90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
Week In The News: Clinton, Obama, More Trouble In Syria

Democrats make their case for Obama.  Bill Clinton chips in big.  The president takes the stage.  Iranian weapons back Syria’s Assad.  Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., delivers his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Thursday, Aug. 28, 2008. (AP)

Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., delivers his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Thursday, Aug. 28, 2008. (AP)

It was the Democrats’ week, out of Charlotte and their national convention. Bill Clinton stole the show for speech-making.  A full-throated endorsement of Term Two for Barack Obama.

And President Obama himself – a sober leader this week, saying the country’s comeback will not be quick or easy but he wants to do it right.  With that, plus Tampa, the table is set for November.  New jobs numbers down.  Stocks hit a four-year high.  Neil Armstrong will be buried at sea.

This hour, On Point:  our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

-Tom Ashbrook

Guests

Neil King, Jr., political reporter for the Wall Street Journal.

Gail Chaddock, Washington political editor at the Christian Science Monitor.

Jack Beatty, On Point news analyst.

From Tom’s Reading List

The New York Times “Mitt Romney has been criticized for not discussing foreign policy. Give him a break. He probably figures he’s already said all that he needs to say during the primaries: He has a big stick, and he is going to use it on Day 1. Or as he put it: “If I’m president of the United States … on Day 1, I will declare China a currency manipulator, allowing me to put tariffs on products where they are stealing American jobs unfairly.””

Foreign Policy “The lack of a clearly defined narrative about Afghanistan, combined with election noise and economic worries in the United States, has pushed the war out of the American consciousness. In recent weeks, the spate of insider attacks put it back on the media’s map, temporarily. But the next several months will in many ways shape the U.S. exit between now and December 2014. Soon, we will learn how many troops will remain in the country.”

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • DrewInGeorgia

    Holy crap! The Week In The News headline doesn’t have Romney’s name in it. Guess all it took was The Democratic Convention, wish it could have been held months ago.

    • Michiganjf

      Ha! We could have saved millionaires some of the money they so greedily worship!

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Obama’s speech was loaded with  promises, goals and false straw men but no specifics on how to get there.  He does deliver a good speech off the ole teleprompter but … meh … been there done that.

    No defense of Obamacare or the stimulus.

    We still have 46M Americans on food stamps and 23M unemployed.

    He certainly didn’t change my mind but no surprise because I had already  decided the moment he punted on Simpson-Bowles.

    • Don_B1

      Right after Paul Ryan led the House Republicans on the commission to reject it spelling out loud and clear that the Simpson-Bowles recommendations had no future in the Republican House.

      Any attempt to push that would have been just a game of Obama playing Charlie with the House playing Lucy withholding the ball from any attempt by Charlie to kick it. The Republicans were going to play “compromise” as the new Indiana Republican candidate for Senate put it: compromise is the other side coming to my opinion.

      As for the Straw Men, Republicans had put so many out there the previous week that you would not recognize a real argument from the false one Republicans promote is understandable for someone who has not been paying attention; unfortunately for you, you have demonstrated over the past weeks that you are not one of them. All you can fall back on is that your ideology has blinded you to the truth.

  • Michiganjf

    Great speeches at the DNC!!

    Such a contrast to the absurdities, lies, hate, and orchestrated gloom of the RNC!

    Dems have 2012 IN THE BAG!!

    Thank the lord, Ryan/Romney would have finished us off, completing the job of feeding America to a wealthy few that Republicans have been doggedly pursuing since Reagn and the subsequent Republican Devolution!

    There’s hope for us after all!

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       You really think Obama has it in the bag?

      Au contraire.

      Unless there is some crazy October surprise, Romney/Ryan will win handily just as the U of Colo model predicts.

      • Don_B1

        All he said was that there was hope. But without a large group of voters who don’t pay attention to the details of what has been going on and therefore not seen the dazzling deceiving distracting moves by Republicans, encapsulated in  Paul Ryan’s acceptance speech, it would be a certainty not just a hope (or things like the American Jobs Act would have passed a year ago and the unemployment level would have been at least 1.5% lower).

        Just remember, the unemployment rate was 7.8% for January 2009 and 8.3% for February 2009, soaring further in the next months to 10%. It was erupting like Mt St. Helens, the regrowth of the surrounding countryside taking 10 years. Without the ARRA, it would have exceeded 12% and probably would still be over 10%. But the beginning of growth could well be with the kicking in of the revised, combined, and renamed American Jobs Act in early June. That was delayed by Republicans so Obama could not benefit but a Republican president in January 2013 could.

        But Obama would not be where he is in today’s poles without the American people realizing at least part of the massive problem Obama inherited and how deceptive the Republicans have been in preventing his attempts to build a strong recovery.

        They also know that Republican attempts to revive the economy have not worked and there is a huge cost on social issues in putting Republicans in power.

        • William

           People are disappearing from the workforce and this is something that is very alarming. I don’t remember reading or even hearing about this in previous recessions. Obama can’t keep dodging basic economics with more empty promises.

          • Don_B1

            As I have mentioned many times before, this was a balance sheet recession, driven by the collapse of the housing market. Just about all of the recoveries from previous recessions, since the Great Depression which was also a balance sheet recession, have been driven by housing growth. That growth is currently delayed by the lack of jobs and wage growth.

            But you will resurrect your tired false claim as long as you comment anywhere.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            “You don’t remember hearing about this…” says more about Williamworld than the economy then.

          • William

             Is your Obama-phone working?

          • Don_B1

            So you are continuing to ignore the fact that this Bush Recession is a different TYPE of recession, and in place BEFORE Obama took office. At least you are no claiming, as some have, that Obama basically caused the recession.

            Note that the big difference between this recession and the one that caused the Great Depression is that FDR’s safety net, with the improvements by Democrats since then, prevented the total wipe out. Back in 1930 this country was much more an agricultural society which was a “safety net” of sorts which would not be effective the same way today.

            But your ideologically-driven ignorance, deliberate or not, does not allow you to acknowledge that.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           Let’s face it Obama was AWOL on the economy after the stimulus.

          The stimulus was an epic FAIL.  They didn’t even mention it last night.

          60% of the country believes Obamacare is a massive overreach and represents ugly politics.

          No, this should be close.  The only thing keeping them in the game is the $100M spent trashing Romney’s character.

          From here on out the money is equalized.

          • Don_B1

            Without the ARRA (stimulus) the unemployment rate would be over 10% today. Even the tax cut extensions were WEAK stimulus and Obama was forced to accept them to get the unemployment extensions which are the most effective stimulus ($1.60 increase in GDP for every $1 in spending vs only $0.45 in GDP growth for every $1 in tax cuts).

            Get over it! Your claim is ridiculous!

            Romney’s character is not the type that makes a good president and his narrow experience in the private equity business does not even qualify him to be a good CEO of a company like General Motors or even an oil company like ExxonMobile. His performance as Governor of Massachusetts left us one good thing, Romneycare and a lot of bad execution in all the other tasks that a governor needs to be good at.

      • NancyFourCorners

        Zero support for Ryan/Romney among African-Americans, huge gap among hispanics, a very large gap among women… just how many white males do you think there are, relatively?

        It’s starting to sound like a sick joke that Ryan/Romney could win!

        Oh, wait! Republicans are pushing voter suppression among all those groups of Americans, so nevermind, I see from where your hope springs!

        • Don_B1

          Senator Lindsey Graham (R, SC) made the comment that the Republicans were not growing enough angry white males to keep the Republicans in power much longer.

          It is amazing how so many young white males without education much beyond high school have not learned to think beyond the testosterone displayed in the R-rated action movies they make popular.

          I hope at least a few of them got tired of the NFL Wednesday night and watched President Clinton’s speech, the one that Republican advisor (past member of Romney’s team) and pundit on the Sunday morning news programs, Alex Castellanos characterized as the speech that reelected President Obama:

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/05/alex-castellanos-obama-clinton_n_1859947.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

    • Don_B1

      I liked Tom Friedman’s characterization of the RNC: The Republicans were “renting” Mitt Romney and Mitt Romney was “renting” the Republican Party. I don’t remember in which order; see the Charlie Rose Show on the RNC wrapup.

  • Jonny_Orlando

    For those looking for a substantive argument for President Obama’s policies, look no further than Bill Clinton’s speech this week. What a distinction in substance from the vague and hateful pandering from Tampa. You can see why Former President Clinton really is a world-class leader now.
    President Obama delivered a great speech to seal the deal. Focusing his attention on the issues that will face the country and stories of success and created opportunity in the face of adversity. As much talk about Obama not listening to polls, I think he would have liked to use some tougher verbiage in describing the obstacles he faced dealing with the House the last 2 years!
    After seeing the Paul “Fact-check” Ryan led distortion-fest  of the RNC, I can’t help but sleep better tonight knowing the Democrats are on the right side of history in leading America into a truly inclusive and prosperous place rich in opportunity for it’s citizens and a place with some sense of value and responsibility towards all it’s different and diverse people.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       …until Clinton’s speech was fact checked.

      Ooops!

      • adks12020

        You mean this fact check where they state it was difficult to find anything wrong with Clinton’s speech because the vast amjority of it was factual? http://factcheck.org/2012/09/our-clinton-nightmare/ …..oh, and what about this one where the Ryan speech was torn to shreds for several complete lies and misrepresentations… http://factcheck.org/2012/08/ryans-vp-spin/

      • Don_B1

        One fact checker’s response, reported last night on NPR’s All Things Considered, was that Clinton’s speech was a fact-checker’s nightmare, so full of detailed claims of facts that it would take all night to check them all, and then, when completed, leave very little for the fact checkers to talk about. In other words, there were no glaring false claims as were found in Ryan’s speech.

        What fact checkers are mostly talking about come from their need to find errors, even if they are false equivalencies.

        • William

           WaPo fact checked Clinton’s speech and found numerous problems.

          • Don_B1

            I would check that before believing it.

          • William

             Fact check the fact checker. It is getting confusing.

          • Don_B1

            Isn’t generating confusion your sole object of posting here?

        • DrewInGeorgia

          The thing I found the most interesting was that the majority of the fact checkers hadn’t even heard a lot of the numbers before Clinton’s speech. They do this for a living and the man threw them for a loop. That says a lot about President Clinton’s intellect in my book, talk about having your eye on the ball.

        • Jonny_Orlando

           I was so impressed by the body of facts the Bill Clinton presented and the candor in which he was able to lay out the argument in such clear and concise terms. He really is Obama’s greatest surrogate. Anyone not impressed by him is so hung up on their viewpoints they may not be able to see or hear reason.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Please name one fact check from Paul Ryan’s speech.  They so called ‘fact checks’ have been thoroughly debunked and this is not surprising since they were originally sourced from liberal blogs.

      • Jonny_Orlando

         http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/sep/05/Bill-Clinton-Democratic-convention/

        Here you go there’s Bill Clinton’s Fact check from Pulitzer Prize winning Politifacts. And here’s one for Ryan. All the major news outlets seem to be in agreement but just in case you don’t believe all the “Liberal” Media here’s one from that old Liberal Rag, Fox News!

        http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/

        Apparently their motto of “We Can Change It” Is referring to the truth. Jon Stuart really let loose on Friday  (http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/fri-august-31-2012-?xrs=share_fb) enunciating everything I have been feeling about this corrosive divide in American Politics. I don’t mind an intelligent discussion of the issues and a moderate Republican viewpoint is essential for this Democracy. However when their entire rhetoric has manipulated the truth and fabricated a history of how they worked with Obama during his 4-years… I call foul.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           Sally Kohn?  Is that all you have?  A OWS hack.  At least Fox is fair and balanced.

          Politifact has been completed debunked on Ryan.  They gave Ryan a ‘false’ yet all Ryan did was quote Obama accurately.  How can they give him a false?  Then they spewed distractions about plant closing dates that where both inaccurate and incomplete and tangential to the point Ryan was making.

          Poltifact == FAIL — at least on that one.

  • Ed75

    To clarify about the sister who spoke. A sister is a consecrated lay person. Her primary task is to witness to the holiness of the Church, which she is not doing. She is acting as a dissident against the teaching of the Church, which is that you can’t vote for someone who supports intrinsic evil, like abortion. Please ignore what she said as far as being Catholic is concerned.

    This election will be decided between bad Catholics and good Catholics, all under the one dome, as Chesterton says.

    • Acnestes

      Please find something new to say or someplace new to continue your tired mewlings.  You should find a happy home over at Fox Nation.

    • jimino

      Ed, how many years in prison do you envision a woman serving for getting an abortion once your views are made into law?  How about the doctor or other health care provider?  Or don’t you really mean what you say?

      • Don_B1

        The Republican running for the Senate from North Dakota voted for a bill that would make it murder with life imprisonment for the woman who has an abortion, for ANY reason. And he had the temerity  to criticize Todd Akin! [Doctors would suffer a similar fate.]

      • Ed75

        The people who would be criminally liable for abortion would be the ones who were before – the doctors. And the fathers who owe child support.

    • keltcrusader

      Sorry, Ed you just can’t keep good women down no matter how hard you try to marginalize them. I would gladly accept that good Sister’s words over any of your hateful, mysoginistic rhetoric. Go tell some abuser priest to follow his vows instead of ruining children’s lives. Isn’t there a rock you could crawl under with the other vermin?

      • Ed75

        How is pointing out the evil of abortion – which kills a child and harms women physically and psychologically and saying that women deserve better, especially from men – keeping women down?

        • keltcrusader

          Ed, you want the power to take away all women’s power of choice based on your opinion and your religion. You and your religion do not have the right to prevent any woman from making legal choices that affect their lives and bodies. Simply put, it is none of your business. It is their decision to make, not yours. Your feeble excuses of how it harms women have been proven to be false. You can decide for yourself, but you do not have the right to force your personal opinions on others and restrict their personal rights.  

    • http://www.facebook.com/leonard.bast.90 Leonard Bast

      Pretty hard to witness to the holiness of an institution so vile, corrupt, and backward that it has become the very opposite of holy in every possible meaning of that word. 

      • Ed75

        Why do you say that the Church is not holy? The Creed says specifically that it is holy.

        Jesus said to Peter: ‘He who hears you, hears me.’

        So it teaches the truth.

        The Church’s main task is to bring the Gospel and the Sacraments to the world. But acting out its faith and in the presence of God it does the corporal works of mercy: the Church runs more schools, hospitals, clinics, old age homes, AIDS clinics, than any institution on earth.

        So why do you say that it is not holy?

    • Yar

      “This election will be decided between bad Catholics and good Catholics, all under the one dome, as Chesterton says.”Ed, as usual, you confuse the Church with an institution of Catholic men that call themselves a “church”. 
      We are all part of the same Church, judge not, lest you be judged.  The Nicene Creed says  ”I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.”
      This creed has nothing to do with the institution you so blindly support.  I say this because you seem to fail to see love expressed by others, such as Sister Campbell.  A ‘church’ that is full of hate, is a cult, and is not part of God.  Quit looking for bad luck and knocking on wood.  
      I thought Sister Simone Campbell had a good message.
      Here is a transcript of her speech.
      What do you disagree with?
      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/05/1128209/-Transcript-of-Simone-Campbell-remarks-as-prepared-for-delivery-Democratic-National-Convention

      • Ed75

        There is a disagreement here, and it’s over the Church. When we say in the Creed ‘I believe in one holy, catholic, Apostolic Church’, we are indeed speaking of the institutional Church, and we are declaring it holy.

        It’s not a group of men who got together and called themselves a church, but a group of men and women (still sinners, still capable of sin) who are called by God to do the work of His Church.

        It is holy because Jesus is it’s head, because it is vivified and filled by the Holy Spirit, and because it calls and leads its members to sanctity if they cooperate.

        Jesus said to Peter ‘You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church’. Notice that he says ‘my Church’, it’s not our Church, but God’s Church, and he is building it, not us.

        In the 1940s they excavated beneath the Vatican and verified that underneath the main altar is the tomb of St. Peter. Built on St. Peter, indeed, literally.

        St. Paul points to the same truth. When he was converted, Jesus said to him, ‘Saul, why are you persecuting me?’ Saul was persecuting the Christian Church (now the Catholic Church). Jesus is identifying the Church with himself, what St. Paul later in detail describes as the Body of Christ. And He is preparing the Church as a Bride worthy of Himself.

        The mystical Body of Christ’s influence extends beyond the boundaries of the Catholic Church, of course, but it ‘subsists in the Catholic Church’.

        To say that the Church is full of hate, a cult, etc., is a misunderstanding, and not true. (Remember what they said of Jesus, which also wasn’t true.) It contradicts the Creed.

        Sister Campbell and the other sisters are fighting with the Vatican, to whom they owe allegiance. They do great work with the poor, but they do not preach the other truths of the faith, do not live their consecrated lives of prayer, and speak against the doctrines of the church, which in addition to harming them give scandal to the faithful. And this has been going on for 40 years.

        The Vatican is gently calling them back to union in mind with the Church. But they are saying they ‘are beyond the Church’, etc. They took vows of obedience to the Church.

        And here they are speaking before a candidate who supports intrinsically evil things.

        • DrewInGeorgia

          Well written but you could have saved yourself a lot of time and effort.

          “And here they are speaking before a candidate who supports intrinsically evil things.”

          Since that was the bottom line you could have just said: Obama is a Kenyan Born Muslim Socialist that supports abortion and gay marriage and no Catholic worth their salt should ever support him. Just trying to be helpful…

          • Ed75

            I’m less concerned with your view of Obama (whom I disagree with because he disagrees with and fights the Church) than with your view of the Church.

          • DrewInGeorgia

            My view of The Church? You never hear me say anything about The Catholic Church for a reason. What difference does it make what my view of Catholicism is? You have your beliefs and I have mine. Freedom of Religion doesn’t mean Freedom of Imposition.

        • Yar

          Ed, Your point about Saul, shows the problem in worshiping an institutional church. “ we are indeed speaking of the institutional Church, and we are declaring it holy.”  The institution is a church of men (and women), it is anything but holy.  Saul, a leader in an institutional church that was cutting the heads off Christians in the name of God before his conversion on the road to Damascus. The institutional church painted crosses on their shields and slaughtered thousands, the institutional church has condoned slavery, created a trail of tears accros this country.  Europeans took an institutional church to Plymouth and declared America the land of milk and honey, worshiping gunpowder and disease, our forefathers pushed a native people from their land in the name of god.  The institutional church has historically been against God, and for promoting the institution itself.  I believe the Church is bigger than the institution.  The Church includes all who Worship God, even if they use another name.  Institutional churches may do God’s work, but like the physical body they are just a shell. Work inside your institution to love. and not to judge.  
          When you condemn abortion you are judging the actions of a woman who is making a most difficult decision of her life.  You, nor the institution are in a proper position to judge her, so put down your stone and walk away, for your acts are not showing the love God has for her.  We are called to love the sinner, not to save the innocent.  I pray you see the difference in the institutional church and the Church God built on the faith of Peter, just as Saul did on the road when his eyes were opened and he became blind.  
          Your quote: ”In the 1940s they excavated beneath the Vatican and verified that underneath the main altar is the tomb of St. Peter. Built on St. Peter, indeed, literally.”The bones of Peter are just bones, they are not the Church.  The Church is not a building made of stone, it is a community of faith, bound together by the love of God. The Rock is literally Peter’s faith, not his body.

  • StilllHere

    The DNC convention was full of lies and misrepresentations, but the sheep loved it.  The media’s love affair with Obama continues, as they ignore the facts.  What did he mean when he told Medvedev, he’ll have more flexibility after the election….No one was able to humanize this guy or make a success out of the last four years.  A disaster like the last four years.

    • NewtonWhale

      “No one was able to humanize this guy”

      Yeah, that’s the problem. 
      Nobody could possibly relate to this guy.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

      As a foreigner i think you are not really thinking right. I think a lot of Republicans supporters are probably Senile or just plain Naive with a twist hate. Did you ever think the years that the Republican party ruled America were wars dominated the arena of their foreign policies and prosperity for their rich and forget about the middle class. Reagan, Bush 1 and 2 administration were a shame.
       
      I have to write 50 years of American history in order for you to understand the demise of the American middle class. I am deeply bothered of some Americans. That can even wake up from reality.
       

      • DrewInGeorgia

        You could write two hundred years of American History and it would have zero impact.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

          I think it is the other way around Zero for the Republicans

          • Don_B1

            I think DrewinGeorgia was alluding to the fact that Republicans have their own history of the country, which unfortunately bears little resemblance to what really happened and thus they reject a truthful history.

      • Don_B1

        Start with a macro: repeat Clinton’s pointing out that in the last 50 years, the economy has added 62 million jobs, 42 million in the 20 years while Democrats were President, only 20 million in the 30 years while Republicans were president.

    • DrewInGeorgia

      “What did he mean when he told Medvedev, he’ll have more flexibility after the election….”

      Ummmm, this is just a guess but I think it meant that he would have more flexibility.

      “The Reds Are Coming! The Reds Are Coming! The Reds Are Coming! The Reds Are Coming! The Reds Are Coming!”

      Shhhh, calm down Chicken Little, it’ll be okay.

      • Ray in VT

        Wolverines!!!  Where’s C. Thomas Howell when you need him?

      • Gregg Smith

        “Flexibility” means he won’t have to be as beholden to the will of the American people. That’s troublesome. He’s already given them what they wanted and got zip in return.

        • DrewInGeorgia

          I think he more likely meant that once all the Frothing At The Mouth Obstructionist Nut-jobs backed down after his re-election he would have more support and would better be able to work on Foreign Policy. That’s just my opinion though.

          Now there’s an acronym for ya!

          FATMON (Frothing At The Mouth Obstructionist Nut-job)

          • Gregg Smith

            He’s already thrown Poland to the wolves.

          • Don_B1

            Only in the minds of FATMONs.

          • Gregg Smith

            and the Poles.

          • Don_B1

            Yes, a few of the “Poles” wanted the money that came with the missiles, but many did not.

          • hennorama

            Hahaha FATMON – Sounds like a Jamaican describing the average American tourist.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      “Media love affait with Obama continues.”

      Wrong. President Obama is more popular with voters than with the media.

      The Pew surveys show that Romney hasn’t had a single worse week of press coverage than Obama all this calendar year, even when Romney was fourth-place-running glass of skim milk his party was mild about.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

    As a foreigner what I saw last night the diversity of the audience that attended the NDC. People from different walks life gathered again to tell the world that middle class Americans had enough of the rich and to rise the middle class workers. To be respected again by the world and to continue to spread peace all over the world. The American people had enough Wars under Republican Party for profit just to kill innocent muslim children is enough.

    Did you notice the terrorist has stop attacking? Because of the Arab Spring. The muslim people had decided enough is enough. Egypyt, Syria and Libya.

    America should the Republican party for being elected again for another 30 years until the Democrat fix your nation again.

    • William

       Obama is killing innocent Muslim civilians in Pakistan with drone attacks. He went to war against Libya a Muslim nation without Congressional approval. He back the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt which is a radical Islamic organization that does not tolerate the diversity you seem to embrace. Obama is deeply involved in the civil war in Muslim nation Yemen with Special Forces troops on the ground and drones in the air dropping bombs. Did you miss these Obama attacks on Muslim nations?

      No recent terrorist attacks? Egypt lost 16 of their soldiers to a terrorist attack in early August.

      • Don_B1

        Well, John McCain represents the neocons, many of which are leaders in the Romney foreign policy camp, and he wants American troops in Libya, Syria and Iran as well as Afghanistan and probably back in Iraq. So that would be better? Where is the relief for the stressed-out American soldier?

        Will Republicans bring back conscription? That might give some downward movement to the unemployment rate!

        • William

           So John McCain and Obama have the same vision of never ending wars around the world except now we can use drones and Special Forces to keep our casualties down. Perhaps after we are dead broke we might go down the path of staying away from these foolish wars, interventions, nation building nonsense.

          • Don_B1

            John McCain is claiming the need for ground wars, large armies, where Obama is for criminalization and the hunting down of criminals wherever they are. This has widespread support in BOTH parties, unlike the full-scale war.

      • mochajava13

        Way to distort what is going on throughout the Middle East and Central Asia.

        Pakistan is the center of the Taliban right now and has been for some time.  Parts of Yemen are a hotbed for radicalism.

        We did NOT go to war with Libya; that was part of a UN action.  

        The attacks in the Sinai that you speak of was likely done to hurt Morsi.

        • Ray in VT

          Don’t try to talk sense.  He’s got Obamas to trash, I mean, how could America possibly support freer elections in another country or the overthrow of a dictator long known to have supported terrorists. 

        • William

           What distortions? Those are simple facts. Libya was not a threat to the USA and the Congress did not authorize bombing that country. Yemen is going through a civil war and we don’t need to become involved. It is not our country.

          It has been very easy for past and current Presidents to become involved in every little “hot spot” for over 60 years and it needs to end.

