be if we follow their path of government overspending. It will be inevitable.

Paxton, there will always be poor people and they will always need help. It'll always be that way. The democrats version of help is to give people just enough to not want to work hard like the rest of us. Eventually, it will ruin this nation. I shop at marcs to save money and often I feel i'm hte only person there not using food stamps. virtually everyone I see appears to be able bodied, yet they sponge off of me. Yes I have contempt for laziness, and it's only getting worse.

evan: for the record, i've never seen anyone use food stamps at marc's. but i guess i don't stare at people's money very much either. but anyway, think about it...you shop at marc's because they have good prices, right (i do)? if you had a more limited income and had to make it work, you'd want them to go as far as possible to feed your family, right? makes sense you'd see more people shopping with them at more thrifty stores then.

Joe, when I say food stamps, I'm using it generically to mean the EBT card, or Ohio directional card. It's all the same. It's "tax payer funded free food". I see it constantly. I notice because when someone pays with it, I have a longer wait in line. same when people write checks, but that's another topic. If I were on welfare, I would try to make my entitlement money stretch as well. Often I see them buying "luxury" food that I have to pass up because I'm on a budget with the dollars I EARN. If I were in charge of welfare, i would only allow about 10 items to choose from. Once you get tired of eating corn flakes and white bread, you go out and get a job. If you dont care and you dont mind eating corn flakes and drinking water, feel free to accept my tax dollars indefinitely.

hey evan, i hate "lazy" too - but don't equate being lazy with being poor. i know a lot of lazy people who earn six figures and just as many hard-working people who live in poverty. just because a person receives food stamp assistance doesn't mean they are not working - it means that their income is at (or close to) the national poverty level. is a single parent with 2 kids who works for minimum wage 40 hours a week lazy? that person is living at the poverty level. chances are that same parent only works 38 hours a week so their employer does not have to provide any healthcare benefits - so there you go, no health insurance for this family either. is this person lazy? hardly. programs like this are necessary to keep children (and adults) nourished and healthy and while there will be abuses of any program, the majority of people who utilize this program need the assistance (and in my opinion, a poor family deserves a little junk food now and then just like everyone else so lighten up on the judgment while in the checkout queue). so don't confuse "poor" with "lazy" - two different things.

totally agree paxton. i know two families who are on food stamps and both of them have a mother and/or father that works forty-plus hour weeks; they don't have extravagances like new cars, vacations, fancy electronics; they don't splurge on needless things, etc. both are simply divorced, single parents trying to make ends meet. i wouldn't call either one lazy, by any means. (and i agree, everyone needs some food luxuries now and then; especially if it's one of the few ways you can spoil yourself semi-cheaply.)

now of course, some would argue that "well that's their fault; they should have gone to college or learned a trade or not gotten divorced, etc." and that's great. but unfortunately, not everyone lives in that world and some people have to make do with what they've got (and in today's world, some college grads are actually in this poor-but-not-lazy boat too).

and yes, there are also lazy poor people. lash out at them all you like, i guess. but how do you know that everyone you see in line with their EBT cards is one? you don't. so please, reserve judgement and get off your high-horse just a bit.

Ok, Paxton, and Joe, you each provided anecdotal evidence to show that there are working poor. I'd like to see some stats that show most poor people work 40 hours/week and budget their money/ live within their means. I'd bet that those who do that would not need to be on welfare very long. They would be able to work their way up. The shopping carts filled with junk food I see do not indicate a "once in a while splurge". It's a way of life, because there's obviously enough money on the card for such purchases. The system stinks. And no I should not have to pay for someone's soft drinks, energy drinks, cookies, and whatever other junk food. Bread, water, milk, corn flakes, apples, broccoli, and chicken. That's it. Dont like it? Then visit the food pantries and charities. They do wonderful work and help a lot of people. Taxpayer funds should not be used for frivolous items. period.

