The final statewide results -- Romney 41.1% (409,899), Santorum 37.9% (377,521) -- show just how close it was in spite of all the "home state" advantages (and the $5 million spent by Willard "Mitt" Romney and his affiliated SuperPAC, Restore Our Future).

Next Tuesday features Ohio, a state similar to Michigan except with a bigger delegate haul and none of this "home state" nonsense...and Rick Santorum again is leading in the polls. THAT should worry the Romney-ites just a tad.

Jeffrey was referring to November. Have a little Patience, Romney will go down in flames in 8 months...

Romney won by default and because his daddy had ties here. If Romney had any real competition things would have been different.

Stupid Neocons, they just don't get it! They think Romney wanted GM and Chrysler to go bankrupt for some other reason than that he and his rich buddies could buy the corpses, sell the parts, and then ship the jobs to China!!! Meanwhile John Q. Taxpayer would be stuck with the tab. These think there is an unlimited pot of gold to be had from buying failing companies, borrowing heavily against them, and then bankrupting the company and keeping the cash! When will Neocon nutcases get it: the people are sick and tired of the Plutocrat shenanigans, corruption and crimes!

Here is what the other guys have been up to from2006-2011.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/29/jacques-roy-health-care-fraud-tea-party_n_1311555.html

Lianne, you say "the other guys". i only see one guy as the subject in the article you reference. I could go on Google and find 50 people on your side who have done as bad or worse. The back and forth banter on here is kind of irritating. On any of the subjects we argue here, we could go back and forth until the end of time and neither of us would win the argument.

Steve, the point I was making was it just never stops with the blame shifting on both sides.We have one guy in this thread just going on a totally irrational conniption.I would say that for every one guy that's a doofus on one side, you will fine a equal amount on the other.C'est la vie.

Whoa, Kidcat. $10.00 an hour? After Romney dumps the minimum wage, anything over $3.00 an hour is going to be high on the hog!

Clay.
Romney actually just stated he wants to raise the minimum wage - much to my dissatisfaction.
But you would not know that if you watched the MSM news - because the news is in the bag for Obama and will not report those Dem leaning statements coming from the GOP.

Romney has been on both sides of every issue, Really. Whatever he says is usually the opposite of what he will do... Should Romney get elected, he'll be pandering to the far-right and will try to eliminate the minimum wage.

Mocking this garbage is just too easy... "Stupid teachers and stupid autoworkers..." You mean, the people who BUILT UP THIS STATE when it was the leading economic power in the US? Yeah, hell with them!!!

EE, either you are the angriest poster I've ever seen here on the Patch, or your comments are meant to be a parody -- and the rest of us haven't yet caught on to the joke.

If you're doing parody, I salute you.
If you're being serious, I pity you.

Sadly, Herb, EE is serious...

EE, the bad news for your side is that the circular firing squad will continue for several months.

The good news for your side is that the wishy-washy Mormon with his magic underwear who baptises dead Jews looks like he might win the nomination, and he's the best you've got.

The worse news for your side is that the wishy-washy Mormon with magic underwear who baptises dead Jews doesn't have a chance in hades in the general election.

We do not anticipate any further good news for your side...

Much better to let the oil companies steal -- that's why the Bush tax code subsidizes them!

Ditto

Jeff, what about the corruption in GOP dominated Oakland Co? That's just fine with you, it seems... hey, it's more affluent so there's better pickin! L. Brooks Patterson made Coleman Young seem like a saint!

Um, no. Medicare, Medicaid, and social security are 43% of all federal expenditures. DOD is 19%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png

Now tell the real percentage spent on DOD because Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are from the trust fund not federal funds.

Since I can't reply below Chuck comments they have to go here. DOD 36% current military, 18% past military from federal funds.

For the "Did You Know?" section: Since January, there have been over a million new applicants for Social Security Disability. One spokesperson stated that about a third of those applicants will qualify.