  • Joseph_Wisconsin

    So now it is on.  Romney/Ryan appeared to receive no bump from the RNC, I wonder whether or not Obama/Biden will receive any sort of significant bump over the next few days or not.  I am glad that Obama and the rest of the speakers at the DNC laid out such a stark contrast for vision of the future to that of Romney’s.  Let November decide! 

    In conversations with the Northern rednecks that make up probably about half of the electorate in my area I am struck by the reasons they give for voting Republican; not for Romney per se,  they would have almost universally preferred a different man (think Santorum), but definite Republican.  The big reason for this loyalty to Republicans, aside from the God & Guns meme, is they remain convinced that Obama will raise their taxes and that Romney won’t.  Not very critical thinking on their part, but then most of them are convinced that Obama has already raised their taxes instead of the reality that if anything their taxes have been lowered over the last four years as parts of the stimulus.  These people are not those in the high six figure income and up status that will see generous reduction in taxes should Romney get his way, but mainly in the $40,000 to $100,000 range, those who will likely see their taxes go up if Romney is really to keep his tax plan revenue neutral.  I should also mention that almost universally they do not want SS or Medicare altered at all, but believe the deficit is all caused by over spending on handouts to lazy people who do not want to work (with visions of black unwed mothers with huge broods of children dancing in their heads). 

    I also just have to sound off about the whole controversy about the Democrats wimping out over issue of sprinkling God into the text of their 2012 platform.  I know that this is to appease those who want to create an alternate fake history where the founders of the country, when faced with writing the new Constitution, gathered together to pray and lo Jesus descended from heaven and gave them the document.  Reality is just read the Constitution.  Want to know what word you will not find? Answer God.  The only mention of religion is in the 1st Amendment under the clause stating that the government would make no law respecting establishment of religion.

    This was not an oversight by the writers of the Constitution, it was their intent.  They did not want to create a “Christian Nation,” they wanted religion out of government to allow people to practice and believe, or not believe, whatever they wished to do so on an individual basis.

    For the first 180 years of this country the motto of the country, included on the Seal of the United States, was E pluribus unum (Out of many, one) until it was changed to “In God We Trust” in 1956.  If people want to go back to the original intent of the founders we should change the motto back to the original, much more reflective of the founders vision of the country than the overtly religious replacement.  LOL, I want my country back!

    • Gregg Smith
      • Joseph_Wisconsin

         Thanks for the link, but it is premature. The poll data was collected before Obama’s speech.  I look to polling for both candidates either today, or better Monday for a real marker.

        • Gregg Smith

          I agree, still don’t expect much.

    • Don_B1

      Every Republican, and probably a few others, need to remember:

      The Tripoli Treaty of 1797 between the US and the Barbary States, unanimously approved by the US Senate on June 10, 1797, specifically states that the US is NOT a Christian nation. At that time, the US government was still dominated by those who are referred to today as the “Founding Fathers”. ARTICLE 11: As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion …

      They also need to read about where Jefferson’s and other founding fathers’ ideals of government came from: learning about how the American Indian tribes governed themselves and how European thinkers realized their centuries of strife were fuel by religious factionalism.

      • notafeminista

        So stipulated.  To whom does the world “Creator” refer to then?

        • Don_B1

          The founding fathers were “Deists.”

          It means what you choose it to mean, the God of Abraham, Buddha, or some random physical event like the spontaneous creation of proton and anti-proton, that initiated the Big Bang.

        • Ray in VT

          I do not believe that there is a reference to any God or Creator in the Constitution.  If there is one, then please tell me which article and clause, and I will stand corrected.

          • Don_B1

            I intended to mention that aspect in my post above: the word “Creator” only appears in the Declaration of Independence, specifically the second sentence:

            “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

          • sickofthechit

             What I find really telling is that they use the phrase “their Creator” instead of “our Creator” which says to me that they recognized that not all people believe in the same “Creator”.

          • Don_B1

            Excellent point; I read right past it! I will try to remember to use it in the future; thank you.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          “Creator”? That’s someone who wasn’t telling some King that That King was God’s man on earth.

          It’s one big reason we fought the Revolution, to get the hell away from governments entangled with Churches.

      • mochajava13

        The founder’s ideals of government were much closer to the Republican views that the Democrat view – only rich, white men were allowed to vote, the federal government had very little power, and the states were the real centers of power.  You really want to go back to that?

        And historically – many of the original colonies were founded because of religious persecution facing them in Europe.  Massachusetts and Rhode Island were both founded specifically by religious leaders.  Just allowed to buy liquor in Massachusetts on a Sunday a few years ago.

        • Don_B1

          I certainly do NOT want to go back to the constricted voting rights, not to mention outright slavery and the acceptance of religious persecution that obtained at the founding of the nation.

          And no state showed more clearly the damage that allowing religious bigotry could cause than Massachusetts when the Salem Witch Trials led to many deaths of innocent people.Many of the founding fathers did not want that to be the case then either; but they did recognize that forcing that at that time would probably prevent the acceptance of the Constitution; but they built in provisions to peacefully modify it and thankfully, politicians over time have done just that in ways to erase many of those problems.But today’s Republican Party want to reverse the trend toward more empowerment of all citizens to make their life choices and influence the direction of the country and take some powers AWAY from citizens, the RIGHT to VOTE, the RIGHT to marry the person they love, and the RIGHT to control their own bodies, for three major ones.

    • mochajava13

      Like it or not, Democrats cannot win without religious people.  Trying to push us out of the Democrat tent will result in a loss –  I’d go for a third party.  And God IS all over the Declaration of Independence.  

      Frankly, I don’t care what the founders did then – only landowning men were allowed to vote, women didn’t count as people, and slavery was rampant.  The original intent of the Republic was to maintain the status quo for the wealthy and educated; they did not trust the masses or women.  The federal government was very, very small with no social safety net for the poor.  Sorry, no thanks.

      • Don_B1

        The real beauty of the position of the Democratic Party, which more closely follows the intentions of the founders, is that the government is totally neutral on religion, allowing the religious to follow whatever religious beliefs they wish, including participating in politics.

        But just like the free speech provision, it is not without limitations as the Supreme Court found that “free speech” does not give the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater/building nor does it prevent a private business from denying an employee the right to say something that could be detrimental to the business, and libel laws are valid.

        Thus religious ceremonies that violate some laws may also be enjoined and a religion that does something outside the direct celebration of the religion may have to obey laws in pursuit of doing that extra-religious activity. What activities are “extra-religious” are subject to legal interpretation.

        As to the size of the government, in the time of the founding fathers all of the country was largely agrarian, with little need for regulations, although some business activities did contaminate the environment, such as tanning leathers (mercury use, which led to the term, “mad as a hatter”). But today the use of new chemicals which have widespread toxic affects which an innocent citizen is unable to judge the effects of, must rightly be regulated.

        Even in the day of Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations,” published in 1776, I believe, Smith recognized that activities can inflict costs on people that are not making, buying, or using the product of that activity and thus the state has the right to place those “external” costs on the makers, buyers and users of that product.

        In today’s commerce, the objects of commerce are orders of magnitude more complex which requires government to be more complex to ensure that the freedom of everyone, not just the owners of the biggest businesses, etc. to life a full life without paying the costs generated by others from which they do not benefit.

        The freedom to do what ever you want is NOT free.

  • Gregg Smith

    We’ve heard the same speech 100 times before. Clinton took us from “Yes we can” to “No one could have”. Obama message seemed to be, hang in there.

  • Coastghost

    96,000 jobs created “by the Obama Administration” last month, short of the 130,000 expectation, shorter of the 250,000 needed to substantively achieve Mr. Obama’s Administration’s stated goal of permitting an unemployment rate of (what did he promise?) no more than 5% to 6%? The rate may have nudged down, but not below 8%. –IT’S THE ECONOMY, GENIUS!, to misquote cheerleader-in-chief Clinton.

    • keltcrusader

      Wait, I thought you said the government doesn’t create jobs?? So its governments fault for not creating jobs that it doesn’t create??  Oh, you mean the “job creators” didn’t come through again even though they have been given ample opportunity and are sitting on trillions of dollars? They are just waiting………. for what again?  

      • DrewInGeorgia

        I just can’t understand why the Job Creationists (HEY! New Slang!) who would benefit most from a Romney win would consistently do everything in their power just to make Obama look bad. Surely they wouldn’t act against the interests of the general population…

        • Gregg Smith

          Do you think Obama has been friendly to small business? 

          • DrewInGeorgia

            I think The President has done everything he realistically can given the environment he’s had to operate in. I’m not that happy about a lot of his action and inaction but then I had no illusions going into his time in office. In short: I never expected the White Knight on a White Horse to swoop in and save the day. Do I need to post the pic again?

          • Gregg Smith

            As I described to Coastghost, I think having no idea about tax liability has been devastating to business. Obamacare is a foot on businesses neck. The failed energy policy has led to higher energy cost across the board. $46 billion a year in new regulations is choking business. The massive, humongous, earth-shattering record debt has affected everyone. He derides the hard work of entrepreneurs. He tell the poor they are poor because the rich are greedy. Our credit rating has been lowered.

            I just disagree. I think he has been hostile to small business.

          • MrNutso

            In what way?

          • nj_v2

            Superpartisan superhack Gregg continues to distort reality regurgitating his right-wing disinformation media talking points. The number of times he embarrasses himself   doing this seems no deterrent for him.

            Obama regulatory scheme is not significantly different from recent predecessors.

            http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-25/obama-wrote-5-fewer-rules-than-bush-while-costing-business.html

            [[ "The average annual cost to businesses under Obama is higher than under his predecessors, the Bloomberg review shows. The increase is estimated to total as little as $100 million or as much as $4.1 billion, or at most three one-hundredths of a percent of the total economy." ]]

          • Gregg Smith

            What do you do, see my name and try to google something silly? That link is a year old. Obama has refused to even submit his regulations as required by law this year.

            http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/04/Obama-Refuses-to-Submit-New-Regulations-Plan-Required-By-Law
            http://www.freeenterprise.com/regulations/report-finds-new-regulations-add-46-billion-every-year-new-costs

            Keep on embarrassing me, I love it.

          • notafeminista

            You must have been the only one not expecting the Knight and White Horse given the campaign/electoral climate of 4 years ago.  ”Yes we can! 
             Yes we can!”   oh…and “slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet.”   

            Wait..no, you’re right.  You weren’t expecting a Knight.  You were expecting a savior.

          • DrewInGeorgia

            pft.

            WE could have. WE hasn’t been the problem the past few decades.

            How do you derive that I expected a savior from my statement that I never expected one individual to magically solve all of our problems? Go eat your Lucky Charms notalickocommonsense, they’re magically delicious!

          • notafeminista

            Ya could have  and ya didn’t.  Democratic congresses for years.  Even in the wake of the disasters of Nixon AND Carter, you couldn’t get it done.

            Lucky Charms not withstanding, the Left wanted a Savior – and they thought they found one in President Obama.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Your comment has been tabled in committee and won’t appear until 60% of the board approves.

            Sixty is the new 51.

          • Gregg Smith

            Theygot Obamacare with 56…and reconciliation.

          • StilllHere

            This is the closet racism of low expectations.

          • mochajava13

            Most of the jobs we’ve lost in the last couple of years have been in the public sector, not the private one.  The large companies sitting on gobs of cash from their record breaking profits haven’t been hiring to replace this job loss.

          • StilllHere

            Provide one link to this complete misinformation.  I dare you.  Why should companies hire people they don’t need; only fed, state and local governments run by Democrats can do this?

          • mochajava13

            Here you go:
            http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/obamas-press-conference-the-public-sector-isnt-fine/2012/06/08/gJQAp5rxNV_blog.html 

            http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/business/public-workers-face-continued-layoffs-and-recovery-is-hurt.html?pagewanted=all 

            First one has a chart showing that we’ve had some job growth in the private sector since 2/2009, but have been losing jobs in the public sector ever since.

            Companies should be hiring people they don’t need for a couple of reasons.  First, it’s the right thing to do to help our fellow Americans.  Second, it creates more demand – more people in the workforce mean that more people spend.  On a more ethical level – Americans work harder and longer than ever before; a 40 hour work week is becoming a thing of the past.  If a company is working one person at 60-80 hours a week, that means they need another worker.

          • Don_B1

            Here’s another set of charts which compare the employment changes for the Obama and Bush administrations:

            http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/employment-in-two-administrations/

            But don’t worry, StillHere won’t accept these either. Next time he posts on the subject, it will be as if he never saw any of this information. His brain is dead to anything that doesn’t reinforce his view of the world. Or he certainly won’t admit to anyone on this blog that his view is even adjusted.

        • Don_B1

          Businessmen would be making capital investments and hiring workers IF there were demand for their goods and services; Karl Marx famously said that “capitalists would sell him the rope to hang them.”

          Republicans have prevented any of Obama’s attempts to build a strong economy for the last two years and weakened his attempts in the first two years.

          Republicans like to claim that Democrats had total control of Congress for his first two years, but like most of their claims this one is false. Democrats had only 59 votes (including one Independent), necessary for cloture of a filibuster, until Senator Franken was sworn in on 7 July 2009 and then only 59 votes after Senator Brown won the special election on 19 January 2010, replacing Senator Kennedy.

          Gail Chaddock should know better than let that “2-yr” claim stand. She needs to apologize loudly.

          But there were many Democratic Senators who were “Blue Dogs” easily stampeded by the large-scale protests in their 2009 summer recess “townhall meetings.” They were unlikely to step up and vote for anything that could be called “stimulus.” So Obama’s “control of Congress” was more on paper than real.

      • Coastghost

        Obama’s Democratic Party statism loves to assign credit to robust government policy that “leads” the economy when times are fine; when times are not so fine, Democratic Presidential candidates like Obama say “govenment can’t solve all of our problems”. Obama is practicing CYA politics, since his policies manifestly inspire NO confidence in the private business sector.

        • Gregg Smith

          Confidence is an underrated driver of the economy. It’s hard to have confidence when there isn’t even a budget. Not a single person in America knows what their tax liability will be in 4 months. That sucks confidence. We did this before with the first extension. It went down to the wire. No one knew their tax liability mere weeks before the fiscal year. We’ve essentially had 4 years of businesses having to guess. That’s not a good way to make a business plan. It’s cost countless jobs.

          • StilllHere

            I may not know the number but I know that years of deficits are going to mean that tax rates are going up.  If I were you, I’d save every nickel you’ve got, buy the cheapest of whatever you need and hunker down.  Those who don’t will get a ton of government assistance, but who can live with themselves dependent on government handouts.  I guess Democrats can.

        • keltcrusader

          Take a good look around you if you are able to see through those piss-colored glasses you wear – Are we still falling off the edge of that fiscal cliff the Republican’s idealogical unsoundness left us all up on – nope! Jobs are growing – slowly – but growing. ADP showed 201K added to payroll for August – http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/

          Which is a lot more jobs added than you can say for the last President’s record who enjoyed record losses – you do remember who the last president was right. Hint: It wasn’t Reagan.

          • Gregg Smith

            The unemployment rate hovered around 5% for Bush’s 2 terms.

          • jimino

            A fraud fueled $8 trillion housing bubble will do that.  Your fact universe must have heard all about its existence and subsequent destruction.  It was in all the papers.

          • StilllHere

            Fraud fueled … good one.  You Democrat party losers are all about boogie men and blame shifting.

          • jimino

            So where did all that “value” go in your world?

          • StilllHere

            It never existed.  Where in the public sector do you work?

          • jimino

            You fool, I and every member of my household are self employed in the private sector.  Thankfully, none of us are as stupid as you and therefore we are all successful.

            To the point:  That “value”, that you insist did not exist, was the basis for much of the consumer and business spending that was the basis for much of the economic activity in the first 8 years of this century.  Therefore, according to your logic, none of the positive numbers from that period were real.  On that we can agree.

          • StilllHere

            You’re pathetic.

          • adks12020

            Except for when it started skyrocketing towards the end of his second term.

          • DrewInGeorgia

            And I’m sure all those boots W put on the ground didn’t have any impact on unemployment rates…

          • Gregg Smith

            It was still far lower than it is now.

          • StilllHere

            How pathetic! 
            Oh, so according to ADP, the job creators are doing their job.
            Democrats were in control of Congress at the time the economy collapsed so if you don’t wear glasses, it must be the piss is behind your eye sockets.

          • Ray in VT

            Oh yeah, the Democrats are so powerful that they managed to tank the economy within months of taking control of Congress.  I mean, they’re so strong that they shrank GDP to .1 percent growth six months before they won the election, and they created job losses in October of 2006.  Now that’s some power.

            You want to talk pathetic, well your argument is pretty pathetic.  If Congress is so mighty, then why hasn’t the mighty GOP and the Tea Party magically turned things around in the two years that they’ve controlled the House?

            Also, what crawled up your behind this morning?  You’re being an awfully miserable jerk to people.  But, as Akilez alluded to, that does generally fit with my general conception of one who supports the GOP these days.

          • Coastghost

            Then call the White House immediately and tell Mr. Obama that his Administration’s Labor Department is not using ADP’s cheery figures.

          • keltcrusader

            heehee – looks like I hit a nerve – gotta go boys – I have a job to do – a job I got in oct 2009 after being laid off in 2008 because of the absolutely dismal policies of the republicans in office that tanked our economy and brought our great country to its knees. Great job coastghost, gregg, stillin, worried, and you my dearest, notafeminista (I am sure that is totally true! lol) - I’m sure your overlords are so proud of the job you do in misinforming others – hope you at least get paid well.  TaTa for now

        • mochajava13

          Except the problem with the job situation right now is not in the private sector, it’s in the public sector.  That’s where the majority of jobs have been lost in the past 2 years.  And the government does have a very large say in this.  Don’t raise taxes on the 1% that aren’t hiring people or spending their money in  the US?  That means that we don’t have enough money to fund public sector jobs.  For example, Federal funding to the states for education has been slashed, leading to massive layoffs in education.  The “job creators” aren’t investing in alternatives to these public sector losses.

          • Coastghost

            The public sector is in NO position, at the Federal, state, or local levels, to increase job force participation by c. 250,000 a month. Look at my post higher on the page today: Chicago’s public school system was operating with a c. $250 million deficit twenty years ago–TODAY, it operates with a deficit of well over $600 million, at a time when Springfield sits in a moat of red ink. Public sector job growth in this economy is a fatuous hope altogether.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            And all those public structures which were built with “195x” or “196x”, needing repair now, and the government can borrow money at almost zero interest.

            They’re all gonna repair themselves?

            Seriously, right-wingers used to give a crap about doing things the government was supposed to do for people, like roads, water mains, and such.

            Good luck traveling around on your jetpack.

          • Coastghost

            Look, friend: I didn’t tell the scads and scores of the Massachusetts cognoscenti to sit on their voluble hands for twenty years plus while their public works extravaganza “Big Dig” racked up cost overruns of over 300%. That kind of public gouging does not go down well, but it’s symptomatic of the kind and rate of “public spending” that Obama & Co. continue to advocate, which may well suit some private local interests but does little or nothing for the rest of us. (And don’t bother castigating private contractors alone when union labor was the ONLY kind of labor permitted on the twenty year-plus “Big Dig” project, which is STILL incomplete and STILL not completely paid for.)  

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            “Symptomatic”, “may well”, “little or nothing done”, “ohnoesunions!” piffle.

            So many of those things built when the GOP gave a shite about governance have been neglected. They ain’t gonna last forever. Businesses need them, otherwise we’re just Brazil with a lower-ranking soccer team.

            And I’ve got a collapsing bridge over the Ohio River to sell you. (Plus a thousand more.)

          • notafeminista

            All of which begs the point that with no one to drive on your precious roads and bridges built with taxpayer money, they are useless.

          • Don_B1

            The ” cost-growth” that occurred was under Republican governors. The first of which was advised by the outgoing Dukakis administration to keep at watchdog over Bechtel (the general contractor) but they allowed Bechtel to be its OWN oversight.

            Also, a lot of the “growth” was the addition of additional features which are making the project more beneficial.

            But Governor Romney campaigned on controlling the costs and HE DID NOT do anything to effectively do that or monitor the construction. A woman died when a section of a tunnel roof fell on the car she was riding in. That was what finally jumpstarted Gov. Romney to take over the Mass. Pike Authority.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

    Good News almost 1 million people hired in August

    • Gregg Smith

      My understanding is there were 96,000 jobs in August which is a far cry from a million. Where did you get the number?

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

        a text from a friend he texted 960,00 instead of 96,000 got excited and posted it right away.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

      my bad it is 96,000

      • DrewInGeorgia

        No need to apologize, nothing wrong with hoping for the best. At least you correct yourself when you make inaccurate statements. That alone puts you ahead of the curve in my book.

        • Ray in VT

          Come on, Drew.  He should stick to his guns.  Make a bad statement, realize that it’s bad, and then fight to the last to defend it.  What a flip-flopper.  I’m joking, Akilez.  It was an easy enough mistake to make.

          • DrewInGeorgia

            He received a text saying 960,000 instead of 96,000. Kind of like invading Iraq because a ‘factual’ report said they had WMDs. It’s hard to make good decisions based on crap intel.

          • Ray in VT

            I wonder what’s with the vitriol this morning.  I haven’t seen some people this crabby since the health care ruling. I guess that haters gonna hate.

          • DrewInGeorgia

            I think it’s because of the blatant contrast between the two conventions. Thrashing and gnashing will abound from now until November I’m afraid.

      • StilllHere

        Oh gee, you were only off by 900K+.
        As an American, I’m going to cut you some slack because you seem to be the product of some deranged educational system that has no concept of history or math, only failed political ideologies.

        • DrewInGeorgia

          Obviously they read 960,000 instead of 96,000. Talk to some of your Poster Boys about difficulty with decimal places, they never slip up and they always correct themselves, right?

          • notafeminista

            Which begs the point that it was not nearly one million.

          • DrewInGeorgia

            Wow, the gang’s all here this morning. To what do we owe the displeasure?

          • anamaria23

            For a long time I have enjoyed the Friday discussions, however the site has devolved into an Obama haters
            “Club”, gleefully waiting for any bad news about the President or making it up if they have to.
            Disturbing. 

          • DrewInGeorgia

            Funny thing is, in total there’s only like six or seven of them here. It’s like that seven percent of our society that continually disrupts the common sense of the other ninety-three percent.

          • Acnestes

            I think they’re insecure about competing with the bigger and louder lampreys in the Fox Nation pond, so they come over here so they can feel more special.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            “The line is shorter here.” philosphy at work.

          • notafeminista

            “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world……………”

          • Gregg Smith

            I find the liberals to be more personal and nasty although we all can be. It seems like they spend a lot of time calling names in lieu of rebuttal. Jeffe and NJ are the kings of that. Very rarely do they go off script and debate honestly.

          • Don_B1

            And of course you are the epitome of honesty? NOT!

          • Don_B1

            It would not surprise me to find that they were members of Americans for Prosperity (AFP), possibly paid, and definitely what are called trolls.

            But watch this week’s “Need to Know” on PBS for the section between Jeff Greenfield and Major Garrett on what the consequences of a Republican Senate Majority (more than 49 Republicans in the Senate with Paul Ryan as V.P.) would be for EVERYTHING President Obama has accomplished — all would be repealed.

          • Ray in VT

            I don’t see Morgoth yet.

          • DrewInGeorgia

            LMAO!

          • Acnestes

            You won’t.  Morgoth was a craven.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

          Peace man you such a typical Republican war mongers and bullies. yes i admitted my mistake so what is the problem.

  • Acnestes

    Geez, the trolls are out in force today.  The lamprey pond over at Fox Nation must have overtopped its banks.

    • Gregg Smith

      Ooooo the Fox monster.

      • Acnestes

        Not a monster.  I see it as more like Mordor, where all the dark things gather.  Not much light there, and they like that.

        • Ray in VT

          Love the Tolkien reference.

      • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

         Emmanuel Goldstein, perhaps?

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

       Your definition of “troll” is someone who disagrees with you?

      • DrewInGeorgia

        I’m pretty sure that was in no way directed towards you Greg.

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

           It doesn’t matter at whom it was directed.  What I don’t like is the view that we all must sing the same tune.

      • Acnestes

         From Wikipedia: An internet term for a person who, through willful action, attempts to
        disrupt a community or garner attention and controversy through
        provocative messages

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

           Uh huh, and so, in your view, we should all agree with your ideas?

          This is a discussion board, not a choir.

          • Acnestes

            You know, I posted a general comment earlier this morning before you even showed up, not a reply to you, and I didn’t even have you in mind in mind when I wrote it.  If you want to assume it applies to you I guess I cant stop you.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             As I said to another commentor, I didn’t take it personally.  I object to the attitude that those who disagree are trolls.  I respect a free discussion over the party line.

          • Acnestes

            I agree.  Nevertheless, there are some who come to this site not to add to the discussion but to throw bombs for their own amusement.