"work their way up"??????? up to where? what should, say, a store clerk at the circle K aspire to work up to? a store manager job that pays a salary where the salary, once broken down into hourly wages equals less than minimum wage? in low-paying/low-skill jobs, there is no ladder to climb. and evan, you can't live within your means when the cost of transportation, utilities, food and housing costs are beyond what is affordable. (just a note, subsidized housing is not free - tenants pay on a sliding scale). you suggest that poor people utilize food pantries and charities - do you realize that these, too are often government funded? GWB authorized funding faith-based charities during his second term, i believe. of course, being an active member of the cleveland vineyard church you probably have no problem with your tax dollars going there, do you? i must note here, that i do find your aversion to helping the less fortunate and needy through whatever means possible (i.e. federal programs) somewhat out-of-step with the philosophical mission of your church (see page 29 of the vineyard USA theological and philosophical statements, "1. care for the poor 2. care for the lost and 3. care for the sick and broken-hearted"). since you're a leader of the vineyard "young professionals of lakewood" group, i ask you, where do you think jesus would be on this issue?

evan: thanks for considering the viewpoint. i don't have stats that you're asking for, but it would be an interesting read. but common sense can guide us a good bit. let's consider that ohio's minimum wage is $7.70/hr. what if you've got two kids? what do you do with them while you're at work? day care? good luck, you'll basically be working to send them there and maybe have a couple bucks an hour to keep for yourself. well maybe you're lucky and have some relatives to help out with the kids. awesome. so, best-case-scenario, you've got about $1000 a month to feed three people, put gas in the car, pay the rent/mortgage, utilities, car payment, insurance payment, possible health care costs, clothes for the kids, etc. easy? not at all.

still think that most of these people won't be on welfare for long? (note that i didn't mention any extraneous/fun activities or items whatsoever, so this would be a very budgeted family.) can you see how sometimes decent, hard-working people actually do need these subsidies but are still living in a situation where it is VERY tough to "work their way up?"

Paxton, you and I will fundamentally disagree on what help means for anyone who needs it. You see the government as the ideal way to help people. I see the church as the ideal way to help people. Neither of the ideals is the reality. The reality is that it's a combination of the two. It's the mission of the Vineyard IE THE CHURCH to help the poor. I'm very much in support of this. Do I want government money to buy people soft drinks? NO. It's not a good use of funds. If my taxes were lower, I could use more money to help people. That's how it works. I am not at odds with my faith, so stop accusing me of such. I dont need lectured about how store clerks make lower income. My dad was a clerk and worked his way to management. He never made a lot, but he worked a lot of hours to provide for my family. I made minimum wage for 4 years in high school, and I saved a small amt of money to get started at college. I paid for all of my loans myself, minus a little bit my dad helped with. I know what it means to go without. when i had no money in college, i donated plasma for an extra $20. don't tell me about struggling. I've talked to plenty of people who have sacrificed with low wages to work their way out of the bottom. I never said it was simple. too many people think you're supposed to raise a family on minimum wage. Those are not the only jobs out there, and you dont need college to get better. so stop with that phony line.

Joe and Paxton...you have to recognize that your words, no matter how much they are true, will not dent the hardened shell of a true believer like Evan. Just look at the bottom of these comments, and you'll see that Joe Giles has been talking to himself for hours. Clearly Evan doesn't know any recent college grads who did all the right things, graduated with immense debt (because college costs a LOT more than it did for Evan), and now find few jobs available, outside of the kind they could have gotten without college. When you stop trying to reason with a closed mind, you'll probably come back hours from now to find that he's also still talking to himself. This all has nothing to do with the topic, but it points out why Congress can't get anything done. Too many people with extreme views have been elected, and they all talk, but they don't listen to each other.

@robert, you're right - no opinions will be swayed on here and arguing with the opposition is time-wasting. from this point forward i'm steering clear of the political articles (which i feel patch baits us with anyway) and will stick to the local stuff. the one exception will be on november 7th when i will post a loud "ha ha ha - you lose!" to mr. hammertime and friends after both president obama and senator brown are re-elected.