I don't think we make a big leap in suggesting that the uptick has to do with the employment picture combined with the lack of determination on the part of not a few to actually get out there and look for work.

The SSA is notorious for adding generously to its rolls. I know from first-hand experience that SSA client servers actively look for ways to help out applicants, poking into this and that sub-head of SSA regulations to see how generous the Administration can be.

This is indicative of there being a culture within the SSA that makes it see itself not as a conservator of funds but a generous donor. That perspective is part of a philosophy of government that sees that same government as the parent or guardian of the people, the benevolent Big Daddy. The SSA acquired this perspective because two political parties, when in control, encouraged this. There is no wonder why the system is broken and broke.

kidcat24,

The "Social Security Trust Fund" is nothing. As the OMB says, "These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures – but only in a bookkeeping sense.... They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits. (from FY 2000 Budget, Analytical Perspectives, p. 337)"

The only real questions are how much money the federal government is spending, and how much it is taking in. As I noted, in terms of outlays, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are more than twice the current DOD outlays. That is all that matters.

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

kidcat24

You said, and I quote, "Romney wants to expand the millitary, they suck more money than Medicare, welfare, social security put together." This is obviously and undeniably false, as I noted. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png

The web site you cite does not support your statement at all. It does however suffer from the delusion that the social security trust fund is something real, other than (as the OMB source I cited notes) just the government's promise to pay itself. Which makes as much sense as your writing yourself and IOU and calling it a "trust fund" for yourself.

To see a breakdown of federal revenues, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Receipts_-_FY_2007.png.

True, there's no actual "trust fund." The idea of sequestering Social Security taxes died with Al Gore's "lockbox" after 2000. But what does exist are the promises under law made to all Americans, and the fact that for 77 years Social Security has been a vital part of keeping scores of millions of seniors out of poverty -- because it's the right thing to do. Individual retirement investments and pensions are enough for many, but if you retired in 2008 when stock markets lost half their value then you'd know that many things are beyond the control of even the most fiscally prudent (those lucky enough to not have had serious medical issues or other life events that reduced their retirement savings). Maybe Zach would prefer leaving our retirees on icebergs so they don't continue to be a useless drain on resources better used by younger, more productive citizens.

Helzer, you've got it wrong that the debacle is owned by the GOP. For one thing, there was a Democrat majority in at least one chamber of the Congress for most of the three decades prior to Obama's election. You cannot find an instance on record where the Democrat Party has ever voted for reduced government spending on anything. That runs counter to the nature of liberal socialism and its appetite for expanded government..

That silly stuff authored by Nutter yesterday or Wednesday was exposed for what it was before 1 pm on Thursday. It is only the alternative media that is exposing it, for that same media would be telling us whether any of the MSM outlets were letting the cat out of Obama's bag.

Herb, your obviously a very inrtelligent gentleman and I hope you will continue to opine despite the know it alls with agendas. I get the feeling you are a staunch democrat. I have no problem with that, the democrats have done more to help the average middle class family and seniors than Reagan and his cheese. Where I differ is since we are in the age of information, the machinations of government are more exposed, Its the system that like a private club serving its own members first and flying with the prevailing wind that is the problem.
I blew the whistle on the M16 in 68 gettin the late Jules Bergman to make a comparisson. You are right the 223 round is more accurate but it is easily deflected. Closely engineered tolerances encourage jamming.
In Iraq the ultra fine desert sand made short work of the M16. The round cannot penetrate cinderblock, this is why the M60 was favored. The "new" Iraq army said no thankyou to the M16. I have no knowledge of the improved A4 version but the light round is the problem. I believe a 243 closer to NATO is superior. I am sure there are other opinions. On the raptor I think the 400million may refer to the time it will be produced in larger numbers. It sure looks impressive does it not? There are many examples of military dead end spending. Pessimistically I believe the facts you see today are the myths of tomorrow. e.g. Wall Street and Bank "protections". Both parties are consumate salespersons and we are their naive subjects.