          • Don_B1

            It is not that a person disagrees, it is that

            1) the same arguments from that person that have been made before and shown to be false keep being repeated

            2) comments that are totally irrelevant are made to distract from the issue being discussed and thought out in the thread.

            3) facetiously dishonest comments are made

            4) these activities are the consistent action of the individual(s).

            That is what makes a visitor here a troll.

    • Don_B1

      It is getting to the heart of the election campaign season.

      Watch this week’s “Need to Know” of PBS for the exchange between Jeff Greenfield and Major Garrett to understand the consequences possible in this election, particularly if the Republicans get 50 or more in the Senate as well as Romney/Ryan winning the POTUS/V.P.

      It WILL be the repeal of ALL that Obama has accomplished.

      Count on them being “out” every day as they see their ultimate goal of a plutocratic takeover of the U.S. government is in sight. The money will be flowing in amounts that will be astounding.

      The billionaires will be flooding ALL channels, including all blogs, with trolls for their “side” until they have suppressed the vote of all that are against Tea/Republicans.

  • Coastghost

    Oh good! Mayor Emanuel gets to deal with the prospect of a public schoolmarm strike. (Horrors! the strikers are putative political allies!) ((FURTHER HORROR: Illinois state government is swimming in red ink!!)) Stay tuned.

    • Coastghost

      In the early 1990s, Chicago’s public school system was operating with a deficit of (only) c. $250 million. Barely twenty years later, it claims to be functioning properly with a deficit of somewhere between $600 million and $700 million. I don’t think inflation is soley to blame, somehow . . . .

  • 228929292AABBB

    I’m not a ‘media bias’ nut but I hope the panel will address the difference in the coverage of Todd Akin’s comments about rape last week and the California Democratic party chief’s comparison of Paul Ryan to the Nazi Joseph Goebbels.  Mr. Burton seems, if anything, more linked to the Democratic campaign for President than Mr. Akin does to the Republican, yet President Obama has not been blamed for his comments the way Mr. Romney essentially was for Akin’s.  In fact, while Mr. Akin dominated the news for a solid week, I would bet most Americans never heard about the Nazi comparison.  I hope the media members on the panel will comment honestly on the difference in coverage.

    • Gregg Smith

      Never in a million years will they comment on it. But you will see the Fox monster presented out of thin air.

    • MrNutso

      Burton should not have likened Ryan to Goebbels.  However, how does making inane statements about what a women’s body does when she’s raped and trying to differentiate among rape compare to one politician using a bad metaphor to refer to another’s veracity as if that never happened before in the history of politics.

      • Don_B1

        False equivalency is the specialty of these guys, particularly when they get on the self-congratulation kick.

    • NancyFourCorners

      The comparison to Ryan is apt, considering the pile of lies and distortions in Ryan’s speech, among so many of his other lies, like his marathon claims he made to bolster his image with non-thinkers.

       
      Here is Goebbel’s quote:

      “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

      Sounds like the right comparison of a propagandist to a propagandist!

      • 228929292AABBB

        There is an established etiquette with regard to comparing others to Nazis.  One doesn’t do it.  History has provided myriad propagandists to cite without linking a person to the holocaust.  When those are ignored and an example from the Third Reich is chosen instead, the reason is obvious and hateful – defending such an act is hateful as well. 

        • NancyFourCorners

          Save the feigned indignance for someone who hasn’t figured out just how much Republicans lie these days!

          Ignoring or forgetting or re-writing unpallettable history is a sure way to repeat the same mistakes and face the same horrors we’ve seen again and again over the centuries!

          • notafeminista

            Ok first of all it’s “unpalatable”.  Second of all, just what actions do you find committed by the US to be comparable during the 20th or 21st century to compare say with the Spanish Inquisition or the Holocaust?

            Be specific.

          • NancyFourCorners

            Thanks! I’ll change that spelling right now!

          • NancyFourCorners

            *see above post to AABBB

          • notafeminista

            I do recall thousands..hundreds of thousands of people screaming “Yes we can”…Newsweek’s Evan Thomas asserting/proclaiming that now-President Obama was “sort of God” -    …and now you’re frightened?  My.

        • Ray in VT

          Not that I am defending the comparisons, because I think that it is in poor taste to compare things of relatively trivial nature (in the grand scheme of things) to the worst horrors in the history of humanity, but so many people do do it.  Just check out Godwin’s Law.  Somebody’s gonna pull it sometime.  Not that one should, but someone will.

          • http://www.facebook.com/stewsburntmonkey David Stewart

            I don’t quite see how the election of the leaders of free world is trivial, even in the grand scheme of things.

          • http://www.facebook.com/stewsburntmonkey David Stewart

            I don’t quite see how the election of the leaders of free world is trivial, even in the grand scheme of things.

          • Ray in VT

            It certainly isn’t, but everything gets compared to the Nazis by people.  I’m sure that you’ve seen it.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          If you want to talk about “established etiquette” and today’s Republican Party, don’t waste your breath.

          Everything the GOP has done for the last ~15 years has been made into the new normal acceptable by our mainstream press.

        • NancyFourCorners

          When a charismatic, extremely dangerous leader next comes along, making lies acceptable, fostering xenophobia and division, spouting off hatred under the guise of jingoistic “patriotism,” and finally amasses a huge following of a hundred million dupes… when that happens and you can’t call it out as frighteningly similar to the rise of, say, Fascism in the twentieth century… just how are people supposed to arm themselves against the threat of repeating history when you say “WE CAN’T VERBALLY REPEAT HISTORY?”

          I say: Don’t disarm the populace against threats we should easily be able to recognize if we refuse to split from the lessons of the past!

          • Don_B1

            Anyone who watches this week’s “Need to Know” on PBS for the segment with Jeff Greenfield and Major Garrett on the probably consequences of electing a Senate with 50 or more Republicans will agree that your “violation” of Godwin’s Law is not out of bounds.

            And it is why Republicans running for Senate need to be defeated. The only question is how to frame the arguments to not inflame the Republican supporters to go out and work even harder to bring that Republican plutocracy into existence.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Please name one actual lie in Ryan’s speech. The fact checkers were debunked. Not surprising since the source was liberal bloggers.

        • NancyFourCorners

          Like I said before, stop embarrassing yourself… the “fact-checking” media called out Ryan’s lies by about 1000 to one!

  • MrNutso

    Today is the one year anniversary of the President proposing the American Jobs Act.  At the time, the program could be expected to boost GDP, add 1.3M jobs, and reduce unemployment by up to a percentage point.  How come the Job Creationists(tm) are not supporting this plan?

    • William

       Senator Reid would not bring it to a vote because he wanted to work on the trade problem with China. Then it just lost steam because Reid wanted a 5 percent tax on wealthy people to pay for it. The Republicans then objected to the part that wanted more shovel ready projects which were part of the previous stimulus bill. So, it was just another big spending stimulus bill that would have accomplished little if anything other than increase the debt.

      • MrNutso

        The Act was voted on in the Senate, but failed to receive 60 (the new 51) votes.

        • William

           I think the act was broken up into smaller parts but then just died on it’s own after that. The President would have been better off just getting a serious budget passed to help eliminate the uncertainty that many people feel about the future.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Sixty is the new 51. Your comment won’t appear until it’s voted for by 60% of the board.

            Let’s all listen to William, right-wing trollbot, tell us what it would have been better for a Democrat in power to do.

          • William

            I take it you did not get your extended unemployment check yet.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Keep projecting, dumbass.

            I love it when ignorant-of-the-world right-wingers feel the need to demonstrate how ignorant they are about me in particular.

  • Brandstad

    Labor Force Participation Rate Falls To Lowest Level Since September 1981

    I predict unemployment rate will be below 7% by November purely because the government will claim that millions of unemployed Americans aren’t looking for a job!

    Did you noice almost 4X as many people stoped looking for jobs as found jobs last month!  This is such a great recovery! LOLRead more: http://www.businessinsider.com#ixzz25nAac9Yy
    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com#ixzz25nAac9Yy

    • Don_B1

      The recovery from the 2007-2009 Great Recession is slow because, unlike all the recessions since the Great Depression, this one was caused by overleveraging in the PRIVATE SECTOR, both homeowners through the housing bubble, which was financed by the big investment banks which were looking for an investment vehicle on which to base derivative investment instruments to sell to pension funds and bet on between themselves. The creation and selling of these CDOs (Collateralized Debt Obligations), based on repackaged mortgages, and CDSs (Credit Default Swaps), where the banks bet each other on whether various debts would go sour.

      The American homeowners collectively lost some $12 trillion in wealth which has to be rebuilt to enable them to begin spending again at levels anywhere near those pre-2008, which is necessary for businesses to see DEMAND for their goods and services, which is necessary for them to make more investments and hire more workers to produce those goods and services.

      It IS a “Catch-22″ world, which, without government stimulus, will not soon resolve itself. The current interest rate on government bonds is basically negative for periods up to 10 years or more. That means that the (Free) MARKET believes it will take that long, short of government intervention, to get out of this recession.

      By building the economy the increased GDP will lead to more revenue and those bonds will be paid back without over-stressing the government’s other needs.

      By the way, when you are reading the Business Insider, don’t you read the articles by Joe Wiesenthal? I think he lays out the real problems quite reasonably. But of course, they don’t fit your ideology, so I guess you just dismiss them instead of addressing them honestly and concentrate on the Republican fantasy world.

  • Call_Me_Missouri

    Bill Clinton’s Speech should be boiled down and converted to a Pamphlet that Democrats can pass out.  If they don’t do that…  they’re morons who deserve to lose.

    • Brandstad

      THESE ARE THE 5 BIGGEST LIES FROM THE SECOND DAY OF THE DNC (FEATURING BILL CLINTON)

      http://www.theblaze.com/stories/these-are-the-5-biggest-lies-from-the-second-day-of-the-dnc-featuring-bill-clinton/

      • Call_Me_Missouri

        Only one of the ones they list is from Bill’s Speech and it should be noted that Actions speak louder than Words.  House Republicans voted against any policy the Democrats put forward that would have helped the economy.

        Mitch McConnell said it best…  Don’t you think?

        • Don_B1

          Of course, it goes without saying that Brandstad cannot admit that even if he at some level understands that it is true, which it IS.

  • Brandstad

    JOURNALIST SAYS VALERIE JARRETT HAD HIM THROWN OUT OF THE DNC FOR ASKING ABOUT DRONE STRIKES

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/journalist-says-valerie-jarrett-had-him-thrown-out-of-the-dnc-for-asking-about-drone-strikes/

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/YMV2HJ2TBKMCN2QRAVI3I2OOGM Jim Jim

    After Clinton got up and nailed it in his speech I was disappointed in last nights theme of “We killed Bin Ladin”. It was real barbaric and turned me off to the whole night. Using an assassination as a tool to get elected is bad form in my view. 
    Ill probably vote Obama but the party definitely gained then lost my respect in two nights. Obama’s bad but Romney’s worse. Unrepresented in ’12

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

       You would prefer Osama to be alive?  Or are you unwilling to celebrate good work?  What?

      • mochajava13

        We shouldn’t have assassinated him – it’s against international law to do so.  Why do you think that the original press piece announcing the kill included the fact that he was armed?  

        We’re supposed to be a civilized nation.  We should have captured Bin Laden and put him on trial.

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

           I get less and less interested in international law as the years go by.  He was a declared enemy of our nation who engaged in acts of war against us.  That’s enough for me.

    • Call_Me_Missouri

      That wasn’t what I found objectionable about the speeches last night personally.

      I thought both Joe Biden’s speech and the Presidents speech were disjointed and meandering and seemed to get nowhere.

      Joe was ALL OVER THE PLACE and it seemed like they were telling him to stretch his speech out.

      The President’s speech lacked the soaring rhetoric that is advantaged by his meandering speaking style.  I would have rather him make a Legal Argument rather than a Religious Sermon style speech, personally.  But that’s just my love of Factiness.

      • Don_B1

        If you watch “Need to Know” on PBS this week make sure to listen to the discussion between Jeff Greenfield and Major Garrett on the likely consequences of a Republican-controlled Senate with a Romney presidency. There would be an easy path to total dismantling of not only everything that Obama has accomplished, but much or all of the safety net begun by FDR and enhanced by Democrats since, particularly by LBJ.

        This difference in philosophy of government is what Obama was getting at; but he could not make the promises that usually accompany grand rhetoric. He was finally making an “educational speech” but toned down to hopefully lay the groundwork for future argument. It is a multi-step approach so that the American people can absorb and digest it in small bites.

  • http://www.facebook.com/kyle.rose Kyle Rose

    “…and On Point left-wing talking point bot, Jack Beatty”.

    Ah, Friday. :-)

    • Don_B1

      You just might learn something by listening closely and thinking about what he says; not all is correct as he is human too, but he does have some truth to tell and we should be willing to confront our ideologies to see where they will lead to irresponsible outcomes. The pure-free-market ideology is full of those.

  • mezure

     Last night President Obama spoke about what it means to be a citizen.  Last week Governor Romney said what one expects as a citizen.  Where, in these two speeches, are the visions fundamentally different?  They both talk about triumph over adversity, shared pride in success and the spirit of innovation.  The anecdotes they use are meant to elucidate their personal experiences in a country where a dream for a future is very dependent on a balance between personal achievement and duty to country.  The President says “It’s about what can be done by us, together,” while the Governor says “I’m an American. I make my destiny.”  These two statements tell us volumes about the fundamental differences these two men envision.

    • Thinkin5

      The Governor says “I’m an American. I make my destiny.” And that’s why he’s not presidential material. The president of the U.S. is a job that requires leading and helping ALL Americans live the American dream. Mitt should stick to what he does best; make profits for a private firm and build his personal wealth.  Different job description for President of the United States and leader of the free world.

      • William

         How can you help your fellow American if you are not willing to help yourself?

        • Don_B1

          That is a pure red herring; both men said the everyone must act to help himself but it was Romney who said that it was ONLY by your own  (or relatives) steps could you build the skills to succeed, not by getting HELP from everyone through all of society. [Interestingly, that strict individualism runs against Romney's Mormon roots, but it is well expressed in Romney's apparent obsession with avoiding taxes which would help others learn to be successful.]

    • BHA_in_Vermont

       Does the phrase: “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country” come to mind?

  • Brandstad

    RADIO HOST asks DNC DELEGATES ABOUT BANNING CORPORATE PROFITS — AND MANY AGREE WITH HIM
    http://youtu.be/07fTsF5BiSM

    • Ray in VT

      I think that your caps lock button is on.  Just FYI.

      • Acnestes

        I think he’s just cutting and pasting from Glenn Beck’s website. All yelling.

        • Ray in VT

          I’ve never understood the all caps or tons of exclamation points approach!!!!!!  I don’t think that it adds anything to one’s point, and it does just come off like yelling.

          • Acnestes

            As long as it’s a Tolkein morning. . Melkor’s (Morgoth’s)music,was “loud, and vain,
            and endlessly repeated … And it essayed to drown the other music by the
            violence of its voice … “

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    An alternative to individualism?  Scary, that.

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    Jack Beatty, are you listening to yourself?  You’re describing the worst kind of tyranny.

  • MarkVII88

    If having poor monthly “Jobs” numbers benefits the Republicans, do you think that it’s reasonable to assume that big business interests will do whatever they can to limit and stymie as much job creation as possible to help elect Mitt Romney who seems to favor less regulation, free-market Capitalism, and the interests of the wealthy?

    • Brandstad

      Buisnesses are afraid of the “change” that Obama has promised but not explained.  3.5 years into his presadency and we still don’t know what he wants to change America into!

    • notafeminista

      Well you can always hope.

    • Thinkin5

       Only the Republicans cheer low jobs numbers. How selfish!

  • http://www.facebook.com/kyle.rose Kyle Rose

    The Founders didn’t believe in individualism? Really, Jack? /facepalm

    • Don_B1

      I am sure that you might not have run into that discussion before, but do some reading into the philosophy of the founders and you will find that many of the “founding fathers’ ” ideology is quite different than what is being promoted by the right-wing “free markets” ideologues today (and for the last 50 years and more, raised to visible levels by Barry Goldwater and the people around him).

  • DrewInGeorgia

    Thank goodness, Jack’s talking common sense again.

    Romney said in that clip “wants a promise reset”, I almost dropped my coffee mug.

  • NancyFourCorners

    If Americans had believed in “the individual over the whole” during our Revolutionary War, we wouldn’t have won our independence, would we?

    There’s something to be said for people coming together for a common cause!

    • Joseph_Wisconsin

      Yeah. E pluribus unum baby, not in Ayn Rand we trust.

  • Thinkin5

    I am so tired of the right’s bashing, belittling, accusing, demonizing, and lying about our elected president Barack Obama. They have unleashed an unrelenting attack since the day he won the election. Incredibly, they have the gall to say that he’s “divisive”!!! All of their attacks are constructed of fictional traits, deeds, and history, of their own invention. It’s not working because we all can see for ourselves that none of it sticks to the president because none of it is based on facts & reality. If the rightwing had a case they wouldn’t have to make things up.

    • BHA_in_Vermont

       They claim he is “divisive” because he thinks that the rich should not get more rich at the expense of the poor and middle class. You see, that is “class warfare”.

      • Thinkin5

        If that’s class warfare, so be it. It’s also class warfare when the right is anti-labor, anti-minimum wage, anti-workers’ rights. If the people who buy your goods and services don’t have jobs and wages to afford them the businesses and corporations will suffer losses too. It’s a symbiotic economic relationship.

        • Don_B1

          As has been noted before and succinctly stated by Warren Buffett, “there has been class warfare for some time, and my class is winning.”

          There is no approach taken more often by Republican strategists: declare the other side is conducting class warfare every time that the Republican promotion of class warfare actions is pointed out. In other words, it is class warfare just to point out  Republican class warfare. Republican class warfare must be kept from being known about.

          It is similar to their calling out the “using the race card” when their use of “dog whistles” is noted.

          • sickofthechit

             Warren is wrong, it was not “Class Warfare”, it was “Class Genocide”. How else does one explain the large disappearance of so many millions from the middle class?

  • Call_Me_Missouri

    How do I find the list of Bumper music for this show?

  • Brandstad

    Obama’s real legacy – $10 trillion in new federal debt over just four yearsLearn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036979_federal_debt_trillions_Obama.html#ixzz25nFpA8b9

  • DrewInGeorgia

    It’s not just Worried, the gang really is all here this morning. It’s odd because they usually only all materialize at the same time in the evening when there’s no one around to interrupt their back patting.

  • marchborn

    It’s refreshing to hear Obama actually say what he would do to help fix the economy and other problems. Mitt seems to be blackmailing us with his “elect me and find out what my plan is” strategy!

    • Brandstad

      What exactly did Obama say he would do the help fix the economy?  Did he tell us why he didn’t already do this when he had control of all branches of government for TWO YEARS!

      • Don_B1

        One big reason was that Obama did NOT have control of all branches of Congress for two years:

        1) There were only 59 Senators voting for Democratic issues (including one Independent) until Senator Franken was sworn in on 7 July 2009 and ended with Scott Brown’s swearing in on 4 February 2010.

        2) The Republicans dragged out the legislative process for the healthcare bill with filibuster threats, including such threats from “blue dog” Democrats Joe Lieberman (D/I, CT) and Ben Nelson (D, NB) and others, took a lot of time away from work on the other issues that the Congress would have pursued.

        3) As many economists stated early, the stimulus was too small to build a strong recovery and once the summer of 2009 arrived, there was no way that even Democrats would undertake the effort to educate the electorate about the need and correctness of an additional stimulus.

        The old saw seems to apply that Democrats like to govern but forget the need to explain the importance of what they are doing while Republicans hate governing except outsourcing it to friends but like to denigrate government and by governing poorly reinforce their argument that government is ineffective. 

    • Don_B1

      It should remind people of Nixon’s “I have a plan” for ending the Vietnam War. It took Nixon’s resignation and the Presidency of Gerald Ford for that to happen.

      Obama is basically going to continue investing in the education of workers and the building of infrastructure that will be the base of dealing with manufacturing efficiency, energy efficiency and reducing the emissions of CO2, which will mean cheaper goods in the marketplace and higher productivity of American workers which will enable Americans to compete in the world marketplace.

      Mitt Romney is basically saying that those who can develop themselves, because they get a boost up from their parents (luck of birth) or because they live in another country which does help all their citizens, will be entitled to success and all others will have to live like serfs in the Middle Ages.

      Gov. Romney has never run a business where he has to even consider that paying employees more makes them better employees, working harder to make sure the company is successful. That is a Return on Investment that has never entered his mind, principally because he has only considered short-run profits, not long-term ones.

      The long-term success of the country has to be one of the prime measures of a president’s success.

  • Coastghost

    “Is the future that Obama promises the one that you want?” Tom Ashbrook asks. Coastghost asks: “is the future that Obama promises one that Obama can deliver?” The precedent offered by Obama’s first term offers no credible hope that he can.

  • Brandstad

    Workforce participation rate for men 69.9% – lowest since 1948…

    FLASHBACK: Obama aides in 2009 predicted 5% unemployment rate by now…

    • http://www.facebook.com/stewsburntmonkey David Stewart

      And Republicans predicted that deregulation and the Bush tax cut would lead to unparalleled prosperity and economic growth.

      • Thinkin5

         The big question is: WHY hire the Republicans again after their most recent turn in the White House brought the country to near depression in 2008! They are offering the same philosophy that brought the crash. Deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy. NO TRICKLE DOWN!!!

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           New team pal. Romney is a DC outsider to clean up the mess of bloat and corruption like he did in Salt Lake City.

          • mochajava13

            Please.  Romney has been trying to become president since he was governor of Massachusetts.  He’s a politician who is currently out of office.  And the only reason he is out of office is because he couldn’t win the nomination last time around, despite how hard he tried.  He learned his lesson last time – being moderate didn’t win him the Republican nomination.  So he’s now changed his positions just to get elected.  

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             And we would have been better of with President Romney vs. President Obama OR President McCain.

            If the economic collapse happened before the primary then Romney probably would have beaten McCain.

            Romney hasn’t really changed positions in the past 6 years.  Obama has far more major position changes just in the past 4 years.

          • Don_B1

            What dark place did you get that piece of fantasy from?

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            New team!

            Uh, until you check his coaching staff.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        And that that tax cut would pay for itself.

        “Of course, when you  cut taxes, revenues go up.”

        –Rudy! 9iu11ani, circa 2006 (one of millions of the same quote)

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    Tom Ashbrook, you gave Jill Stein an hour.  When will Gary Johnson be on?

    • DrewInGeorgia

      Don’t know but they should have an Hour 2 on Neil Armstrong the same day.

      • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

         Stein was on at least a month before Armstrong died.

        • DrewInGeorgia

          I’m somewhat confused by your reply. Do you mean that Gary Johnson should have been on much sooner? If so I agree but my point was only that there was a glaring omission in coverage of both subjects. I felt Huntsman and Paul (even though I think Paul is a little wacko) should also at least have received mention in OP coverage during the past year. Neither of them were a Party Darling though…

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             Ah, I misread your comment.  I’d like to see both an hour on Armstrong and an hour on Johnson, then hours on other “minor” party candidates.  This coronation party that so many news programs hold is pathetic.

  • MrNutso

    What came first?  The stimulus act or health care reform?

  • Thinkin5

    Health care reform is about jobs! It’s a huge drag on personal finances. How can you separate the cost and importance of health care in a person’s life? It’s second only to people’s mortgage and rent payments in expense.

  • William

    Bill Clinton said the “era of big government is over”. So what is Obama talking about? 

    • http://www.facebook.com/stewsburntmonkey David Stewart

      Obama has actually dramatically slowed government spending and reduced the size of government considerably.

      • William

         Actually there are more federal workers now than ten years ago and with Obama-care coming on line it will really get much larger. Spending just keeps growing and it makes it more difficult to control spending with no budget.

        • BHA_in_Vermont

           240,000 of them are working for the Dept of Homeland Security with a $60B budget. Who started that “small government” department??

        • mochajava13

          Right now, we need government workers.  The public sector is shedding jobs like mad.

          Want to save the private sector?  We need people who will actually buy goods.  The private sector isn’t hiring.  Someone else needs to in order to create demand.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          Ten years ago?

          That’s great, if Obama was president then.

          And spare us the “both sides spend too much” crap, because a meeting of every right-winger who was saying this when Shrub was reigning couldn’t fill up a Dunkin Donuts.

          • DrewInGeorgia

            They might not have been able to fill the DD’s dining area but I guarantee you they would have managed to eat them out of all their doughnuts.

  • marchborn

    Glad to hear the president talking about what he would actually do to fix the economy and other problems. Mitt seems to blackmailing us with his elect me and find out what  my plan is strategy!

    • Don_B1

      Many do not remember Richard Nixon’s 1968 campaign promise to end the Vietnam War: “I have a plan” but not one detail more.