I concur, Paxton. Just look at the bottom of the comment section and see Joe Giles wandering through the night and cursing the dark. He's been at it for the past 24 hours+, and he's mostly talking to himself. I'd rather watch a bit of Craig Ferguson than read more of this. Will look for your post in November.

Additonal spending on public workers does not help the economy grow. The money has to come from somewhere. As an owner of small businesses I can assure you that each addtional dollar taken from me in the form of taxes is one less dollar that I can use to grow the business.

If your theory worked, then we should immediately hire every unemployed person to a government high paying job. Actually, we should eliminate the private market and just have everyone work for the government...just like all those successful communist countries did last century. Worked out great for them.

Evan, California is able to vote for ballot initiatives giving the residents all sorts of new programs, but they do not fund them. The Simpsons Bowles commission said we must raise taxes in addition to spending wiser. The Republican party has become slaves to Grover Nordquist and his pledge not to raise any taxes under any circumstance. That is not a way to govern, it is a way to topple a nation.

Steve, you just proved my point. Thank you. California "gives itself" lots of programs that it cannot fund. Therefore they're in in fiscal ruin. It sounds a lot like our path as a country. Steve, if you confiscated 100% of the wealth in this country, it would only fund the govt for a short period of time. Raising taxes on the rich does nothing, except make middle class people feel warm and fuzzy. We spend too much. Plain and simple. I guarantee that every federal department (with proper management) could take a 20% haircut and suffer no loss of service. That includes defense.

Ahem, democrats are borrowing at an extraordinary rate.

The spending is mostly to dig out of the fiscal hole that Bush left...two wars, a Medicare drug benefit, and a financial system circling the drain, none of it on the books, all of it "paid" for by borrowed money...a perfect storm for a Republican turnaround in 2010. Let's hope we got smarter and put the blame on the Republicans who dealt this mess. And to pay for generous tax cuts for multi-millionaires and billionaires, the once grand old party wants to send the bill to the middle class, their children, and THEIR children. Because it will be 40 years, two more generations, before the Ryan budget is balanced. REALLY! BTW, Romney's budget doesn't balance either, and there's even more giveaways to the obscenely rich. Again, we get to pay for it.

I have a bridge to sell you.

No thanks, Joe. You already stuck us with two used wars and a drug program you won't pay for...but you're pleased as punch to blame it on Obama.

Deficit by Year
2012 1,333,000,000,000 (projected)
2011 1,229,000,000,000
2010 1,651,000,000,000
2009 1,885,000,000,000
2008 1,017,000,000,000
2007 500,000,000,000
2006 574,000,000,000
2005 553,000,000,000
2004 596,000,000,000

Absolutely! Reagan started with a $Trillion debt and left with a $4 Trillion debt. Dubya started with a $5 Trillion debt and left with a $10 Trillion debt. But the debt and the deficits didn't upset most Republicans, other than Sen. Voinovich, until the Dems held the White House.

Joe - I think you meant "too smart", not "to smart".....

TOO many numbers in those democrat deficits.

Democrats didn't slash taxes for the wealthy in the middle of a war, then slash them again, start another war, and try to buy the elderly vote with a drug benefit that wasn't paid for. It's always harder to get out of a hole when you're buried than to dig it in the first place. Now stop listening to Rush, and look for some real unbiased news.

...in your alternate universe where up is down and black is white, that might be true...but not in the real world. Herbert Hoover brought us the Great Depression. George W. Bush set us up for a second one. Both were epic fails. Neither was a Democrat. F.D.R. ended the Great Depression. Obama kept us from another. They're both Democrats...F.D.R. a liberal...Obama slightly left of center. They both had to take responsibility for fixing a fractured economy. It ain't easy when the other side digs in its heals. Or when they cover their ears and repeat, "LALALALA."

You just proved my point.

actually he just disproved it; unless someone saving the nation from a depression is a failure in your eyes.

and it's not blaming anyone when you're just reciting history.

Nope, nothing from Fox news at all:
Real Clear Markets
Politico
NY Daily News
National Review

Looks like you conclusions are erroneous.