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    Loyalty?  No politician deserves loyalty in a free society.  They’re not gods.  They are supposed to work for us.

    • BHA_in_Vermont

       ”They are supposed to work for us.”

      Novel idea.

      • Steve__T

        Well they are, but as we’ve seen they are out for themselves. Their first order of business will be to give themselves a raise, they have been doing this for 40+ years, any job I’ve ever worked I had to show my worth. How many of you walked into a job and got to vote yourself a raise? Then they cut the throats of their own constituents for a little more.

        • Don_B1

          @gregcamp:disqus @BHA_in_Vermont:disqus @Steve__T:disqus 

          The pay raises are a drop in the bucket compared to the 20 to 40 hours per week minimum, every week 52 weeks/year, that they spend “dialing for campaign dollars” from wealthy potential contributors, when they should be working on legislation that would benefit all their constituents, not just the big donors.

    • Bruce94

      You mean the ones who took over the House in the Republican Tide of 2010, signed Grover Norquist’s anti-tax pledge, filibustered or stonewalled every jobs initiative of the Obama administration since ARRA, and who work for and are financed by the corporate lobbyists and elites? 

      Oh, I forgot…as the would be Outsourcer-In-Chief stated the other day, our country is in reality a company which just needs another CEO…after all in the alternate universe of this extremist iteration of the GOP, “corporations are people.”  So it makes sense, when Right-wing politicians bow to the will of a few eccentric billionaires and their corporate interests and power, they are serving The People, right?

      As for loyalty, let’s hope that Obama’s supporters are more loyal to him and our soldiers in Afghanistan than Romney, who fueled by the contempt and intolerance on display at the GOP Convention, forgot to acknowledge the sacrifice of our troops overseas.

      What a stunning revelation of the cluelessness and absence of character of the R & R Boys as they took the national stage to make their idiotic pitch to the American people.

      • Don_B1

        Absolutely! See my response to NewtonWhale below:

        Thus the ONLY downside of Romney losing the election is that Republicans will claim that the candidate was incompetent, not that their ideas and philosophy were rejected, and they will keep trying to block everything Obama tries to do for the country. That is another reason why it would be good if a lot of down-ballot Republicans lost their seats also.

  • jim_thompson

    Tom,

    Great time at the DNC in Charlotte.  Was lucky enough to be a delegate from South Carolina.  Boston guy now in Fort Mill,SC and former Massachusetts Republican now a proud Democrat who has converted the elephant tattoo into a Roll Tide icon, got to jab Karl Rove with that!!!

    Thanks to NPR and was so thrilled to say “hey y’all” to you a couple times.  Back at work and lovin’ listening to the weekend roundup ON POINT!

    Ready to go for four more years!!!!

    Jim in Fort Mill,SC

    • TinaWrites

      Hey!  Way to go!  Congratulations to you!

  • Brandstad

    A short un-narrated documentary that looks at Obama’s first term with regards to transparency, healthcare, taxes, fairness, energy and the national debt – guaranteed to contain information of interest.

    http://youtu.be/o8R5GvwUFU8

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Okay, the combination of “Brandstad” and “documentary” are setting off all my alarms. We’re dealing with a statement whose truth likelihood is approaching 0%.

  • NewtonWhale

    America is not just electing a CEO, but a
    Commander-in-Chief.

    For decades Republicans built their house around defense and
    the military.

    Those two issues were the Republican family Jewels.

    Last week they nominated Mitt Romney, CEO and global
    financier with offshore accounts but not a single relative who served in America’s armed forces.

    In his acceptance speech, Romney never mentioned the
    War in Afghanistan or the Americans fighting and dying there.

    It was so shocking that even conservative columnist William Kristol questioned what he called Mitt Romney’s “civic propriety”.

    Politically, Romney left the back door wide open.

    This week, Barack Obama and the Democrats marched right in
    and ran off with the family jewels.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/what-war_651279.html

    • Don_B1

      Thus the ONLY downside of Romney losing the election is that Republicans will claim that the candidate was incompetent, not that their ideas and philosophy were rejected, and they will keep trying to block everything Obama tries to do for the country. That is another reason why it would be good if a lot of down-ballot Republicans lost their seats also.

    • JGC

      Obama, even as a non-veteran, has more military insight and empathy than Mittens and his five grown boy-men put together.

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    I’m not looking for a histrionic president, but Obama’s problem is that he brings a compromise to a gunfight.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001918556107 Ellen Dibble

      When in gridlock, pull out the pistols.

    • Don_B1

      I think that aspect of Obama’s presidency is over; he will still compromise if he gets a good deal, but it will not be before he gets it.

      He recognizes he is fighting for history, the country’s survival as well as his legacy.

      Watch this week’s “Need to Know” on PBS for the interchange between Jef Greenfield and Major Garrett on what would happen with a Republican Senate and Romney presidency.

  • dbo2

    The Economist supported George W. Bush in 2000, but John Kerry in 2004 (see link below):

    http://www.economist.com/node/3329802

    Dave Olnhausen
    Milwaukee, WI

  • Matt Wade

    4 more years of political gridlock is much better than 4 years of GOP dominated government. And Mitt would be able to appoint at least 2 Supreme Court Justices. These facts alone should convince any undecided voter to vote for Obama.

    Global business executives prefer a second term for Obama by 2 to 1. About 20 percent of the executives think a Romney administration would be better for the world economy. Just over 40 percent prefer a second term for President Obama. 

    http://kdhnews.com/blogs/minding_your_business/article_af2b673e-e7dc-11e1-9f50-001a4bcf6878.html 

  • Matt Wade

    From Krugman this morning, fairly astute:

    “Obama couldn’t talk about how wonderful things are, because they aren’t. Nor could he run against his own record. So he had to make the case that things will get much better if he gets a second term, while getting much worse if he doesn’t.And there’s a lot to that case. If Obama is reelected, we’ll have near-universal health coverage by 2014. That’s a very big thing. Financial reform is also important — and has already been enacted. And there’s a good chance that he’ll get to preside over an economic recovery that will validate his record, too.There’s been a chorus of disapproval from pundits who wanted … what? It wasn’t appropriate for him to replay the Clinton wonkfest. He wasn’t going to unveil major new proposals. He made the case he needed to make, and did it well.”Do we really want to reverse the little bit of progress we’ve made over the past 4 years? 

  • MrNutso

    I was glad I got see Andy Roddick play last Friday.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001918556107 Ellen Dibble

    One thing I’ve learned about Obama:  It’s fine to disagree with him; if he knows better than me, he won’t be deterred.  I wanted a car industry that builds cars about a quarter the size and speed of what we have; I don’t need to go around in the equivalent of a tank.  But he supported the old-style car companies.  However, the car companies are moving toward smaller cars.  There are other disagreements.  

    With certain other presidents (you know who), I didn’t feel I had anything like the appropriate information to take an informed stand in opposition.  In some cases, we still don’t know.  Just for example.  
    In short, I look forward to disagreeing with the president for four more years. I’ll weigh in, with all my limitations, and expect the public conversation to reach him in some form, and he can stand up to it — if not always explain it all, blow by blow. With Mitt? We don’t even have his tax returns past very recent. How hard is that? It’s probably in a digital file someplace if he happens to have misplaced them. Really.

    • Don_B1

      I see you have noticed that one big thing that happened with the auto bailout was forced resignations of the old staid leadership, replaced with people that would build cars that get better mileage and emit less carbon.

      That is BIG. And the new mileage standard will be a real big boon to the American driver who otherwise (i.e., with a repeal by Romney) would be paying double for their daily transportation bill.

      Note that that thick, acidic tar sands oil is coming at loss-leader prices; for the companies to make money, and that is what they are developing the oil to do, gasoline costs will rise well above $7/gal in today’s dollars. Think what that will do for the economy; it will be worse than any tax hike envisioned by Democrats.

      Also, Americans are at least subliminally aware of this as they are currently buying American cars mostly with high gas mileage ratings even in this weak economy.

      But also note that all the oil development will be priced at WORLD prices; if the U.S. production is more than we use at the world price, the excess will be exported, just as the Canadians expect to export the oil transported through the Keystone XL pipe and refined at Texas and Louisiana refineries. This country will gain little benefit and will suffer the environmental degradation as has already happened in the Kalamazoo River in Michigan two years ago and not cleaned up yet after spending millions of dollars.

  • Coastghost

    What salient characteristics did incumbent Charismatic-Character-in-Chief Barack Obama treat the American public to in his autobiographical tomes? Woodward’s book may indeed prove revealing. David Maraniss’s book apparently revealed too much, or we’d be hearing much more about the misrepresentations studding “Dreams from My Father” (or was Obama simply being naive or gullible concerning his Kenyan family’s lore and legend? He seems not to have exercised much in the way of critical examination in putting his own autobiography together.) 

    • Bruce94

      I’m less interested in the “salient characteristics” of Obama’s autobiographies than I am in the potentially salacious details of the would be Clueless-Chameleon-in-Chief’s tax returns. 

      Why is it that Romney, the poster boy for entrenched power & privilege, gets to play by a different set of rules from virtually every other candidate who has aspired to the highest office? 

  • notafeminista

    WSJ is reporting that Vladimir Putin finds President Obama to be “genuine.”  and that re-electing President Obama could improve relations between the US and Russia.

    ‘Nuff said.

    • MrNutso

      This makes me wonder what Putin’s motive is.  Romney said Russia is America’s number one geopolitical foe.  So is Putin talking up Obama to actually help Romney, which will allow Putin to gain a greater grip on his country?

      • notafeminista

        No.

        • Don_B1

          Are you really sure you can read Putin’s mind? If so, you have a job with the C.I.A.

    • Ray in VT

      Because the one thing that we really don’t need is better relations between Russia and the U.S.

      • notafeminista

        Putin is not “genuine.”

    • anamaria23

      Sounds good.  I will take improved relations anyday.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Putin likes flexibility from his lame duck partners.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001918556107 Ellen Dibble

      “Is reporting”?  Like today?  Wow.  Given the situation with Iran, that is awesome.  I wonder what is going on.

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    Emotional about breaking up with Obama?  What is wrong with people?  This is a clear example of what it means to be a sheep.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001918556107 Ellen Dibble

      This was such a turn-off from the Republicans.  What do they think voters are, emotional wind-up clocks?  Apparently.

      • Don_B1

        They apparently think they have entered a “Post-Truth” truthiness era where there is an etch-a-sketch in everyone’s mind that they have a reset button for.

  • madnomad554

    I’ll put this out there again. It is known that 70% of all of the jobs lost during this recession were related to the construction industry. Many economists have said that the economy will not fully recover until the housing industry fully recovers. Simply supply and demand.

    However, considering the average sized home in 1970 was 1400 sq ft and in 2010 was 2700 sq ft, it is obvious that most Americans were building or buying too much house, because ultimately they couldn’t afford them. On a side note, during that same 40 years the average sized family shrank by one person. How do you justify the doubling of home sizes and the shrinking of families.

    No president R or D, could have put all of these people back to work in four years. Especially considering all of these people were working due to mass consumption to begin with, not because of policy.

    In one breath we are told we don’t save enough and in the next breath we are told we need to spend more. I am not a puppet!! I’ll spend and save as I please.

    Regarding health care, it to is simple supply and demand. When the demand for something goes up, so does the price. Two thirds of Americans are overweight and 1/3 or obese. The overweight problem causes a slew of preventable diseases, sicknesses and illnesses. If America would simple get itself healthy, a large portion of the demand for health care would drop. Once a significant amount of demand drops, that would create competition within the healthcare industry, thus lowering the cost. We really don’t need the government to accomplish this. Get healthy America, this would reduce “preventable” illness. Thus reducing the overall size of the healthcare industry, thus reducing the cost of healthcare. 

    • notafeminista

       - Yup.  Excepting the obese issue (demand for health care started to seriously increase with the advent of HMOs – and the myth about preventive health care) – you’re on the money.    Unfortunately the Left has problems grasping what it is you describe.  You see, demand is not the cause of cost increases in healthcare.  Oh no.  Health care costs are caused by greedy insurance companies, greedy pharmaceutical companies, greedy doctors, and greedy nurses.

  • TinaWrites

    Gail Chaddock, You asked “what did Obama do for jobs when had HAD the majority”.  Why not ask “what did the supposed Job Creators do when THEY ALREADY HAD THEIR TAX BREAKS?”!!!

    • Don_B1

      Gail Chaddock should be required to read Michael Grunwald’s book, “The New New Deal” before she says or writes another word on the Obama economic record, and then read Paul Krugman’s book, “End This Depression Now.”

      Reading Michael Lewis’s book, “The Big Short” would not hurt, either!

      She does alright (or used to) in reporting what Congressional members say and do and sometimes why they might be doing it, but she has exceeded her Peter Principle position at this level of analysis.

      • TinaWrites

        Thank you for the book references!

  • Thinkin5

    In the Republican’s analogy of the boyfriend, they would be the abusive boyfriend you should never go back to after they promise they ‘won’t hit you this time’.

    • Don_B1

      That is one of the best analogies that I have seen so far.

  • Robert Dente

    Win or lose, Republicans will never feel as proud of their party and candidate as Democrats do of theirs.  Many Republican votes will be fueled by fear, hate and intolerance, but most of the Democrats’ votes will be enkindled by hope and faith in the decency of the American people.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       I heard a lot of fear, hate and intolerance at the DNC.

      What would Newt call it ….oh yeah,  pious baloney.

      • jefe68

        This is funny, you’re quoting Newt Gingrich! Talk about hypocrisy and this from a man who uses pious baloney as a steady diet.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          Newt (A Stupid Person’s Idea of What a Smart Person Sounds Like) Gingrich is the right wing’s (and much of the mainstream press’) idea of an intellectual.

          The pickings are slim over there.

          • Gregg Smith

            I love Newt!

          • DrewInGeorgia

            Good ol’ Newt, the Father of Modern Day Obstructionism. I wish he’d hurry up and establish that Lunar Colony and move there. He might actually save The Planet if he took those of his ilk with him.

      • Bruce94

        At the GOP convention I heard what Michelle Obama termed “the doors of opportunity being slammed” after the privileged and powerful pass thru them. 

        I also detected the GOP severing the social contract as re-defined and established since the New Deal.

        In addition, I witnessed this extremist iteration of the GOP turning its back on many GOP standard-bearers:

        –Abrahma Lincoln for waging war elevating human rights above States’ rights

        –Teddy Roosevelt for implementing anti-trust laws to curb the power of monopolies & corporate elites, and for founding a conservation movement to create a model for sustainable, efficient resource use & preservation

        –Dwight Eisenhower for warning of the dangers of military adventurism and for completing one of the largest infrastructure projects in our history, the interstate highway system

        –Ronald Reagan for daring to compromise with his ideological opponents by raising taxes on cigarettes, gas & phone service; by increasing the marginal rates for the bottom bracket; and by closing tax-loopholes for the wealthy after recognizing that his supply-side experiment had failed

      • Don_B1

        The hate and intolerance was ALL at the RNC. From delegates taunting CNN’s black camera operators while throwing peanuts at them, saying that’s how we feed the monkeys” to irrational outbreaks of presidential office disrespect, you could not make up a more disgusting display of human inhumanity to other humans.

        And if you feel the need to cheer that kind of activity, you don’t deserve any respect here.

        But there sure was a big lack of love from the delegates for Romney even with Ryan as his V.P. pick. Good luck with that combination.

    • mochajava13

      Sorry, but I’m voting for Obama because Ryan terrifies me.  I’m choosing because I think Obama is the lesser of two evils, not because I like his policies.

      • notafeminista

        Then you’re easily terrified.  Hyperbolic much?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/James-Patrick-Dwyer-Jr/100002088204784 James Patrick Dwyer Jr.

    Control of both houses and didn’t get much done ? Come on, you guys forget the republicans in the senate filibustered everything. If you can’t do better than conveniently forget things like that, you need to do something else for a living.

    • MrNutso

      60 is the new 51.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        And anonymous holds. Now, for some reason, there are a chunk of vacancies on the bench of the federal courts.

  • Susan Hall

    Please recall:
    http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/09/03/13641077-a-fleeting-illusory-supermajority?lite
    The Democrats did NOT have a supermajority for 2 years–it was closer to 4 months! And even then, the blue dogs were never guaranteed to vote with the caucus. People have short memories…

    • notafeminista

      Anyone remember a feature on MadTV called, “Lowered Expectations?”

  • Government_Banking_Serf

    Ron Paul’s critique of the rigged nature of the status quo, the way it works from the Central Bankers on down, resulting in Financial Crises and Imperialistic Wars, puts Warren’s surface-scratching, emotional critique without mechanistic solutions, to shame.

    • Don_B1

      I wish it were that simple, but Ron Paul’s idea of monetary theory is “severely” wrong-headed. It was mostly the REFUSAL of Alan Greenspan as Chairman of the Federal Reserve, who refused to regulate the “shadow banking” industry, exemplified by Countrywide, that allowed the fraudulent segment of the subprime mortgage market to erupt to satisfy the demands of the big investment banks for financial instruments to back the CDOs (Collateralized Debt Obligation) that they sliced and diced into tranches of various quality as blessed by the rating agencies like Morningstar and sold and resold and then used again to bet against their solvency in CDSs (Credit Default Swaps) with other financial firms. That is how A.I.G. got itself so overleveraged that it needed a big bailout after Lehman Bros. was “allowed” to file for bankruptcy and its intertangled debt instruments made every financial institution distrustful of every other one, freezing interbank lending and threatening all commerce in the world.

      Read Michael Lewis’s book, “The Big Short.”

      After all the shenanigans, the big banks had apparently bought enough legal protection through Congress that actions that are unethical in everyone’s book have been deemed not illegal. But following Ron Paul’s prescriptions will only lead to more such gambling by big money, and sending the bill for losses to the taxpayer because otherwise the taxpayer will lose much more in the financial crisis that unregulated takedown of rogue banks will cause.

      That is why Elizabeth Warren’s push for regulation is needed and the right course for this nation to preserve its future.

  • BHA_in_Vermont

    Mr. Obama’s mistake in the first two years when he could have forced things through was to try to compromise with the Republicans so MORE people would be happy with the results.

    In return he got “NO TO EVERYTHING” from the Republicans and we, the American people, got very little.  There is a reason that this Congress has the most negative rating in history BY FAR from the American people.

    In hindsight, we could have Single Payer health care today if the President knew he would get ZERO cooperation from the Republicans.

    In short, he should have pulled a GWB “I have a mandate from the people” and “I am the decider” and “My way or the highway”.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001918556107 Ellen Dibble

      Did you hear him say last night that there have been times when he’s been on his knees, knowing that he has to do what he has to do?  There is a sense of failure he said, and I’m thinking yeah, the loss of the public option was a failure, and I’m glad he was on his knees at some point, like right then.

    • Don_B1

      @facebook-100001918556107:disqus @BHA_in_Vermont:disqus 
      I do like most of what you and Ellen post, but remember how Max Baucus (D, MT) said early in 2009 that there were not enough votes in the Senate for Single Payer; in other words, there were enough Democrats, Joseph Lieberman (D/I, CT), Ben Nelson (D, NB) and probably himself just for starters that would never have voted for Single Payer (the first two were Senators from the insurance lobby). Getting Republicans to go against Mitch McConnell is betting against a sure thing.

  • Susan Hall

    Please recall:
    http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/09/03/13641077-a-fleeting-illusory-supermajority?lite
    The Democrats did NOT have a supermajority for 2 years–it was closer to 4 months! And even then, the blue dogs were never guaranteed to vote with the caucus. People have short memories…

    • MrNutso

      Romney has been repeating this lie for close to a year.

    • anamaria23

      Thank you for rebutting this oft repeated piece of misinformation.   Scott Brown went to Congress on his pledge to upset the health care vote  a little over one year into Obama term.

    • Don_B1

      Thank you! It seems I have felt I was the only one here that remembered that, or at least posted the real story.

      Gail Chaddock needs to get e-mails from all of us to more than chide her for not remembering that. Her comments at the 42 minute mark on this and another subject simply repeated the Republican false (!) talking points. But she is probably better than many so-called “balance-is-everything” MSM reporters, thought lately she has been falling down badly.

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    Perhaps Obama should get the Nobel Prize in Economics.  He’s giving speeches on that subject, now, rather than fluff like peace.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001918556107 Ellen Dibble

    The power of party money, Norquist and otherwise, is warping elections.  I looked at some of that in primary results last night, running right underneath the president’s speech.  I did hear Elizabeth Warren talking about a Constitutional amendment to give the country back to “the People” versus the “corporations” or “money,” I think she called it.  How she’d get there?  With vast amounts of 50-state activism for years and years.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001918556107 Ellen Dibble

    Besides Clinton’s outlining of Democrat record in providing opportunity for people to climb, it seems to me the reduction from the Republican plan creates an awful lot of dependence.  You can’t fire citizens who haven’t hitched their wagons to powerful corporations.  You can try to warehouse them, but I thought that was the dependence the  Republicans abhor.

  • MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

    2/3 of Republicans think we should raise taxes on the Wealthy. 75% of Dems agree. So why does the Pledge to Grover have more power than the Pledge of Allegiance?

    • Ray in VT

      It makes for good politics on the campaign trail?

    • BHA_in_Vermont

       You know, I think the one ‘flip flop’ the American people would let slide would be that pledge. Shy the Tea baggers of course who think everything comes from the sky or that people like Mitt Romney built all of the infrastructure that allowed him to ascend into the < 1%.

      How many people actually think we can save our way out of this mess while having the rich pay even less? Open kimono boys and girls. Admit you were arm twisted into signing it to prove you are a "good party member". Admit you have seen the light of "arithmetic".

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001918556107 Ellen Dibble

      Because breaking the pledge guarantees an extremely well-funded primary challenger, and your two years in office will be costly.  On your resume, it will look like a failure and a diversion.  You’ll have done a whole lot of commuting, without much to show for it.  You’ll never get a seat on a committee that allows you to do more than show up, and provide a heap of paper to shred since they don’t care what you and your constituents actually think of it.  If you want a powerful voice on the Ways and Means Committee, money bags for all your public works projects, then you will vote for the guy who has the Party and its Pledges (spoken or unspoken) behind him or her.  It’s daunting, I know.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    When I originally heard Elizabeth Warren’s comments I thought they were very risky.  Why?

    Because I envisaged the many Bank CEOs wandering the halls of the White House like they have over the last 4 years.  Not one high profile Wall Streeter even indicted by Obama.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001918556107 Ellen Dibble

      I am reading that Obama doesn’t have good business connections.  I believe it was previous chief of staff Daley saying that business is Republican, and they (business) think of Obama as a community organizer, not a man with a head for business.  (I am thinking that when I had time I spent a few years doing something like community organizing, and it was a lesson in why that has its limits; really and truly; I doubt Obama saw that as a life’s work.)  But I’m looking at which parts of his team seem in transition; I read somewhere that Geithner will go.  If John Kerry takes over for Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, then Massachusetts will have another senator to replace midstream.  Maybe that would free up Bill Clinton to do a bit more to direct the business connections he has cultivated toward an Obama White House.  Supposedly business preferred Clinton.  

      In any case, once we get past the cliffhanger the Senate and House have set up for automatic across-the-board reductions come Christmas, or more kicking the can down the road, once we get past that, the huge money that we are told is being held back will seek to invest itself.  Tax accountants will pull the money out of Switzerland and use it to build plants and jobs.  I think that is likely regardless of who is elected.  Money is waiting for the People’s decision in November, and the Congress’s action soon after.  Then they will set their course and get under way.  If Romney wins, he’ll take credit of course.  If Obama wins…

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         Obama hasn’t even met with his jobs council in 18 months.  Stunning.

        Obama is still raising big money on Wall Street but it is less than last time.

        He did have a bunch of business supporters at his convention like the CEO of Duke energy and the former CEO of COSTCO.  I wonder if he know Romney buys his shirts at Costco.

        I didn’t get any sense from Obama last night that he is willing to take the Clinton pivot.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001918556107 Ellen Dibble

          Rahm Emanuel we learn has agreed to go after some big campaign contributions.  I am wondering what the big talking points are that he thinks will extract the $$.  Someone on the news said, “Obama’s finally writing thank you notes to big donors,” as if he didn’t, before (let alone accept strings attached, never mind pledges).  I’d like to know more.  This election, moving of mountains of money seems to be a huge part of the game.  Perhaps Emanuel knows what a Clinton pivot would entail, and from outside the Oval Office has the independence to make the necessary case.  I don’t understand the corporate raider shenanigan type business model, nor the extent of rules that apply globally.  Maybe Christine Lagarde or someone like that could shed some light (wish on a star).  However, our businesspeople now may be playing on an unregulated, corrupt, and soul-less stage.  They beg for an even playing field — meaning globally, piratical (maybe).  ”When in Rome, do as the Romans do.”  Okay.  But I’m not electing a secular pope to free up a global empire for free trade.  I’m electing someone to tend to nation building at home.  And I remember how that was done.  The CostCo CEO presented that very well indeed.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            I agree we need serious nation building but it needs to start by cleaning up the bloat and corruption in DC.

            I’ve worked for a company that was purchased by private equity (not Bain) and I understand their business model.  They are not the evil ‘raiders’  like they are portrayed because it really isn’t in their interest.  They are trying to create value.

            I thought Romney was a pretty good Governor.  He leveraged the financial crisis to reform a few government agencies without major cuts in services.  He was able to balance the budget and create a surplus.  Not bad.  I think that’s what we need in DC now.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001918556107 Ellen Dibble

            Trying to create value for whom?  Do you mean profit?  The problem with the value is that you can’t outsource the detritus if they are citizens.  Consider Staples.  Here in town we had two successful office supply stores; the one I know best was owned and run by one family across generations, with deep ties to businesses locally and to the city.  Post-Staples, we have none.  Oh, we do have a Staples store, not in town but out at the malls, beyond where I can bike to and carry back what I need, and the people there could have been promoted from another city, certainly from other families than have deep, deep roots in this town.  Is the service better, the supply chain better?  That’s a complex question.

          • notafeminista

            The people without roots in a given locality need jobs too.

      • BHA_in_Vermont

        The person Obama needs to appoint Secretary of State is a sitting obstructionist Republican senator from a state that would elect a moderate to replace him/her.

        I vote for McConnell :) Though I have no idea if Kentucky would vote in a moderate. He’ll have to take that into account.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001918556107 Ellen Dibble

          LOL!   If he wins the election, he may be choosing one from the House instead, though, depending.  Boehner is just too nice, though, for instance.  Schmoozer in chief?

  • BHA_in_Vermont

     ”However, the car companies are moving toward smaller cars.  ”

    Could have something to do with the President’s requirement that MPG more than double by 2025 :)

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001918556107 Ellen Dibble

      Yes, and it’s certainly an example of the president not tooting his own horn.  Or — maybe he is avoiding the wrath of the Big Oil companies who want to sell twice as much oil in 2025 as well, short-sighted ecologically as that may be.

    • Ray in VT

      That and the reality that one doesn’t need and/or can’t afford to tool around gets 8-12mpg in some tank of an SUV at the prices that we are going to continue to pay for gas both now and in the future.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         I love my 2007 Camry Hybrid.  38mpg winter 42mpg summer.

        • Ray in VT

          I also love my little compact car.  32 or so in the winter, and low 40s in the summer.  I take the van when I have to move the whole family, but the car is far more economical.  My brother drives a big truck, but he’s a farmer.  He has a reason.  I’ve just never understood the utility of driving an SUV in many situations.  I remember the old ones that actually were for utility, but many of them now just seem to be status symbols.  If that’s what you want, and you can afford it, then fine, but I find them to just be impractical.

          For instance, I once saw a Lincoln SUV with all leather interior in Albany, NY with a cattle catcher on the front.  My former co-worker also bought his son’s very serviceable pickup off of his son, because his son caved into the pressure to have the extended cab, dual real wheeled variety that his buddies at the National Guard motor pool had.  He had the money to do it, but it didn’t make any practical sense for him.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             The auto industry are masters at selling status. 

            I do think the perception of enhanced safety drive people toward SUVs and larger cars.  Unfortunately, I think the laws of physics are on their side.  Although, you have the increased roll over risk.

          • Ray in VT

            I don’t like SUVs generally.  I grew up driving tractors and farm trucks, and they always had nice wide stances.  SUVs just feel too narrow for their height.

            I think that people also like the 4 wheel drive, and they think that they can drive at higher speeds in bad weather because of it.  I wouldn’t mind and AWD, though.  Subaru is the official unofficial car of Vermont after all.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             My daughter is going to UVM and she has my old Outback.  Yeah, I do see a lot of Subs when I visit.

          • Ray in VT

            I grew up not far from UVM, back when there were farms in Chittenden County.  I don’t mind visiting there, but I wouldn’t want to live there.  Too many people.

            There are a ton a Subees here, and they make sense.  All wheel drive for the 6-8 months of snow and mud.  I hear that they run forever, although my brother in law has had nothing but trouble with his.

        • DrewInGeorgia

          I loved my 94′ Del Sol that got 36-40 mpg, my 90′ CRX that got 52-54 mpg, and my 83′ Tercel that got 38-42 mpg. What’s your point other than to point out that you own a Hypebrid?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             I just like it — especially as gas prices increase.

            I have 80K miles and the brakes are like new.  It is fun to drive — not in a BMW way mind you — but still fun.

            It’s still just a camry.

          • DrewInGeorgia

            Didn’t mean that to come across as brutal, the whole Hypebrid Debacle just really pisses me off.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             No problem.

            btw – I’m not a hybrid worshiper nor a hater.
              Toyota did seem to get this one right.

  • jimino

    The supreme irony of this election is that the prototypical Republican voter, namely those who rely on increasing stock values, cheap money with which to speculate or undertake entrepreneurial risk, coupled with low taxes on investment and dividend income, to secure their financial situation, are indisputably better of than they were 4 years ago, yet lead the charge to oust Obama. 

    When asked if they are personally better off than they were 4 years ago, an upper income person with significant assets who could honestly answer in the negative is a true aberration.  Or a liar.

    • notafeminista

      And this assertion is based on what? 
       
       

      • jimino

         Arithmetic. 

        • notafeminista

          Provide some.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       The only three facts independent voters need to know.

      23M out of work and 46M on food stamps.

      4 years without a budget while running up $5.4T in debt

      104 five hour rounds of golf and 200+ fundraisers with the fat cats.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Oh noes, golf!

        “Now watch this drive.”

        You were more persuasive when you were pretending to care about my religious liberty by giving it away to Talibangelicals and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           I don’t like government intrusion — religious or otherwise.  I believe the GOP missed a huge opportunity in attacking Obamacare because they mostly limited their attacks to religious intrusion.

          However, Obamacare goes much further.  Unnamed, unelected government bureaucrats now are between you and your Dr.  With a waive a pen the rules can change tomorrow.

          • mochajava13

            Government bureaucrats are not coming between doctors and patients; the government is not the insurance company.  The mandate will make people buy private insurance, not go into a government program.  And people who can’t afford insurance will be able to get a waiver.

            If you’re going to complain about the mandate, then at least complain about the right thing. 

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            I can always change insurance Co’s. 

            The mandate isn’t the horrible part of Obamacare. If they had limited the mandate to catastrophic insurance to offset the hospital treatment mandate that they must cover everyone it might be palatable. No, they had 2700 pages of bureaucratic overreach.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001918556107 Ellen Dibble

            It is governments, though, that mandate that qualified insurance plans cover this and that.  Just as it is a government mandate that people can’t be turned away from the emergency room.  Governments now determine what care can be provided through your insurance.  You hear about it from your insurers, or the experts in doctors’ offices.  There will always be struggles about what to cover, with newly developed patented drugs scrambling to be part of what is broadly approved and provided, and the insured end up paying for that in their premiums willy-nilly.  Sick people are not often in a position to actively lobby the insurance regulators state by state.

          • notafeminista

            And the mandate is used to fund the subsidies provided for in the law.  The law, that was supposed to make sure everyone gets insurance, relies on people not having insurance for its funding.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Unnamed, unelected bureaucrats are between me and my doctor now. Hope you never get real sick.

            And don’t bring up that “Death Panels by any other name” crap.

            Your blind spot for intrusions of your fellow righties to my freedom from religion is pretty substantial, no matter what you claim now.

          • notafeminista

            The unnamed unelected bureaucrats to whom you refer are not government employees with the full force and credit of whatever administration with whatever whims happens to be in office. 

            Just by example, do you know Medicare will only pay for 65 miles of an ambulance transport?  No idea who came up with that rather capricious rubric, but that’s government run health care for you.

      • Call_Me_Missouri

        Or they could also know….

        Reagan & Bush Senior QUADRUPLED the debt

        Bush Junior DOUBLED the debt

        All of them Cut Taxes for the wealthy.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           Old news.

          • Call_Me_Missouri

            The debt they accrued has yet to be paid off…  So not really so old news.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Obama’s debt trumps them all.

            Notice that Clinton was the one with the capital gains tax cut — oh no — for the wealthy.

          • Call_Me_Missouri

            No it doesn’t and here’s why…  

            There was no excuse for the Reagan or Bush debts. 

            Obama’s debt was accrued while cleaning up the Republican’s mess.  AGAIN!

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             There is no excuse for no budget in 4 years while you are running up record debt.

            What is the excuse for running under continuing resolution?  Where are the priorities.

            He PROMISED to  provide a budget that cut out waste – line by line.  He NEVER did that.

          • Call_Me_Missouri

            No Excuses are needed.

            Two words…  House Republicans.

            Budgets start in the House.  So if the Budget they put into motion is wholly unacceptable, they are the only people to blame.

            If they wanted a budget that would make it to the president, they know what they have to do and they refuse to do it.

            They will not get everything they want and they will need to learn to compromise.

      • mochajava13

        Oh, no, he played golf once a month and had fundraisers once a week over the course of 4 years.  Please.  

        The Republican solution to the number of people on food stamps is to defund the program so fewer people are eligible.  

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           No, most of those were after the massive midterm loss.  Obama gave up until it was time to start campaigning last Labor Day.

      • jefe68

        Oh no, the president plays golf and does fund raising!

        The Chicken Little approach to political commenting.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           It is like Nero fiddling while Rome is burning.

      • JGC

        I wonder if President Obama enjoys golf as much as President Eisenhower did…Now there was a great patriot,  great Republican president and a pretty dedicated golfer, too, from what I recall hearing…

    • Joseph_Wisconsin

       Very astute observation.  Even more so, it is that investor class that is providing the Tsunami of funding for Romney, especially through these Super-PACs.  I look on it is just a part of their moral makeup, they can never have enough and have a contempt for giving any quarter to less fortunate or not squeezing every cent out no matter the impact on other people or harm to the country,  Who live by the motto: “Who ever dies with the most toys wins.” The rich who want to secede from the rest of the country.  http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revolt-of-the-rich/

      I guess I am an example though of someone who is better off now than four years ago, yet would not consider voting for Romney or the Republicans.  Traitor to my class? LOL.  Not that I am at all in league with the Romney’s of the world though.  I mean I started out from a poor family, managed to pay my way (in public universities well supported with tax dollars and student loans) through college and graduate school (Ph.D. In engineering) and have managed to hold a good job all my life.  Good pay and smart money management let me build up an investment account as of date in the $400,000+ range, as well as owning my home clear.  I’m almost 60 now, and so the proposed gutting of Medicare and changes to SS that Romney/Ryan would like to implement will not impact me supposedly.  Add in that I am a white male and that means that I should be as Republican as they come, maybe even in the Tea Party I suppose.

      Yet, I would not even consider voting for the Republicans of the last 10-20 years.  I live in a country of people of all classes, all range of opportunities available to them, all ranges of abilities, and all ranges of just plain luck.   I see a single mom often at a local cafe who also works a second job, works longer and harder hours making much less than I, and who would not have medical care for her family but for Medicare.  Who’s children attend public schools and who she hopes will be able to attend college with the help of financial aid, including federally guaranteed loans.  I would not mind paying more taxes than I currently do to see that she and her family have that opportunity the way I did back when.  So I am not in the “if you want to go to college or start a business borrow the money from your parents” Republican camp at all. 

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001918556107 Ellen Dibble

        I suspect there are not enough of you, in terms of success, to win an election, so the job of the Republicans is to mobilize some other elements.  But I think that mobilization effort is a one-sided tug-of-war.  Supposedly Rahm Emanuel is starting the tug from the other side, which says there are plenty of successful people who see the success of the country this century in the Democratic approach.  I’m thinking, people who are comfortable like yourself are not likely to be out on the hustings with signs, agitating; those would be the young with an eye to the future.  But I’m thinking I hope you find a way to speak to “your people” and start the bandwagon that says, “Try it this way; let’s keep the train on the tracks.”

        • Gregg Smith

          Our business is better off now than 4 years ago but only because we spent the previous 25 years building it slowly. We started with 37 acres in ’83, got 20 more in ’90. If we got a new boarder we would buy another 100 fence post. 25 more acres in ’97 and 16 in ’03. When everything went into the crapper we were paying off the last bit of debt on land. We took the risk and expanded and built an indoor riding arena. Now we have college classes, hippotherapy, clinics in addition to the scores of regular riding lessons. I’m thankful as hell that I live in America but the sacrifices have been tremendous. The gut wrenching, sleepless nights, work my ass off times were ruthless. We haven’t had a vacation in decades (literally). We live in a shack. I have holes in my shoes but I would not trade my choices for anything. We built it.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001918556107 Ellen Dibble

            That was more or less what Obama was describing too, that the American people kept at it, despite everything.  You’re an excellent example.  My own business is similar, “the gut-wrenching, sleepless nights, work-my-ass-off times were ruthless.”  But to tell you the truth, the same was true for me the couple decades before.  I consider it a responsibility to try to identify some of the factors that could be improved for those coming up.  I’m extremely lucky, although people call on the phone and offer me a free weekend in Mexico and are unbelieving when I tell them weekends don’t happen, haven’t happened for decades.  Americans deserve great long lounges upon white beaches?  Give me a break.  I have ancestors.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          Ellen, you should als remember voter suppression.

          We can’t have an honest talk about mobilizing voters without remembering who is demobilizing them.

    • Gregg Smith

      You are describing the prototypical American. Republicans have no monopoly on the dynamic you describe. And they are not better off, they’re unconfident, demonized, threatened and scared to death to invest in this climate.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Threatened, demonized? Hahahahaha. Funny, whenever I turn on the mainstream media I get the puke funnel effect of Beltway Inbreds distinctly telling us, far too often, that “both sides do (whatever bad thing someone is accused of politically)”.

        And when you say scared to death of investing in this climate, realityworld hears “Not enough consumer demand.”

        • Gregg Smith

          Let me guess, we can create demand by confiscating, printing or borrowing money and passing it out so people can buy widescreen TV’s instead of paying down debt or saving. Is that it?

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            You forgot to say “Young bucks driving their Cadillacs to the welfare office”.

            Let me put it in Saint Reagan’s words from 1976, just in case you think your side can win without its racist base:

            “She has eighty names, thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards and is collecting veteran’s benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She’s got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000.”

            Not only did Saint Ronald invent the myth of the “welfare queen” with this remark, by doing so through the image of a woman from the South Side of Chicago he explicitly made it a racial issue because the South Side is 95 percent African-American.

          • Gregg Smith

            Race was not mentioned by Reagan once. Why do you associate welfare with blacks? It’s sick.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Reagan didn’t say anyone’s race because he didn’t have to.

            Saint Ronnie invented your side’s “welfare queen” crap talking distinctly about the south side of Chicago, a place whose citizens are 95% black.

            So, more “technically true, actually bullcrap” stuff from Greggg. Quel surprise.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001918556107 Ellen Dibble

          I hear, waiting for the mandatory automatic cuts across the board that are set to come, and not knowing what a new congress will do as an alternative.  I’m scared to death too, and I’m very small fry.   Back up plan is to fall out a window, or if I’m hale and hearty, move to Samoa.  So much is “on the table,” and the only reassurance is that we’ve been through so much already, chicken little, that apparently the sky will continue to be held up by our earnest shoulders and backs.

  • rfra20

    Fake olive oil? A self-regulating industry that’s ripping off it’s customers. I am SHOCKED.

  • Call_Me_Missouri

    I haven’t looked yet… but does anyone know if it would be possible to find the text of Bill Clinton’s speech anywhere?

  • 228929292AABBB

    It amazes me that people would watch Bill Clinton wag that finger at them and use that scolding tone without laughing him off the stage.    He hasn’t even bothered to lose the affectations he used during the Monica Lewinsky lies, and people gaze at him with awe and trust.  Goes to show you, when you lose weight people are always nicer to you.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       An accused rapist, serial fondler and workplace harasser gets a prime time spot at the DNC and gets the crowd to swoon for 50 minutes.

      So much for the faux war on women.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

        Accused rapist was never went to jail nor impeach he was even voted back in office for another term. Economy was booming but after the Republican took office. then what happened?

        • Gregg Smith

          Bill Clinton was impeached in his second term. He was not re-elected under that cloud. The economy was not booming when Bush took office, it was in recession. The tech bubble burst in March of 2000. Then the center of the financial universe was annihilated on 9/11. That’s what happened. Luckily tax cuts and credits made the recession shallow.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

            Yes he was not re-elected but still became a President for the second term.

          • notafeminista

            The impeachment occurred after he was re-elected.  There was no effect for the impeachment to have on his re-election because he was term limited. 

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

            Clinton was acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999. With a two-thirds majority required for conviction (i.e., 67 senators), 50 senators (out of 100) voted guilty on the obstruction charge and 45 on the perjury charge. The Senate was 17 votes short of removing Clinton from office on the former charge in the Senate.

          • Gregg Smith

            I’m well aware of the results of his impeachment.

      • Mike_Card

        So much for content-based arguments.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

      That’s old news. I did care before and should I care now? nope. At least we had billions of Budget Surplus that again your Senile forgot. And then that budget surplus disappeared like thin air.

      tell me did you have a great life during the Clinton for 8 years? Don’t lie

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         But then the bubble popped.

        Remember who signed the repeal Glass-Steagal and that one act was the creator of too big to fail.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

          With the passage of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies “were allowed to consolidate.”
          What is merging can to do with Bubble Burst in 2007 under your President Bush.

          You can tell me that but people from other countries will still tell you that the Republicans destroyed the American middle class.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      If you weren’t so isolated, you might know that many of us like Bill Clinton because of his reaction to being hunted.

      “They came after me and I made them suffer politically.”

      The longer the hunting of the President went on, the more actual voters thought it was for shite. You could look it up.

      • Gregg Smith

        Eric Rudolf was hunted for five years before they caught him. Do you admire him? Or the Unabomber?

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          Someone else wanna explain to Greggggers the difference between literal and figurative “hunting”?

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

      At least he is a great motivator not a great destroyer of the middle class. Who cares about the personal  life of a Presdent. I didn’t CARE the majority of Americans did NOT care. he got re-elected and economy was booming. What is the arguement.

      You should complain if he screwed up while having extra marital affairs but he didn’t that’s the fact and accept it.

      • notafeminista

        Well except accidentally bombing the Chinese embassy.  Oops.

      • William

         So it is ok if the President of the USA lies to the American people?

  • LianeSperoni

    We all know that the next U.S. President won’t be able to do anything while Congress is so divided. The idea that either candidate will be able to say that he has a “mandate” and therefore Congress should step aside is unlikely given that the race is essentially tied and has been since the Spring. The New York Times called the race unusually static.

    So… what to do?

    Here’s what not to do:

    Have an ideological debate over the SIZE of the government.  That is not a recipe for success in governing. The fact is,  both parties believe in government spending. How else would we have achieved such a spectacular deficit? It has been one of the few bipartisan efforts of the political center, which Romney and Obama are both a part of.  Sure, one party may be more willing to spend on the military while another may support health care spending- but if you are having a debate over the SIZE of government, not the PURPOSE of government, then it doesn’t matter what you spend on. And the gendered overtones of this military spending v. health care spending are getting stale.

    Largely ignored by the mainstream media, (who themselves were having a debate about the SIZE of government and not merely reporting on the candidate/delegates views on the SIZE of government) was another kind of bipartisianship unrelated to deficits and nanny/pappy states- it was bipartisanship on the political fringe. A disgruntled Ron Paul supporter handed her Republican convention pass to a Code Pink protester who went on to heckle Romney over wars, including the war on women. Could it be the political fringe is actually more bipartisan than the political center? And if so, why are they being ignored by the media? Could it be the media is as caught up in the bogus SIZE wars too?

    Let us go back in time to an era in which a Republican President decided to use the power of the FEDERAL government to enact regulations that a broad swath of the public supported because it directly impacted their health and the health of their children.

    That President was Teddy Roosevelt.
    And why did Teddy Roosevelt have such a MANDATE?

    Because of a little novel set in the Obama’s hometown, written by a man not of the political center, but a man on the political fringe: Upton Sinclair.

    I think of Upton Sinclair when I have conversations with many of the Republicans I meet, who are quite numerous in my neck of the woods in Massachusetts, which despite our Blue reputation, runs pretty Purple in the central part of the state.

    I have yet to meet a Republican woman who likes that carcinogens are in the everyday products that her children come into contact with.

    And I never hear the conservative women say: BUYER BEWARE! 

    What I do hear is: Is the FDA trying to kill us slowly?

    They blame the government. Can you blame them?

    General Electric, who was granted the patent in the 1950s for the plastic that is made with Bisphenol A gave half a million dollars to the Obama campaign in 2008, and Obama appointed GE’s CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, to his economic board of advisors.

    And what do we need military spending for if we are indeed killing ourselves? Who needs enemies? And is it any wonder why our health care costs are spiraling? Look around at your friends and family. Cancer is bipartisan, so is diabetes and obesity. Did you happen to notice that many of the speeches we heard included a story of disease? Michelle Obama’s father, Ann Romney, President Obama’s mother…

    Dear President Obama,

    You are not helping your constituents out on the streets who are trying to break down the barriers of partisianship, woman-to-woman, by talking about things that really matter. And it has nothing to do with the SIZE of government. If you are ever going to be able to enact an agenda that has to do with the PURPOSE of government, then you first need bipartisanship at the grassroots. There is no trickle-down bipartisanship. The Congress is so divided because of the grassroots, no?

    Liane Speroni
    Worcester, MA

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

      Watch the documentary film “Plastic World” and know the truth.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

    A simple question for the Republican followers.

    What achievements did the Republican did with Obama for the past 4 years?

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Another straw man.

      Obama, 3 days after the inauguration, said to the GOP: “I won, you lost” get over it.  What a great start.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

        LOL!!! Republicans said we will destroy his Presidency and the famous Obama speech I inherited these problems

        • notafeminista

          Mr. Obama applied for, and was given the job he currently holds. There was no “inheritance.”

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

            inheritance is define in politics world when a former administration screwed up for 8 years and then pass that problems to the elected President.

          • notafeminista

            Interesting.  And what do you see the next applicant ‘inheriting’ from President Obama?

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

      No answers obviously there were ZERO achievements.

  • hennorama

    “Take two tax cuts … and call us in the morning.”  An apt representation of Mr. Romney’s plan.  Hilarious and accurate.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001918556107 Ellen Dibble

      Iatrogenic — that describes our fiscal problem.  I had thought that was strictly a medical term, but had my doubts since the spellchecks of the web have been putting it in red.  A physician relation of mine pointed the word out to me decades ago, as a word to savor, with mouthfeel, so to speak, from medical school.  
      But iatrogenic disease is real, and the web shows that the word appears in a financial-terms dictionaries too.  Hmm.  In medicine, it means a complication caused by medical care.  In economies, I assume it means just what Obama was describing:  dysfunction caused by the ministrations of the government, by regulation, support, or guidance, or lack thereof administered by the government.

    • William

       Obama’s “You did not build that” is the better.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

    Some major achievements of the Demcratic Party for the past 60 years.

    1. FDR signed the “Social Security Act”

    2. LBJ signed Medicare and Medicaid.

    3. Senator Carter Glass (D-VA) and Representative Henry Steagall (D-AL) with the intent of forestalling bank runs and preventing future crises.

    4. The Affordable Healthcare Act.

    5. Too bad American Job Act should have been signed.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Why are the Dems running as challengers instead of incumbents?

    No mention of Obamacare or stimulus last night.
     

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001918556107 Ellen Dibble

      Stay the course.  That’s what I heard.  I think the “surrogates” are “all over” the Obamacare and stimulus issues, with books coming out and speechifying going on. However, there was not much meat on the bones about new directions.  I suppose that’s because we don’t know what the composition of the Senate and House will be.  Actually, Obama seems to think the direction is pretty well set and will stand by it and hopes we will too.  I consider that running “as an incumbent.”

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        They know the house will be GOP and the Senate will be close to 50-50 — maybe GOP +2 or Dem +1.

        He spent a lot of time on straw men about his opposition.  He claimed the GOP are for ‘no government’.  Huh?  Romney and Ryan are not promoting no government.  In fact the ‘terrible’ Ryan budget still grows government, just at a slower rate that the current course.

        Romney has offered a 5 point plan to create 12M new jobs.  The energy component which gets us off of mideast oil by 2020  is very specific and very realistic.

        However, it was still just a speech.  I don’t think speeches make much difference.

        The biggest indictment of Obama is his lack of domestic leadership in the last 4 years.  After the failed stimulus he did very little.  He had a chance with Simpson Bowles but he made a political calculation to not lead.

        Yes, I’m not aligned with Obama’s ideology but the strongest indictment of Obama is his failed leadership.  Frankly, I’m not surprised because this is his first leadership position — ever.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

          Romney’s 12 mill jobs is laughable he can’t even create jobs in Massachusetts do you think he will do it for the entire nations. please

          • William

             Romney had 4.7 percent unemployment rate..that is pretty good.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

            is that private or government sector?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Romney improved the states position for 50th to 28th while achieving full employment (4.7%).  Not bad.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

    Some crisis that the Republican party achieve since the great depression.

    1. A Republican President during the Great Depression. Hoover

    2. A Republican President started the Vietnam war. Eisenhower

    3. Nixon the signed the HMO bill for the sake of his friend Kaiser Permanente.

    4. Reagan – you know him

    5. Father Bush of course another war

    6. The Son Bush and another war plus destroying the American middle class

    Where was GWB during the RNC. he was suppose to show his face to the American people if he a Great Job during 8 year term.

    • Brandstad

      You must have not gotten the memo.  A recent US Government study found that 1971-2011 For every 100 middle class people moving down to the lower class there were 150 middle class people that moved up to the upper rich class.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

        Upper middle class is not a move up it just a step on a very long ladder.

      • Ray in VT

        Do you have a link for that so that I may look at it myself?

      • Mike_Card

        Between 2005 and 2010, more brainless teabagger troll-bots appeared on otherwise middle of the road discussion boards than formerly flooded letters to the editor of daily newspapers.

    • William

       - Hoover used supply side fix or Keyesian?
      - JFK increased troops to 15k or IKE?
      - Ted Kennedy wrote the HMO bill Nixon signed
      - Reagan won the cold war or Carter?
      - Bush I won the Gulf War I?
      - Bush II acted on Clinton’s Iraq Liberation Act

      Al Gore missing from DNC

  • Brandstad

    Workforce participation rate for men 69.9% – lowest since 1948…

    Thank you Obama!

    • jefe68

      No, you should be thanking GW Bush, most of the hemorrhaging happened under his tenure as President.
      On Jan. 9 after the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced the U.S.
      economy lost 524,000 jobs in December and 2.6 million for 2008 as a
      whole. Himmm, you left this little tidbit out.

      I’m not happy with President Obama’s record on jobs, but there is also the fact that demand, which presidents cannot control, are also in play. You also left out the huge amount of public service jobs, police, firemen, and teachers that has been the happening, and in mostly Red states, that have added millions to the unemployment rolls. Personally I smell a rat, or lots of GOP rats.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         Blame Bush? Is that all you have?

        Let’s blame Reid and Pelosi since they were in power the last two years of Bush.

        Please.

      • notafeminista

        California, Illinois, NY…………..red states?

        What happens when an entire city declares bankruptcy……..??

    • Mike_Card

      It’s higher than in any Republican administration since Eisenhower’s 1st term.

  • Brandstad

    Did you know that in Afganistan under Obama, there have been 2X more US troop casualties in Obama’s best year than Bush had in his worst year! 

    • LianeSperoni

      Do you think it is moral to compare body counts for political gain?

      • Gregg Smith

        It is a bit unseemly, I agree. But the press pounded the Iraq casualties drum relentlessly during the Bush days. Now nothing.

        • LianeSperoni

          I suggest you don’t use the “press” (by which I think you mean mostly cable T.V. ) as your moral yardstick.

          • Gregg Smith

            I was including network TV, radio news, blogs and wire services. The BBC was all over it.

          • Ray in VT

            The war was pretty much the only game in town then.  So much of the news these days relating to the economy or the GOP primary that went on beginning in November of 2008 I think.

            I think that that is part of it.  I also think that part of it is that there are far fewer U.S. fatalities occurring in these theatres (1021 in 2007 and 251 so far this year according to the figures that I referenced above).

          • Gregg Smith

            I think it was the media doing all they could to hurt Bush and omitting all they can to help Obama. But that’s just me.

          • Ray in VT

            I am not surprised that you would hold that view, and I do disagree it.

            Perhaps the war does deserve more coverage now than it is getting, seeing as how we still have troops in harms way, but what is going on now is nothing compared to the bloodbath that was Iraq during the bad years.

          • Gregg Smith

            I just don’t think it ought to be political. If the implication is supposed to be Bush  recklessly disregarded life for no good reason then they succeeded with a lot of people. And no, I don’t want to debate Iraq but I think it was going to happen sooner or later no matter what and that the world is a better place because of it. We are also safer IMHO. It’s a lot deeper than Bush is the devil.

          • notafeminista

            Not quite – there were a few other stories in town for the weekend.

            From 2004:
            http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/july-dec04/year_review_12-27.html

            From 2005:
            http://www.azcentral.com/review/2009/news/articles/2009/12/18/20091218news05decade.html

            The other media-created President Bush debacle occurred in 2005.  Guess the war wasn’t enough for them.

          • StilllHere

            Another fox monster sighting by her no doubt.

          • notafeminista

            Why stop now?

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

      No we didn’t because it is not true.  4 years against 8 years of war I think you can do the Math.

    • Ray in VT

      Are you counting casualties as injuries or as fatalities?  The two are often conflated and I am seeking clarification.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

     A model that has been accurate in EVERY election since 1980 and this election is looking a lot like 1980.

  • LianeSperoni

    Dear Mr. President and Governor Romney:

    Can you read this letter from Upton Sinclair to Teddy Roosevelt? Aren’t you both glad we aren’t eating rat snot anymore? I sure am.

    http://blogs.archives.gov/todaysdocument/2011/03/10/march-10-upton-sinclairs-letter-to-teddy-roosevelt/

  • http://twitter.com/ThePublicBloggr Kendall F. Person

    As President, I thought Mr. Obama got the job done by using the platform more as a State of the Union Address, than a campaign speech. But I did get excited during his big finish. With the roar of the crowd behind him, it sounded a lot like ‘hope’ was here again. But how refreshing was the speech two nights before?! A new blogger’s take on Mrs. Obama’s speech is a reprieve from the normal partisan take, and as thought provoking as the speech itself. ‘Michelle Obama’s Legendary Speech Modernizes 19th Century Masterpiece’. It can be viewed at http://ifthepublicblogger.blogspot.com/  

  • hypocracy1

    Take 2 tax cuts, roll back some regulations, and call us in the morning…

    Classic!

  • Gregg Smith

    “You can choose a future where we reduce our deficit without wrecking our middle class. Independent analysis shows that my plan would cut our deficits by $4 trillion. -President Obama last night

    Anybody believe that?

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       The fact checkers are having a field day with that one just like they did with the claim that Obamacare is deficit neutral when the latest CBO score is it will cost $2.3T from 2014-2023.

      Smoke and mirrors and accounting tricks instead of real cuts.

      Notice how he said he would use the peace dividend to pay down the debt.  Even CNN was chuckling at that faux claim last night.

      • hypocracy1

        Republican talking head:  We won’t let Our campaign be dictated by Fact Checkers…

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           Change that to ‘faux’ fact checkers and I’ll take it.

          • jefe68

            Why am I not surprised by this response.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

            because you are use to it.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Just because they call themselves ‘fact checkers’ doesn’t mean they aren’t biased.  I’ve decided to actually read the fact checks and then decide for myself.

            I do want the truth out of both campaigns.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

            Well you sounded like a car going on a one way street with a republican bumper sticker on your car’s rear bumper

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             I’m not a republican.

          • jefe68

            Could have fooled me.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

      Of course we do. That his plan to save the American economy if you pursue the destruction of a President. Who do you think will suffer not Obama but the American people.

      Cooperate and put politics aside. hate is not going to help you and me. Obama has been telling us that in every speech he made since day one.

    • jefe68

      What’s your point? Some folks want to believe in what President Obama said last night.People will vote for Obama because Romney is an awful political hack and Ryan is an extremist as well as a hypocrite. Funny how Ryan has tried to hide the fact that he Ryan penned a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services to recommend a grant application for the Kenosha Community Health Center, a grant that would come out of the ACA.

      By the way, spare the bromides. 

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

        Jefe68 been waiting for your comments. please take over and i am done for the day. take care buddy

      • notafeminista

        Some people wanted to believe the President would pay their bills too.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

        • jefe68

          And your point is what exactly?
          Oh, I know there are people who do bad things or want to take advantage of others or the system. Well now, by your reasoning we should do nothing because of a few bad apples.

          It’s disgusting that while Paul Ryan was calling for the demise of ACA he was trying to quietly secure funds from it. That’s the very definition of hypocrisy.

          • notafeminista

            No let’s continue the same policies that let us make more bad apples.

            I wonder how many ACA waivers will be given out before they figure out there’s no more money?

      • Gregg Smith

        The point is, it was a lie.

    • StilllHere

      No one believes Obama.  His own party lackeys won’t vote for his budget.  He is a political hack of the worst kind and completely out of his depth.  The last 4 years of woe prove it. 

  • LianeSperoni

    I think the reason why Scott Brown has a lead over Elizabeth Warren in the Massachusetts Senate race is because Brown is running as someone who votes with Democrats, whether true or not. Warren is running as a partisan.

    I see many Brown campaign signs in voters’ yards, and I am surprised that there are no Romney-Ryan signs to keep them company.

    There may be some split tickets come November.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

      Elizabeth Warren’s job is to help the American consumer a very very powerful advocate for the middle class.

      And again the Republicans forgot the majority of Warren’s supporter are the working class. Did you see those signs on the front lawn of a rich family? i bet you did.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

        Oh I forgot what achievements did Brown achieve for 4 years in office can you please name one?
         
        Being nice can’t feed a middle class empty stomach.

        • LianeSperoni

          I am not trying to defend Brown. What I am saying s that he is building support by characterizing himself as a man who works on both sides of the aisle.

          There is way for Elizabeth Warren to do the same. Instead of being a consumer advocate on financial instruments only, she could include protections on human health in her platform.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

            The Brown political ad that i saw were driving truck around Gloucester, supported by democrats  wanna be and what else. Yes human health is important but I rather do something first with my credit card interest rates before my health totally collapse by paying my debt for the rest of my life

          • LianeSperoni

             I once had a well meaning leftie tell me my cancer was related to financial stress.

            I think that is a bunch of crap.

          • LianeSperoni

            It doesn’t have to be an either/or. She could be a consumer advocate in health as well as financially. Ralph Nader did it.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

            Sorry to hear about your cancer. Majority of Filipinos do not have financial burden like school loans or bank debt like the majority of Americans have but Warren can help the majority of American with medical bills or financial debt.

          • jefe68

            Stress can cause a lot of illnesses. Cancer is not prone partisan arguments.
            Sorry to hear about the illness, hope you have recovered.

            You now have preexisting condition however.

      • LianeSperoni

        Nope. Working class and middle class.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Go to NH — there are tons of Romney signs but almost no Obama signs — at least in the Nashua neighborhoods I drove through last week.

      • LianeSperoni

        That’s not surprising, and not worth a trip to New Hampshire.

  • Ray in VT

    Well, I didn’t see a response below to my question regarding Brandstad’s claim that “there have been 2X more US troop casualties in Obama’s best year than Bush had in his worst year!”, so I’m going to go ahead and respond here.

    I’m working on casualty as fatality numbers here, so let me state that first.  The figures that I found were that there were 904 U.S. fatalities in Iraq in 2007, which was the worst year, and there were 499 U.S. fatalities in Afghanistan in 2010, which was the worst year.  One can find these numbers here:

    http://icasualties.org/oef/
    http://www.icasualties.org/Iraq/index.aspx

    I cannot vouch for the accuracy of these figures, although I did see them cited in some news stories.  If anyone has some alternate, legitimate figures, then I am certainly open to them.  Given these numbers, I would rate Brandstad’s statement entirely false.

    • jefe68

      Of course they are false. Everything this guy posts is either a lie or twisted to be a misleading statement.
      It’s how the GOP and their supporters roll.
      During the Bush administration the Iraq war was it’s height and here’s a number that is left out. The estimate of civilian casualties from the 2003 until 2007 is over a million. That’s right over a million Iraq’s have lost their lives. The sheer gall of people like Brandstad to use war statistics to boost their sick political agenda is beyond the pale of decency. Both of these wars were not necessary and yet here we are 11 years later. This is part of the GW Bush legacy, and sad to say it will be President Obama’ as well.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

        Yes it does not matter. thank you Jefe68

        They’re blaming Obama AGAIN for the war he did not started. the casualties of war does not constitute that Obama is the man to blame for the death of civilians and American soldiers

        • notafeminista

          So by your definition…what president is?

  • William

    Truth hurts huh?

  • hennorama

    I realize that it’s a fool’s errand, but it would be quite helpful if Americans understood some basic economics.  If they did, they wouldn’t have unrealistic expectations about this economy, and they couldn’t be fooled by those who say the recovery isn’t fast enough or good enough.

    The general public does not understand that the Great Recession was a “balance sheet” recession and therefore is quite different from the typical, generally short-lived “boom and bust” recession.

    Balance sheet recessions occur generally after a so-called “asset bubble.”  When the bubble breaks, asset values decline rapidly and loans go bad.  Banks then need to restict lending, since they don’t have capital to lend.  Businesses make massive job and spending cuts, and certainly don’t hire.  Consumers don’t spend, either due to a lack of confidence (from falling asset values and lack of employment security), or from a lack of available credit.

    Overall, the private sector tends to pay down debt and add to savings, to improve their balance sheets.  This stagnation of spending and demand continues until the debt paydown ends.

    Balance sheet recession are NOT quick to recover, and the recovery is usually ”L-shaped” with low growth for an extended period.  The slow recovery  feels like a recession because growth is very slow and unemployment high.

    THIS is what we’ve been in for the past several years.

    Critics who say the recovery hasn’t been fast enough or good enough are comparing the Great Recession to the more common “boom and bust” recessions, which is an inapt comparison.

    Boom and bust recessions occur when growth is above-normal, rapid and unsustainable.  This leads to massive increases in consumer confidence, decreased savings and increased borrowing to finance spending.  All of this leads to inflation, which is easy to detect.  Central banks and governments react to the inflation, and the boom ends fairly rapidly.

    The resulting “bust” is generally short-lived as well, and the recovery is usually rapid and ”V-shaped”.

    THIS is what critics want you to expect, which is both disingenuous and unreasonable.  Don’t fall for it.

    • Guest

      Great post!

      “What about the V-Shaped recovery!!!” lemmings take note.

      • hennorama

        Thank you.

        • DrewInGeorgia

          No, thank you!

    • LianeSperoni

      There is one small oversight in your description occuring in the third paragraph.

      Banks did not need to restrict lending because they were bailed out. They were supposed to loan that money- our money- and capital was supposed to flow. Instead, they paid out gigantic bonuses.

      • StilllHere

        Where in the public sector do you work?Do you know the difference between a balance sheet and an income statement?

        • LianeSperoni

          You are right, I don’t know the difference between a balance statement and an income statement.

          Here’s what I do know: 

          I know that the banks caused the crisis by investing in complex derivatives, like credit default swaps.

          And then… Lehman failed and the banks got spooked. Everyone made a mad rush for the door and poof!

          The taxpayer stepped in with the our money to prevent a complete global meltdown.

          And the banks returned the favor by paying out substantial bonuses while telling the people who bailed them out how stupid we are because we don’t know the difference between a balance statement and an income statement.
           
           

          • modavations

            That’s incorrect.There are zillions of deritvatives out there.They are “Lady Finger” Fireworks popping off ad finitum.They cancel each other out and it’s Chump Change.
                      All this came from Carter Housing Legislation,followed by Janet Reno’s holding a gun to the head of the Boston Bank.”Make those loans,or we’ll screw with you.”

          • LianeSperoni

            The credit default swaps did not cancel each other out. I believe AIG backed these transactions and AIG failed right after Lehman.

          • StilllHere

            Wrong, way too simplistic.

      • hennorama

        While I was describing balance sheet recessions in general, not the Great Recession in particular, I do understand your comment and your outrage.

        Overall banks did indeed receive massive Federal loans and other support during the bailout.  About $245 billion was disbursed, and over $265 billion  has been recouped to date.

        You also need to remember that many banks failed completely during this period, and that the banking sector overall was in almost total collapse.  25 banks with assets of $373 billion failed in 2008, followed by another 140 banks in 2009, with $163 billion in assets.

        It’s no great surprise that bankers, regardless of the source of their capital, were reluctant to lend in this environment of falling asset values and chaotic conditions.

        • LianeSperoni

          As a taxpayer, I was reluctant to lend to the banks.

          I am not sure why you don’t understand my original comment. Perhaps you are too smart for your own good.
           
           

          • notafeminista

            Reluctant to lend to the banks, yet throwing good money after bad at the auto industry.

          • LianeSperoni

            I was reluctant to lend to the auto industry too, except that it did save many jobs… the banks however caused more job losses when they gave out bonuses instead of lending.

          • notafeminista

            Nope, those jobs were already gone.

          • hennorama

            I did and do understand your original comment and your outrage, as I said in my reply.

            As it is Friday afternoon, I choose to not engage with you further, and prefer to simply say “Have a great weekend!”

        • LianeSperoni

          And now the mutual fund industry has decided that our backing them up after the collapse of Lehman to the tune of 3 trillion doesn’t mean that they might have to abide by a little regulation.

          http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/business/sorting-out-the-collapse-of-new-rules-for-money-market-funds.html?pagewanted=all

          Hey Tom, how about a show on this?

    • William

       Did we recover more quickly after the recession in 1918-20 than now?

      • StilllHere

        Excellent point. This question needs to be answered by henno and all the closet Keynesians.

      • hennorama

        Yes, let us compare the Great Recession to yet another (really another TWO) recessions that were not balance sheet recessions.

        Yes, everyone remembers THOSE recessions from nearly 100 years ago, that happened after a WORLD WAR and only 5 to 7 years after the start of the Federal Reserve.

        Yes, those were EXACTLY the same as the Great Depression.

        Yes, THAT’S what critics mean when they say this recovery is too slow or not good enough. “Remember 1918!” Yes, exactly.

        • William

           There is a lot of debate which route to recover out of a recession. Harding was not in favor any wild experiments like FDR. Coolidge seemed to follow the same path. It appears the gov. and the fed did the opposite of what we did in this latest recession. Since they were more successful it is better to study their recovery methods rather than FDR who only made the depression the Great Depression. And now Obama who seems to favor FDR style recovery.

    • Gregg Smith

      But wasn’t the Clinton recession essentially an “Asset bubble” bursting? The tech bubble was huge and created a ton of wealth only to come crashing down on March 10, 2000. All the indicators had some pretty steep drops. It was short-lived (despite 9/11 too) and most credit the tax cuts. 

      I don’t know about booms, bust and balance sheets. This is what happens when there is no rudder. Government is so dysfunctional they had to cut a deal to avoid addressing the debt limit (for a few minutes) and cede their souls to a committee with an out. Of coarse the committee took the out and now Jan. 1 all hell is going to break loose. They can’t even get a budget through. We have credit with demerits and our creditors are nervous. The Fed just said Q3 is coming. Energy policy is killing us. Obamacare is killing us. Regulations are killing us. There is not a shred of confidence anywhere. It’s a mess.

      It did not and does not have to be this bad. 

      • hennorama

        Yes, the Dot Com bubble was an asset bubble, but the damage was limited principally to the NASDAQ stocks, and most importantly, did not spread to the banks.  It was far different mainly for that reason.

        The main point I was making is that understanding that the Great Recession is indeed different than most recessions, especially recent recessions, is important in understanding that recovery is not and will not be rapid and brisk, but is and will be rather drawn-out and weak.

        So don’t fall for the “it should be better by now, any idiot could have made it better than Obama has already” argument.

        It’s gonna be drawn-out and weak regardless of who is in the White House.  There is no magic bullet.

        Practically everything has already been tried.  Some things worked very well, some worked pretty well, and some did not work at all.

        Fortunately for everyone, the crisis and collapse were stopped, and both economic and employment growth have resumed, albeit weakly.

        The Fed has pretty much exhausted all of its options, lowering interest rates to practically zero and buying up massive amounts of long-term Federal debt and bonds issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  QE III may be coming soon.  But really, monetary policy is pretty much exhausted.

        Fiscal policy options have been tried as well.  Taxes were cut repeatedly, and there was some stimulus spending for infrastructure, job creation, aid to the states, and other stuff.

        All of this worked to stave off a collapse, but the recovery remains slow, mainly due to the nature of and the size of the initial problem.

        The current situation finds us with private sector spending by individuals and businesses restrained, and state and municipal spending cratering.  This pretty much leaves the Federal government as the last option to provide economic stimulus.

        It doesn’t seem like we can get much here, because Federal deficit spending has been demonized by Republicans, who also have recently gotten religion about the Federal debt.  And taxes are already super-low as a percentage of GDP, so there’s not much that can been done there.

        All this adds up to a slow, incremental recovery as individuals and businesses pay down debt and add to savings.  It will end eventually, but not anytime soon.

        Again, this is regardless of who is in the White House.

        • Gregg Smith

          I appreciate the thoughtful reply but with all due respect it sounds like excuse making to me. The thing is candidate Obama told us otherwise. As bad as TARP was implemented (by both Bush and Obama) I believe it largely worked. But the “Stimulus” didn’t. He said it would. Unemployment should be at 5ish% by his numbers. Now he is saying it was worse that he thought but in 2008 he was saying it was worse than it was. It doesn’t make sense. Obamacare was supposed to help matters but it has been devastating to small business.

          If you don’t answer anything else please riddle me this: Why didn’t Obama even mention Obamacare and the “Stimulus” in his speech. They are nothing to be proud of.

          If Romney is elected and Obamacare is repealed, spending is cut and the Bush tax cuts are made permanent just watch how fast things improve.

          • hennorama

            Thank you for the words of respect and appreciation.  They are too rare these days, especially in forums such as this. Backatcha.

            Yes, TARP worked, but the stimulus worked, too.  We went from the worst of it in Q4 of 2008, when GDP was dropping at a -8.9% rate, followed by GDP declining at a – 5.3% rate in Q1 of 2009.  Then the stimulus passed and started to go into effect.  By the end of Q4 2009, GDP was growing at a 4.0% clip.

            So the rate changed by almost 13 points in a year, and nearly 9 points in the 9 months following the start of the ARRA (Stimulus bill).  While not all of this can be attributed to the ARRA, since the Fed was proving massive help, it’s undeniable that the stimulus had a major, rapid effect.  This was an amazingly large and rapid change.

            Unfortunately, employment hasn’t done nearly as well, as I’ve described multiple times before.

            I think we were very lucky overall that the actions taken worked as well as they did and prevented a second Great Depression.  We were pretty darn close there for a good while, as I’m sure you recall.

            As I have also said, I don’t think there’s going to be much difference in the recovery regardless of who is in the White House.  It’s gonna be drawn out with only incremental improvement.

            Kinda like making barbeque – low and slow. Hmmm .. maybe we should coin a new term – “The Great BBQ Recovery.” Probably not, right?

            And I also believe that NO ONE could have been elected President in 2008 if they had spoken the complete truth about recovery prospects after the Great Recession.  And definitely not John “the fundamentals of our economy are strong” McCain.

  • LianeSperoni

    I have a fun bipartisan question for you all:

    If we do enact a personhood amendment that grants rights to the unborn… does that then mean that the fetuses that are exposed to endocrine disrupting chemicals in the womb can make a claim against the chemical companies that are poisoning them?

    And actually isn’t poisoning a criminal matter?

    • DrewInGeorgia

      Not if you’re one of those ‘persons’ who have all of the rights but none of the responsibilities.

    • notafeminista

      Yup – see Scot Peterson…convicted of two crimes.

      • Mike_Card

        There you have it!  Scot Peterson wins the day and rules all discussions of the origin of life.  Who knew it would be so simple?

        • notafeminista

          Two lives or one Mr. Card – which is it?

    • Gregg Smith

      No, I don’t see a big slippery slope. IMHO we need to play God (Buddha, Allah, Jahweh, Mother Nature, Karma, etc.) and decide at what point life has a right to be born. We already do that tacitly by charging the killers of pregnant women with two murders in some states at varying gestations. My view is that point should be somewhere in the 2nd trimester. I think most people can accept abortions (if they are not funded with taxpayer money) in the first trimester. I also think most people fing 3rd trimester partial-birth abortions unacceptable. 

      It may get a bit dicey but it’s the honest approach. Agreeing that it is a life is the first step. Something new and separate is created at conception, it’s alive. I don’t see how that can be denied in an honest way. However, the fear of the slippery slope is so great that we’re stuck with positions that don’t make sense.

      I say make the case. “It’s acceptable to take a life in the 3rd trimester“. “A fetus cannot sue”. Define “person”. 

      But it’s all moot. I don’t see Roe V Wade going anywhere nor do I see a chance in hell of a Constitutional Amendment. 

      • LianeSperoni

        I did not use the term slippery slope. If we do charge chemical companies with criminality for poisoning fetuses, I think that would be a positive step.

        That you would think to use the term slippery slope would indicate how little value you place on human life.

        • Gregg Smith

          I did not say you used that term,it was mine. I did not take a position on the chemical scenario, I’d probably agree with you. You brought up the personhood amendment granting rights. The outrage over it is because of fear those rights would be the same in every way as a live birth. The debate has included all kinds of reductio ad absurdum arguments. The slippery slope.

          I gave you my honest opinion, why are you so contentious? I take it you are pro-life by your last sentence, I’m pro-choice but I am very much limited in that view. 

  • http://freeourfreemarkets.org/ Steve Banicki

    Last night gave me cause to think about two phrases that Albert Eisenstein was fond of. One of them was what he said and the other hung on his wall at Princeton.
    “Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.” (Sign hanging in Einstein’s office at Princeton)

    “Imagination is more important than knowledge.”
    The above two quotes sum up my feelings why I will be voting for Obama. Obama is like Steve jobs. While Steve Jobs was turning Apple into a success story, there were thousands of people who knew the workings of computer technology better than he did; however, no one better understood what the consumer (citizen) needed.  http://www.freeourfreemarkets.org/2012/09/obama-deserves-to-win.html#more

    • Gregg Smith

      I love the quotes as well as the Macbook Pro I’m replying with. I love my old G5/protools setup in my studio. I had a great night last night using my imagination, I’ll even be paid if the good Lord’s willing and the creeks don’t rise… and my project is accepted. It’s plum amazing what I can do by myself in my studio with Steve Jobs help. I have a little blue tooth keyboard that I can sit on my Hammond on the other side of the room. I can operate the controls and do as many takes as I want. It’s cool. It works. Obama’s policies, not so much.

      It all came from the private sector and the prize was unfathomable wealth. Steve Jobs positively affected millions of peoples lives through success in the private sector. He paid gazillions in taxes for his Country. Understanding the consumer is understanding the Private sector and Obama has no experience in it. Obama is no Steve Jobs. Romney’s closer.

      • hypocracy1

        Make me a millionare at birth and I’m pretty sure I could flip it into a cool 250mil..

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           Sure you could.

           Romney is self made.  He donated his  inheritance to charity.

          • Mike_Card

            Many people do not accept “natural-born offspring” as charities.

          • bfryer

            To the Mormon church, and its holy underwear. I’m not sure that qualifies. 

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Your comment qualifies as bigotry.

      • http://freeourfreemarkets.org/ Steve Banicki

        I will take Obama’s feel for what is needed any day over Romney. Then I would hire Romney to run it.

      • http://freeourfreemarkets.org/ Steve Banicki

        I would even provide Romney with a green eye shade to make him feel more at home.

      • http://freeourfreemarkets.org/ Steve Banicki

        Apple would not exist if the government did not invest the dollars to invent the internet.

        • Gregg Smith

          I did not use the internet last night, but it’s cool. I like it well enough..

      • jefe68

        Apple would have failed had not there been infrastructure, police, firemen, and well educated designers, engineers and on and on.
        You would want Steve jobs to run the country?
        Man you know little of what you are speaking about. He would be the last person I would ever want near the White House. What is it with this idea that running a government is like running a busniess? It’s not and you can’t fire citizens.

        Oh and if those creeks do rise and flood you out, I bet you’ll be in line for government help.

        • Gregg Smith

          It was Mr. Banicki who wrote he would wanted someone like Steve Jobs. I get his point.

          Jobs was definitely graced to be an American. I don’t dispute that. But it’s not what government does, it’s what it does not do. It’s the freedoms it represents. Infrastructure is fine. And you can bet during his lifetime Jobs paid for plenty of it. Certainly more than you and I. Plus we get Macbooks! What’s not to like?

          I think it’s more of a stretch to think Obama could have gotten Bin Laden without Bush policy than it is to think Jobs could not have made Apple without trillion dollar deficits.

    • OnPointComments

      I like this quote attributed to Einstein:
       Insanity:  doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
       We’ve got the results from President Obama’s first term, and like Einstein, I don’t think another term will produce different results.

      • bfryer

        we also got 8 years of Bushonomics. We know how that worked out. And Romneynomics would make Bushonomics look generous. 

  • Mouse_2012

    Anyone catch the Daily show last night?

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-6-2012/hope-and-change-2—democratic-platform-amendments 

    Jon Stewart makes fun of the DNC Party elites ramming the vote threw when it clearly wasn’t 2/3. On top the teleprompter already decided the vote was 2/3rd 

    2:43 in

    • Mouse_2012

      “No means no it’s done let it go”

  • Mouse_2012

    Passing of the motion was pre-scripted 

  • jason keedy

    I was very impressed by President Obama’s speech. Speaking as the sitting president, he couldn’t make a lot vague promises like Romney did. He laid out what direction he was taking the country and nailed home the fact that Republicans are presently ideologically opposed to the America that we’ve grown to love and be inspired from. I loved that he mentioned FDR…funny that Paul Ryan thinks that he (FDR) made the depression worse….

    The key word that I’ll take from the speech was “citizenship.”

    • LianeSperoni

      FDR might not have made the depression worse but he certainly made some Japanese Americans wonder what their citizenship was worth.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

        FDR made the depression worst? oh well can argue another hour for that. blame the man that couldn’t even walk thank god he wasn’t black.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

          wasn’t means the more you going to blame him for the great depression. My greek great grandfather was here he even wanted to choke JP Morgan for causing a panic a prelude to the great depression.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

        The Japanese bomb pearl harbor and America lost 5,000 sailors,pilots and soldiers with the help of Japanese citizens in Hawaii (spies). The Germans or Italian never bomb United States probably that’s why FDR never put them in jails.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

          my bad again i meant 3,000 sorry I am little off with my numbers today.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

      One thing that made difference between GOP and the NDC was that Democrats speeches were coming from the heart not from the mind.

      • DrewInGeorgia

        Not from the mind, from the wallet.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

          I didn’t see any wallet talking to an empty chair.

        • notafeminista

          No he was right the first time.  The Left uses emtional appeal.

          • jefe68

            And the right uses fear and malice.

          • notafeminista

            If you can hear the whistle, you’re the dog.

    • notafeminista

      Not so funny. FDR’s own Secretary of the Treasury thought the same thing.

      • jimino

        Isn’t that the rich guy who said about taxing the wealthy:

        “We have never begun to tax the people in this country the way they
        should be….. I don’t pay what I should. People in my class don’t.
        People who have it should pay.”

        • notafeminista

          It was the rich guy (who said to the other rich guy) “we’re spending more than ever and it’s not helping.”

      • Mike_Card

        If that’s how you feel about it, vote for FDR’s Secretary of the Treasury.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Obama is no FDR despite his narcissistic reference last night.

      Where is Obama’s Hoover Dam or TVA despite have much more deficit spending than FDR ever had?

      Instead we got Solyndra — money down the toilet.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         Oh and a few weeks ago Obama was comparing himself to Lincoln.

        The joke on Obama is he doesn’t even have the chops to deserve a comparison to Carter.

      • hennorama

        Again with the “Where is Obama’s Hoover Dam?” Now you add a TVA references?  Why do you continue to use these asinine and inapt references?

        First of all, the Hoover Dam was approved BEFORE the Great Depression and took nearly 5 YEARS to complete, nearly 6 1/2 years AFTER the Great Depression started.

        Secondly, the TVA was established 3 1/2 years after the Great Depression began, with the construction of the first dam starting about 6 months later.

        I guess what you’re saying is that Pres. Obama should have used a time machine to travel back to 2007, BEFORE the Great Recession, before he was ever elected or inaugurated, somehow convinced Congress and Bush II to authorize a HUGE construction project, which would then only be completed in 2014 or 2015?

        Time to pick some new references.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

          You are the man!!!

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           We defeated the Nazis and Japanese in 3.5 years yet we can’t approve a pipeline that will create jobs and cheap energy and won’t cost the taxpayers a dime in 4 years.

          • DrewInGeorgia

            We also put people in internment camps, spoon fed weapons and resources to brutal dictators, and played god for the majority of our run. Did I leave anything out? Oh yeah, land grabs to get the ball rolling that basically amounted to attempted Genocide. What does that have to do with the price of Common Sense in Worried Land?

            Won’t cost the taxpayers a dime? What are you smoking? You think the artificially deflated gas prices the past few decades haven’t cost the taxpayers a dime? The only thing you’re worried about is continuing to have everything your way while the generation around the bend foots the bill.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            …thanks for the input, “Someone who doesn’t have to wake up with that slurry of toxic crap in their aquifier”.

          • sickofthechit

            What of the cost to the environment of the dirtiest source of carbon fuel known to man?

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           Very weak attack.  The exact timeline is irrelevant.  It is about taxpayer money (or in this case borrowed money) being spent wisely with ROI.

          I checked Joe Biden’s website which tracks jobs created with stimulus dollars.  There is nothing of lasting value.  A few roads projects that were already scheduled.

          I’m looking for ROI instead of digging and filling ditches.  It is a measure of competence.

          • hennorama

            Yes, facts are irrelevant, I get it.

            By the way, here’s some fun info for you to chew on: (per Michael Grunwald of Time)

            Max. generating capacity of Hoover Dam:  2.08 Gigawaits (GW)

            Added windpower capacity under Obama: 25 GW (yes, 12 Hoover Dams worth)
            Added solar under Obama: over 4 GW (another 2 Hoover Dam’s worth)

            And:


            The stimulus has financed the world’s largest wind farm, a half-dozen of the world’s largest solar farms, the nation’s first refineries for advanced biofuels, a new battery industry for electric vehicles, unprecedented investments in cleaner coal and a smarter electric grid and over 15,000 additional clean-energy projects.Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/10/a-new-wind-blowing-obamas-clean-energy-revolution/#ixzz25qomVrAa

          • JGC

            That’s pretty cool. Thanks for that link.

      • jefe68

        Are you really this void of knowledge of history?
        FDR had a lot of failures. The Solyndra thing is a failure, but it’s nothing compared to million and billions wasted on contracts and crony deals that the Bush administration were party to in Iraq.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           Bush is gone and isn’t running.
          Obama ran against Bush in 2008.

          The recession ended 6 months into Obama term in 2009.  This is now Obama’s economy.

           Try again.

      • Jim Rubin

        Worriedforthecountry says he’s worried about the country, but I do not believe he/she is. All that needs to be done is to have the republican controlled house repeal their sworn statement to “not raise taxes” and you will pass the jobs act bill. When you have politicians worry more about “their jobs and not being re-elected than they do about getting their country” moving forward they should not be elected or re-elected.
        Once people are working again the deficit will go down with the influx of tax money. I like Clinton’s saying of do the arithmatic. How can you lower the deficit by lowering taxes?

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           The house has sent no less than 32 jobs bills to the Senate.  Harry Reid (I’m certain under orders from Obama and Axelrod) will not allow a vote on any of them.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Everything with the word “jobs” in it != “jobs bill”. Try again.

        • DrewInGeorgia

          “Worriedforthecountry says he’s worried about the country, but I do not believe he/she is.”

          You catch on quick.

      • Mike_Card

        Again with the Solyndra!  As long as we’re talking money down the crapper, let’s drag Iraq and Afghanistan into this content-free shout fest.

      • neurohazard

        Didn’t someone already destroy this argument of yours a few forums back? Yet here it is again!

        And that’s the problem with this forum setup. Anyone is free to just repost the same nonsense the next day free from all the previous rebuttals.

      • neurohazard

        BTW, it would be nice if you actually cited credible sources for your claims. Leaving aside inflation… the economy, therefore government spending is a teeny-weenie bit larger than it was in 1932. So your numbers are meaningless despite your intense belief they are devestating.
         
         

    • JONBOSTON

      Today’s jobs report was pathetic. Don’t any of you ever begin to question the policies and programs promoted by Obama and wonder if a course correction would be necessary? Does the thought ever enter your head that Obama could be wrong? That just about every program he’s pushed has been an abject failure?

      • neurohazard

        If your far right wing ideas work so well… where is that revenue boom Bush promised? Where is that debt paydown Bush promised in 2000? What was the state of the banking, housing, and automotive sectors in fall 2008? What was happening to jobs in fall 2008? 

        Please… Obama might not be cleaning up the mess YOUR ideas caused…. but it’d be nice if at least ONE of those old GOP True Believers FINALLY confessed their ideas don’t work… but the continued belief in failed ideas is just crazytown.  

        Anyone want to be first?  

        Didn’t think so.

      • sickofthechit

         Millions of jobs will magically appear once the election is decided because the nearly $3 trillion that the haves, the have mores, and the corporations are sitting on will not be able to be held back any longer.  They are playing the waiting game in hopes of the lackluster job picture being enough to oust President Obama.

    • William

       Ignoring the past and pushing forward is not a good plan. He plans on doing more of the same which means more failure. We can’t keep following the same failed ideas that have only made our economic situation much worse.

  • Michael Bristol

    We’re back in an age of robber barons.
    It means much more for them and much less for the rest.
    30 years of legislation, from both the Democrats and Republicans, has led and has followed an unbalanced division of
    US profit and wealth. The contest for the White House is a pr job,
    it’s bought and paid for.

  • emily_s_22

    Tom–I just wanted to let you know that I tuned into listen to your interviews with Republican Delegates last week. It was the best hour of my time spent EVER listening about politics on radio. You asked tough questions, demanded straight answers, and truly kept things “on point”. Too often, announcers allow politicians to say sound-bite-ish things. But you were different. You truly gave us listeners a great experience. Thanks

  • William

     Actually, the best campaign slogan is
    “You did not build that”.

  • Mike_Card

    Good.  Vote for Romney and STFU.  You’re cluttering the discussion.
     

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550427523 Akilez Stamatelaky

    If the Republican wants jobs!!!! pass the American Job Act it is almost a year and the American people are still waiting.

    • William

      Talk to Senator Reid since he is the Senate Majority Leader and can bring it up for a vote anytime he desires. But, then again, he did not want to bring it up for a vote last Sept. so you might have to wait.

  • marchborn

    In his speech, Obama was optimistic about creating jobs to help fix the infrastructure; exploring alternative energy to help create jobs; making health care affordable for everyone. That’s what I heard!

    • Gregg Smith

      That was 2008.

    • JONBOSTON

      I thought the $1trillion stimulus was supposed fix the infrastructure; that investing in solar energy companies like Solyndra would create alternative energy jobs, and that Obamacare would make care affordable. So what went wrong and what would be any different in the future? 

      Do you seriously believe the crap that comes out of Obama’s mouth? 

      • hennorama

        The ARRA (the 2009 stimulus) was for $787 billion, as follows:
         
        - $288 billion for tax cuts
        - $224 billion for unemployment benefits, education and health care
        - $275 billion for job creation using federal contracts, grants and loans
         
        Of the $275 B, about $52 B was for transportation, mass transit and water projects.  This amount is about 2/3 of the US DOT’s upcoming budget, so it’s hardly enough to “fix the infrastructure.”
         
        If we actually addressed the $2 TRILLION of needed infrastructure, there would be no more unemployed construction workers.  Of course, no one is willing to foor THAT bill.
         
        I agree that the jobs creation record is nowhere near what was anticipated.  The Solyndra situation was also unfortunate, and the political connections do indeed stink.  But even with that entire loss, less than 4% of the total of the loans guaranteed by the DOE have defaulted.  This is about 1/3 of the anticipated defaults.  And the reason Solyndra went bust – massively lower solar panel prices – is GOOD for the overall economy.
         
        One thing I find odd about the whole debate over the ACA (“Obamacare”) is that it’s mainly about health INSURANCE, and not health care.  I think one of its major achievements is the Patients Bill Of Rights.  Anyway … the rate of increase of health costs has declined a good deal, but that can’t be attributed to Obamacare, since most of its provisions haven’t kicked in yet.

      • neurohazard

        OK, the Stimulus was too small to reverse the damage the GOP did to the economy.

        Feel free to blame the Dems. I’ll join you. They can be idiots.

        But seriously, THAT’S your defense of right wing ideas we KNOW destroyed the economy?

        THAT’S your defense to do it all over again?

        As Spock would say when confronted by an alien creature whose actions are incomprehensible to us humans: “Fascinating!”

        • William

           GOP damage to economy? You mean the housing disaster via the federal housing agencies? Or the attempt by Bush to fix it? Or the overspending by the federal government which both parties enjoyed?

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        “1$ Trillion”.

        Nice to know I can stop reading at the start of your post and not miss anything.

  • olderworker

    Thank you, Jack Beatty, for your positive words about Obama and about the Democratic convention in general. I listened to both conventions on NPR, and my impression was that the Republicans just spent a lot of time booing everything, while the Democrats applauded. 

    • StilllHere

      You weren’t listening, you were just hearing what you wanted to.

      • olderworker

        Not sure what you’re referring to; do you think I misheard  Jack Beatty? Or didn’t correctly hear the speeches at the DNC?

  • Lewis Liu

    So I keep hearing two soundbites from the people on the show. First: this idea of the “faded Obama poster” and second: why didn’t Obama accomplish anything in the first two years?

    To address the first: Ryan is absolutely correct that many of us college students are thoroughly disappointed in Obama’s presidency. However the reason we’re disappointed is because he failed to deliver on many of his more left promises. We feel that he hasn’t gone FAR ENOUGH in progressiveness and establishing more liberal policy. Why then would we vote for a party that goes against everything we believe in? What kind of mental gymnastics does one have to pull to think that “Oh, Obama didn’t do what we wanted him to do so the Republicans (who have a completely different political philosophy) will therefore represent us?!” That’s absurd! For all the ways I’m disappointed with the Obama administration there isn’t enough disappointment in the world that would make me turn around and vote for the Republican ticket.

    To address the second bit: the reason Obama failed to accomplish anything with legislation in the first two years is because he did exactly what he promised to do. He tried to work across the isle. The Republicans of course stonewalled all of his efforts and then proceeded to blame the fact that nothing was done on Obama. We elected him to try to work across the isle and yet here we are complaining that he didn’t force things through congress when he could have? You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

    • JONBOSTON

      Complete and utter delusion. If you’re a recent college grad, your degree couldn’t possibly be in logic . Obama reaching across the aisle is a complete lie. With a filibuster-proof senate and control of the House , he made no effort to compromise with Republicans. And he even said as much to Behner –’I WON AND ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES”. 

      • Lewis Liu

        “he made no effort to compromise with Republicans.”

        Really? Because that entire Obama-care debacle was one gigantic compromise. The watered down garbage that passed congress was nowhere near the change that we called for and yet Republicans have the gall to call it “socialized medicine”. Please. Give me a break. It’s one of the many disappointments from his presidency. He also extended the Bush era tax cuts for the rich despite the left telling him not to do so.

        By the way, character attacks and condescension don’t make for good arguments.

        • Gregg Smith

          That may be true but it was because Democrats did not support him. He had the majorities. The only compromising going on was with Democrats. 

          • Lewis Liu

            Well just because they were “democrats” doesn’t mean that they were left leaning. He compromised with people with extremely similar political philosophies as the Right. The so called “blue dog” Democrats. Looking at it this way, yes he did have “majority”, but he didn’t actually have a majority did he? A politician’s voting record is the only true indication of their loyalties, regardless of which party they claim to be a part of.

          • Gregg Smith

            Just don’t blame Republicans, that’s all.

          • Lewis Liu

             I see your point, but it’s still not entirely Obama’s fault that he couldn’t pass legislation though is it?

            People have such a weak understanding of how our government works. All the failures of the legislative branch end up piled onto the President. The people that need to get fired are sitting in their congressional seats. Too busy bickering over party lines to give a damn about representing their constituents.

          • neurohazard

            Such are the games partisans play. Revenue bills might have to originate in the House. But Newt in 95 was powerless to end the Clinton tax hikes.
            It didn’t matter. The Orwellian Right gave Newt credit for the Clinton Surplus even if he opposed those new revenues that made the surplus possible.
             

            There’s nothing sweeter to a political propagandist than to have it both ways… and have it believed.  

          • Gregg Smith

            The tax hikes were in 93 not 95. Newt took over in 94. Balanced budgets, welfare reform and capital gains cuts ensued. that along with the tech bubble in peacetime is what caused the surplus. Not the tax hikes.

          • Gregg Smith

            A little leadership goes a long way.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           The process Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid used to shepard through Obamacare prevented the inclusion of any GOP ideas or amendments.  Obama could have mediated that process with his leadership and political capital but instead ignored it because he thought he had the votes.

          A partisan law that takes over 17% of the economy at a 10 year cost of $2.3T (per the latest CBO estimate) is no way to pass major legislation.

          That is one of the reasons 60+% of the country are against Obamacare.

          • neurohazard

            Worried said: “A partisan law that takes over 17% of the economy at a 10 year cost of $2.3T (per the latest CBO estimate) is no way to pass major legislation.”

            So if you oppose the Dems passing ObamaCare, then you must surely object to the GOP’s rush to pass tax cuts in 2001 using reconciliation knowing it would sabotage debt paydown and lose the government perhaps trillions in revenue. Right?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Yes I was against the tax cuts without matching spending cuts.

            However it is clear now tax simplification a la Ryan and Simpson Bowles is the way to go.

          • sickofthechit

             Ryan was against Simpson Bowles and actually resigned from the committee. Pay attention.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Pay attention.
            Ryan clearly stated he didn’t support it because it didn’t include health care entitlement reform.

              Ryan took the good parts of Simpson-Bowles and put forward a detailed budget plan based on it AND added health care reform — our largest debt driver.

            This is a stark difference from Obama who simply punted.

        • JONBOSTON

          The reason Obamacare didn’t have a single payer program like so many on the left wanted was because the Democrats in Congress wouldn’t support it. Obama didn’t need Republican support and didn’t solicit it. For the same reason , due to lack of Democratic support especially in the Senate, Cap and Trade wasn’t passed ; Guantanamo was not closed; card check was never introduced in Congress;and Khali Sheik Mohammed wasn’t tried in NYC.

          If I get frustrated with some of the left bloggers is that they resort to all these myths that get repeated enough that people begin to believe the nonsense. It’s almost like they live in an alternate universe.

          • sickofthechit

             At least its not a FAUX News Universe!

          • JONBOSTON

            intelligent reply

          • sickofthechit

             Thank you, in case you didn’t realize it my comment was aimed at the people on the right who originated the behavioral mantra “if we tell a lie enough times with a straight enough face we just might be able to fool enough of the people to get back in charge.” If you can’t see the parallels between repubs disastrous policies in 2001 and now it is perhaps hopeless.  More than $11 trillion of our $17 trillion debt is directly traceable to repub congress and presidents.  We can’t afford anymore republican control in this country. period.

      • anamaria23

        Would you explain exactly what the Repubs wanted in the health care act that is or is not there?  They had  years to come up with something in the  face of a collapsing health care system, and did nothing. since Nixon. now they want to call all the shots and
         whine about ‘their way’. 
         President Obama did win!  Elections do have consequences!  The winner gets  to implement policy.
        No President in my lifetime has offered more compromise to an opposition so troubled, so backward, so filled with animosity. 

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       50% of your peers cannot find work in their fields of endeavor directly out of college.  If the GOP leadership could turn that around and provide an economy to give your generation good work would that change your view on the GOP?

      Also, any forward thinking young person should realize that the entitlement system is tilted in favor of the older generation.  The unfunded entitlement liabilities currently sit at $120T.  The ‘arithmetic’ of that disastrous state is a share of over $1M per current taxpayer.  This is a measure of false promises and generation theft by our politicians.  Any young voter should look favorable at the team that provides reforms that tip the balance back to something that is fairer to their generation.

      Finally, there is no excuse to have no budget for each of the 4 years while running up $5.4T.  There is a clear lack of leadership in the WH.  You can’t blame the GOP for no budget.

  • JONBOSTON

    Pray tell–

    other than a change in the presidency, what makes you believe the next 4 years will be any better than the last 4?

    • DrewInGeorgia

      Other than delusions of Grandeur what makes you believe there will be a change in The Presidency? Any rational human being knows that if there is a changing of the guard the next four years will make the last four seem like a utopian paradise. Why are you so eager to slit your own throat? Suicidal Tendencies? We don’t all want to share your fate Einstein.

      Wake Up.

    • neurohazard

      Pray tell back at ya…

      Please explain why you’re complaining about the slow recovery from a disastrous collapse of the economy without ever mentioning it was GOP ideas that cause that collapse? And why do you believe pursuing the same GOP policies that we KNOW were a disaster will miraculously work with Romney-Ryan.

      Yours is an intellectual disconnect so bizarre I think we all deserve an answer.

      • StilllHere

        Wow all that from a simple question, that you didn’t even bother answering.  Where’s the real intellectual disconnect?

        • neurohazard

          J’s question is simple. The economy is going to do better in the short term regardless of who become’s president because the hard work of reversing the damage YOUR policies caused has already been done. Deep recessions take time to heal. Just look at Reagan’s record. Unemployment was over 7% for five full years… until 1986.

          In the long term apparently the GOP and the base have learned NOTHING from the Bush disaster. So leaving aside how Romney/Ryan plan to gut the safety net, they are setting the economy up for another Bush-style crash.

          Now care to answer my simple question?

          • StilllHere

            YOUR intellectual disconnect knows no bounds.  Your policies … pray tell which ones and establish with irrefutable proof that they were responsible for any damage.  

            YOUR core belief system appears to be as warped as your “intellect,” but I’ll be patient.

          • neurohazard

            Yup… when it comes to disasters made by the Right… we can just never know enough to cast blame. So they must be seen as forever innocent. But when it comes to Democrats, then INVENTING blame and failure are perfectly fine.

            Am I catching on to your ground rules?

  • neurohazard

    It’s ironic in the extreme that the politics of the GOP are now so rabidly pathological that Romney is compelled to flee from his only real accomplishment in government: RomneyCare. He once thought it was his ticket to the Whitehouse.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Federalism — look it up.

      He has stated many times he is proud of what he did in MA.

      • neurohazard

        Romney only claimed federalism when it was clear the far right opposed his approach nationally. But he originally is on record saying RomneyCare should be the NATIONAL model.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          A national model for the states is still Federalism.

          Why shouldn’t CA be allowed to institute single payer? If it works then other states will adopt it. If it fails they won’t.

          • neurohazard

            I repeat Romney only claimed federalism when it was clear the far right opposed his approach nationally. But he originally is on record saying RomneyCare should be the NATIONAL model.

    • Gregg Smith

      How many times did Obama mention Obamacare in his speech? Zip.

      • neurohazard

        What does that have to do with Romney? Please focus.

        • Gregg Smith

          It means Obama is no different from Romney regarding your accusation. It means your comment is rooted in ideology instead of objective reasoning. And Obama is running from his “stimulus” too. He didn’t mention it either. Smarty pants.

          • neurohazard

            If I might suggest a translation for your post. The lies of the rabid right are so effective that even GOP politicians fear them.

  • neurohazard

    Someone wrote below about Obama and Obamacare: “he made no effort to compromise with Republicans.”

    It’s a curious claim since Obamacare IS THE REPUBLICAN APPROACH TO HEALTH CARE. It’s the approach Heritage Foundation recommended in 1989 and in 1993/94 nearly 80% of GOP Senators signed on to force Americans to buy GOP-Care as the alternative to HillaryCare. It’s the approach Romney used in Massachusetts.  

    This raises the obvious question why the GOP turned on the crony capitalism they so love. And it has to be because they were determined to turn Obamacare into his Waterloo. They raised the phony fear & loathing meter so high, they created an army of gullible dittoheads so militant the GOP can now never retract.

    Rabid politics on the right again trumps the General Welfare of The People.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       What about the other 2700 pages of bureaucratic nightmare?  Are the GOP supposed to agree with that too?

      • DrewInGeorgia

        Of course not, they refuse to agree with anything until their whipping post is no longer in office. But you already knew that.

        • anamaria23

          I noticed with Paul Ryan, it goes something like this:  If the President does not do policy pretty much 100% the way the Repubs want, then they cannot agree, therefore it is President Obama’s fault that things are not getting done.  There is a supremely narcissistic streak in Paul Ryan.  I am sure he has no clue.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            President Obama stated two years ago, when GDP growth was running at 3%, that it was bad economic policy to raise any taxes including the top rates.

            However, now that the election is close and GDP growth is half the prior rate Obama changes his view and wants to stiff the higher income folks even though it will cost jobs.

            Ryan agrees with the first Obama and disagrees with the Obama that will do anything to get elected.

          • sickofthechit

             Have you forgotten the bush tax cuts were temporary tax cuts.  Which means letting them expire is a natural progression.  They obviously have not helped, and have actually damaged the economy that it may be ten years before the latest repub mess is cleaned up.

          • DrewInGeorgia

            100% compliance wouldn’t make a difference, they want a hundred and ten percent. Don’t bother trying to tell them that there is only one hundred in one hundred. if President Obama gave them everything they want, they’d just change their list of demands and say he was weak because he gave them what they wanted.

      • neurohazard

        Why do pages matter??? You’re evading the issue that ObamaCare WAS the GOP approach to national health care. At least until a Democrat actually embraced it.

        You might want to look back to the 90′s when the GOP was desperate to block HillaryCare. Their big concern was that if it passed, there’d be a new generation, like the New Deal generation, who would be loyal to the Democrats. The GOP proposals of the time were diversions. But times changed and the nation moved to the right. Now Obama adopted those old GOP ideas… and in doing so essential called the GOP’s bluff. But since the GOP had moved so far to the lunatic fringe, they rejected their own ideas because they were so determined to give him a bloody nose at all costs.

        Again, the General Welfare of The People be damned.

        • William

           The concern is Obama creating a new entitlement program without fixing the old entitlement programs. Taking 716 billion out of Medicare does not fix Medicare. Obama care does not cover everyone that needs medical insurance. The majority of Americans don’t want it. That is the Republican position.

          • sickofthechit

             He did not “take $716 billion from Medicare.  He negotiated $716 billion in lower fees with hospitals and health care providers.  What they get in return is millions of additional Americans with actual health care coverage as clients.  Quit repeating Repugnican lies.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Wrong.

            Read Obama’s own Medicare actuary report on the effect of those cuts.

          • neurohazard

            A report you reference but never actually provide a link to or quote from.

          • Gregg Smith

            I’m sure Rachel Maddow will talk about it.

    • Gregg Smith

      That’s just the way he looks.

    • buddhaclown

       I agree. If he had made no effort to compromise, why was the left wing so unhappy with Obamacare? The fact is, Obamacare is extremely moderate, and the opposition to it isn’t about healthcare, it is about fear of a black president and the subsequent boogeyman stories that are born out of that fear. 

  • DrewInGeorgia

    I somehow made it through the entire day without noticing the picture of President Obama that was so carefully chosen by On Point. Of all the frames that could have been selected from his speech, this was the Prize Hog. “Hey look everybody! He’s a Conspiratorial, finger pointing, Kenyan Born Muslim Socialist if ever there was one!” got The Editor’s Choice Award. It makes me want to puke. If this photograph doesn’t scream “You didn’t build that!” Santa Claus will be bringing everyone a shiny new Electric Car this Christmas. A picture really is worth a thousand words and this selection speaks volumes. Thanks for the impartiality OP, when will the Corporate Takeover be announced?

    • buddhaclown

       Tom Ashbrook has been full of Fail this election season. I can barely listen to the show anymore.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Wow.  Can I get some of what you are smoking?

      I’m no fan of Obama but the pic is fine.

      • DrewInGeorgia

        I’m don’t smoke anything, if I did I would be more than happy to share. There’s a novel concept for ya’.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           That’s nice.

            I still don’t see anything negative with the picture.  He looks serious, that’s all.

  • neurohazard

    Once most of the GOP took Norquist’s No New Taxes pledge instead of a pledge to do what was right for the nation, it committed them to the path to fiscal insanity.

    Now, they are struck between Norquist’s threats to unseat them, fiscal destruction of the nation, and their precious reelection.

    Sadly for the nation… their reelection comes first… as if their poor judgment for foolishly signing such a pledge proves they now have something of value to give to the nation.  

    This is the sad state of the today’s GOP.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      The pledge is to the voter not Norquist.

      • neurohazard

        Shouldn’t a politician’s oath TO THE CONSTITUTION be more important? That Constitution gives Congress the power to TAX to provide for debt paydown, the common defense, and the general welfare. To take Norquist’s pledge is to take off the table a power the Constitution gives Congress to meet the nation’s needs.

    • Gregg Smith

      If you are not disruptive then why do you keep getting banned and have to change your name?

      • neurohazard

        August 2011: Gregg wrote:
        How can you be banned three times in a day? I get banned for weeks at a time. I can change my email and moniker and it works a little while then nothing works. I then comment from my studio computer which has a different IP address. When I’m banned there I switch names again until that doesn’t work. Then I go to my neighbors house. By the time I’m banned there the first computer works again and I start over.

        Not sure why you want to post off topic personal attacks. But since you did, please note the extreme PKB element in your post.

        • Gregg Smith

          Ah yea, I remember those days when everybody and their brother were getting banned for no apparent reason. Even TerryTreeTree. I never knew if it was a glitch or a rogue moderator. I do know they solved the problem and apologized to everyone. I’ve not had a whiff of a problem since. Evidently you have… more than once.

          Anywho, I don’t get your point at all but it’s really creepy that you have a file on me. 
          Please answer the question.

          • neurohazard

            WBUR never apologized. That post appears to have been a hoax and it was soon nuked. Perhaps, though, it shamed them into rethinking the bannings.

          • neurohazard

            So you admit you’ve been banned countless times and you kept trying to come back? The prosecution rests on the PKB argument.

            Anyway, have anything to say that’s actually on topic about Norquist?

        • Gregg Smith

          I didn’t see the last paragraph when I replied. What attack? I just asked a question. You said your were not disruptive, what’s the trouble? Could it be you don’t realize the folly of your rants?

          What’s PKB?

          • neurohazard

            Your personal attacks have no place in a political forum. Perhaps they should be flagged.

            Have anything to say that’s actually on topic about Norquist?

            PKB? Look it up!

          • Gregg Smith

            By and large (I should try harder) I leave you alone because you’ll take over the blog if engaged. Then you start yelling at the moderators and getting all possessive about your threads. Pretty soon you think it’s your blog and you’re barking at everyone. It’s highly disruptive. 

            I’m a harmless lovable fuzzball, I attack no one. I think that’s pretty clear to the  moderators to the extent they know me or care. If you feel the need to flag something then by all means do. 

  • JGC

    The Election Coordinator for my county just e-mailed me (at 5:30 on a Saturday morning!) that my absentee ballot is in the mail.  Is everyone here registered and ready to vote?

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Absolutely!

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      I am, but I don’t know for others.

      I have heard that Ohio’s SecState Husted (R) has to appear in court. That’s some real classy stuff the GOP is doing to suppress votes there.

    • hennorama

      Yep, and doing non-partisan voter registration work, as well.  If I didn’t vote, I’d feel hypocritical when I complain about government action in any form – local, state or federal.  That’s one of my best lines when encouraging people to register: “Sign up for the right to complain about government!”

  • Don_B1

    Watch “Need to Know” on PBS for the Jeff Greenfield and Major Garrett discussion of the effects of a Republican Senate and a Romney presidency.

    Truly blood-curdling. The U.S. becomes a full plutocracy.

  • Gregg Smith

    If Obamacare and the “Stimulus” were achievements of note then why didn’t President Obama mention them in his speech?

    • buddhaclown

      He did mention them in the speech, constantly. Most of the achievements he mentioned were a part of either Obamacare or the Stimulus. Now if the question was “why didn’t he use the politically changed terms of ‘Obamacare’ and ‘Stimulus’” the answer should be obvious. If it isn’t obviously to you, I’d like to point out that in 2000 everyone was so negative on Clinton that Gore was afraid to even associate himself. Now, of course, everyone realizes what dumb-asses they were and how awesome Clinton was, people are just being dumb again. Assuming Obama gets re-elected, a decade from now everyone will love Obamacare and wonder why people were so against it.

      • Gregg Smith

        He didn’t say “ACA” either.

        • Coastghost

          Gregg: you mean the Affordable Care Tax Act? (He didn’t refer to that, either.)

  • JONBOSTON

    So the community organizer-in-chief ( D-gutter) is campaigning under the banner of “citizenship” , ie. “organizing the community”. Is the problem what Obama inherited or what Obama intends to do in the future?

    Really what this election is shaping up as is a contrast between Obama’s vision of a welfare state, ie., a European-style social democracy and the Republican resort to founding principles and reducing the size, scope and reach of government.

    Here’s reality:
     August job growth was 96,000 jobs , 8.1% unemployment due to 368,000 people left the workforce , representing 44 straight months of at least 8% unemployment. Black unemployment is 14.1%, 10.2% Hispanic unemployment , 15% “real unemployment”.  If 368,000 people left the workforce ( due to end of 99 months unemployment) , then there really is no net job growth. There are 89 million people capable of working that are not working and our labor participation is the lowest it’s been in 31 years. The percentage of men participating in the workforce is the lowest EVER!

    There are 23 million unemployed; 46 million on food stamps (a record); 1/6th of America is in poverty (a record); disability insurance claims have grown massively due to qualifying and as a way out from one’s predicament ( a record); 25% of all value created in this country (GDP) is consumed by the Fed govt— if you add in the cost of regulatory compliance ( approx $1 trillion) then the Fed is consuming nearly 25% + 11%-=36% of our GDP; median family income during Obama’s presidency has dropped 5% as costs have gone up (gas $1.84 gal vs $3.84) despite 56 months of “recovery” since the recession was supposedly over.; 260,000 less people working today then when Obama took over; 3.5million people have dropped out of the labor force since Obama was elected; 58% of jobs created since Obama became president are low occupation jobs; and  there are 800,00 fewer jobs today than when Obama took over. 

    All of these Obama ” accomplishments ” have been achieved by increasing the national debt by $5.4 trillion –more than the first 41 presidents combined. What has all this spending/deficits gotten us?

    I’ll restate my question– without a change in leadership in Washington , why do you think the next 4 years will be any different than the last 4 years?

    • Gregg Smith

      Without a change in leadership there will be more flexibility because of term limits. It’ll be different alright. It’ll be much much worse.

    • buddhaclown

      “I’ll restate my question– without a change in leadership in Washington ,
      why do you think the next 4 years will be any different than the last 4
      years?”

      Of course, 4 years isn’t enough time to see the impact of the policy changes — hell, most of healthcare reform hasn’t even taken effect yet. More importantly, the same question really should be directed toward congress. During the first 2 years under the Pelosi congress we saw all kinds of progress, then with a change in congress Washington suddenly became dysfunctional. The president stayed the same, so what changed? What changed is that racists — i.e., the Tea Party — started to fight back. That is why we aren’t currently making progress. They blocked the jobs bill, so really it is their fault the jobs numbers are low. Should we just elect Romney so that the gridlock in Washington stops? And give into a bunch of racist crazies and their agenda? Are you nuts?

      • Gregg Smith

        Why do you have to go and call us racist? That’s sick.

        • sickofthechit

           He forgot sexist.  Here in Kentucky as Rand Paul arrived for a debate, one of his Tea Party supporters assaulted a woman in the crowd who wound up on the ground with her head in the gutter.  Rand Paul never spoke out against his supporters actions.  Real piece of work.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Sexist? 

             Clinton was a given a prime time speaking slot and put Obama name into nomination yet he an accused rapist, serial groper and workplace sexual harasser and he was swooned over by the Democrats.

            Please.

          • neurohazard

            Yup, Clinton’s abuses are so much worst than violating international law to invade a nation that posed no threat to us and killed perhaps 100-500k civilians.

            Clinton was impeached. The party faithful reelected Bush as proof of their higher moral standards.

          • Gregg Smith

            “You better put some ice on that” -Bill Clinton

        • NewtonWhale

          Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater#cite_note-5 

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5r3VEyYh4U 

          • Gregg Smith

            Who cares what Atwater said? Obama is an awful President, it has nothing to do with his race. I think Democrats believe blacks are inferior and must be cut some slack.  I expect competence at the very least whatever the color of skin. The obsession with race is sick.

          • NewtonWhale

            Right. We made up all those racist signs at tea party rallies.

          • Gregg Smith

            The tea party not racist. If you think the silly little pictures prove otherwise, that’s sick. 

      • JONBOSTON

        You confuse passage of bills  like Obamacare and Dodd Frank with progress as you define it. Unfortunately those programs did absolutely nothing to cause the private sector to hire and grow the economy . Do you have any idea on what it takes to spur economic growth? 

        Finally your continued resort to calling tea party types and/or republicans racists makes you sound like a moron.

    • NewtonWhale

      The increase in the deficit is almost all caused by the spending already incurred by Bush. When it comes to the debt, yeah, you built that.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         Bush was President the last 4 years while running up $5.4T in new debt?

        Obama could have led on a new budget to change any existing spending tract from the Bush/Pelosi/Reid years but he didn’t.  Why?

        • NewtonWhale

          You are playing a shell game. Here’s why:

          There’s a confused and confusing debate going on over whether President Obama has presided over a “spending binge,” as Republicans claim, or whether, under Obama, “federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.”

          The key is fiscal year 2009 — and who you blame for it. By any measure, spending popped that year. If you’re looking at raw dollars, it rose by $535 billion. And “the 2009 fiscal year,” writes  Market Watch’s Rex Nutting, “which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House.”

          That’s true: The federal fiscal year stretches, somewhat weirdly, from October to September. So fiscal year 2009 began in October 2008.

          And that’s the point of Nutting’s analysis: if you attribute most of fiscal year 2009 to George W. Bush then, after adjusting for inflation, federal spending under Obama has actually dropped by 0.1 percent.

          Politifact checked  the numbers and agreed:

          “Using raw dollars, Obama did oversee the lowest annual increases in spending of any president in 60 years,” they write. “Using inflation-adjusted dollars, Obama had the second-lowest increase — in fact, he actually presided over a decrease.” 

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-reality-behind-obama-and-bushs-spending-binge/2012/05/25/gJQAK8ItpU_blog.html

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             So Bush gets ALL the credit for the stimulus  since you are putting it on his tab?  You can’t have it both ways.

            Someone once called this ‘fuzzy math’.

          • neurohazard

            I’ve provided “unfuzzy” math using US Treasury numbers showing Bush ran up 1.4 TRILLION in new debt in his last year… not fiscal year, CALANDAR year. 

            Have you dealt with it yet? Or are you still looking for some way to rewrite history?

          • OnPointComments

            from the government website http://www.recovery.gov:
             

            On Feb. 13, 2009, Congress passed the $787 billion dollar American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 at the urging of President Obama, who signed it into law four days later. In 2011, the original expenditure estimate of $787 billion was increased to $840 billion to be in line with the President’s 2012 budget and with scoring changes made by the Congressional Budget Office since the enactment of the Recovery Act. 
             

            Saying that President Obama had nothing to do with FY2009 spending is like saying terrorists had nothing to do with bringing down the World Trade Center towers because they weren’t piloting the planes when they took off.

          • Government_Banking_Serf

            “If you’re looking at raw dollars, it rose by $535 billion. And “the 2009 fiscal year,” writes  Market Watch’s Rex Nutting, “which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House.”

            4 months before Obama, under Bush…..hmmm…. Kinda like the Tea Party, those Republican GOP diehards…..

            But the Tea Party as racist reactionaries to Obama plays the base so much better, and makes the independents feel guilty.Why talk debt and dollars when we can play race cards over drinks?

      • JONBOSTON

        Bush’s deficit when he left office was $485 billion. Your comment makes no sense.

        • neurohazard

          Trying to lay credit or blame for debt when fiscal years and presidential terms do NOT sync is tricky. By the time Obama took office Bush had almost 4 months to spend propping up his exploding economy on the FY09 budget…  

          BTW, Bush’s FY08 deficit was -641.848 billion. You’re neglecting to add in money borrowed from the off-budget trust funds.

          Source table 1.1 US Historical Budget Tables.  

          How much of the FY09 -1,549.681 billion deficit was Obama’s fault… well we know the Stimulus was about 800 billion and revenues dropped about 419 billion. No fair person would blame Obama for the loss of revenue from the Bush Recession.  But then those on the far right aren’t interested in fairness.

          Here are the FY08 and FY09 revenue numbers:

          2,523,991  
          -2,104,989

          —————————

          419,002 = revenue decline

          Source table 1.1 US Historical Budget Tables.

        • neurohazard

          Bush ran up over 1.4 TRILLION in new debt between Jan 20 2008 and Jan 20, 2009. Check my post above on daily debt numbers.

          • JONBOSTON

            And the recession ended officially in June 2009 , six months into Obama’s term. So what’s the excuse for running $1.2 trillion deficits each fiscal year since then?

          • neurohazard

            Pray tell, just what does it mean when a recession ends? it’s typically just two quarters in a row of positive growth. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THE ECONOMY IS BACK TO WHERE IT WAS BEFORE THE RECESSION.

            Say the GDP was $1000. It drops 10% then 10% again. The first quarter it drops to $900, then $810 the second quarter. So even if it goes up again… it’s got to dig its way out of that hole first before the economy can absorb all those laid off workers… that is if new productivity gains doesn’t make many of them unnecessary. In the meantime there are more people of working age coming into the economy. THAT’S why spending hasn’t come down.

            Back in 1982 the Reagan Recession ended in Nov I believe. Unemployment didn’t drop below 7% until Jan 86.

              

          • neurohazard

            Just some more numbers. So if GDP were down to $810… it would take 11 QUARTERS of 2% growth just to get back to about $1007.

            Recoveries take time and the deeper the hole, the longer it takes to dig out of it.

      • Gregg Smith

        That graph as I have pointed out in detail is a fantasy.

    • Government_Banking_Serf

      Absofrickinlutely.

      A good, gut feeling, first impression, hippyish, progressive, liberal a decade ago,  I thank this message board for dissuading me of my naive notions (and I mean the Dem/Progressive posters). And while I disdain the mainstream GOP neocons, I can never support either party when they continue to gloss over the systemic rot, and far removal from the more noble principles of our founding – against tyranical power, trying to empower the individual to use their inalienable rights of liberty to pursue a better life, short of coercing others.

      It is clear to me that Obama does not respect or believe in the “Liberty/Rule of Law, Constitutionalist” model of America and really wants people to believe that it should be put on the dustpile of history. I think he really believes that some Centrally managed, Walden II society can be formed, as long as enlightened folks like himself Geithener and Larry Summers have the Discretionary Power to take us there. Like so many on this board.

      Of course many Republicans feel the same way, they would just create more Crony Capitalist and Collusive situations with Corporate america, in order to cement existing wealth and power, instead of making them face the risk, the composting power, of Competition.

      I reject the State Planning, and the Crony Capitalism.

      The dilemma is the lesser of 2 evils.  I used to vote/write in Nader, I’ve written in Ron Paul. Now I honestly feel like Romney, as Neocon and Crony as he might turn out to be, at least keeps the future of a Classically Liberal, Rule of Law, Constitutional Republic as a possibility, whereas Obama is definitely taking us in a direction like Social Democratic Europe with even more collusion between banking/business/government in a futile attempt to “manage” our future, which would be very difficult to peacefully unwind when it inevitably fails.

      I think it will be easier to fight for Ron Paul style economic and foreign policy attitudes from the Republican Party, that having to dismantle a massive social engineering experiment, potentially even trans-national, should Obama get 4 more, politically-free, years.

      Thank you knee jerk DNC apologists, thinly veiled socialists, and well-intentioned liberal board contributors, for the help clarifying my position.

      • buddhaclown

        Wall of text which really = thinly veiled racist.

        • Government_Banking_Serf

          What the hell are you talking about??

  • modavations

    Absolutely nothing will change until we have Term Limits.We now have a class of overlords.The Gerrymandeer perpetuates the  phenomenon.
           Fed.Employees should switch jobs every ten years,too.Keep them fresh.

    • Government_Banking_Serf

      Nice try. People around here don’t believe in analyzing the mechanics of our corrupted system. They just use all their energy trying to elect the next best benevolent dictator to make it all better for us. Playing the 5 year old blame game ping-pong, every election cycle. Keeps them busy.

  • modavations

    Ms.Granholm looked like Ann Richards on 4 Adderol.Freakish!!

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       I thought she was channeling the Howard Dean scream speech.

  • modavations

    Each time Villaregosa tried to reintroduce “God” and put Jeruselum back in the Atlas,the number of “No’”VOTES,increased.So what’s the verdict?Is there God?Is there Jeruselum?.
          I thought the Dem.Convention instructive.An amalgamation of “Gim me” constituents,hate America types,union thugs,Gaiaist Cultists and ruling “Politboro Types”.
          Don’t forget,the first thing a Communist tyrant does is close the Church.The State is  God.The State is Daddy.The first thing a liberated people do, is reopen their Church.

    • Joseph_Wisconsin

       If a person wears fun-house glasses, tilts his head to the right, and squints I suppose your post begins to make sense.  Though you people really need to settle on a story here.  Is Obama a liberation theology Christian under the influence of Reverend Wright?  Is he secretly a Muslim educated in a madrasah and intent on imposing Sharia law on the US?  Or is he an atheist who wants to forbid the practice of religion and close all churches?  

      My hope is he just is a rational American who would like to govern under the principles the founders had for this country. That the government should not endorse or support any religion, that religion should be an individual choice every person should be free to make for themselves.  However here is a link that you will love I am sure showing an alternate history of Jesus delivering the Constitution to the nation.

      http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/353

      Oh, and on the subject of Jerusalem.  Are you aware the platform of both parties have included planks calling for Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel for decades?  Yet under administrations, Republican and Democrat, the US embassy remains in Tel Aviv and the status of Jerusalem remains a matter to be negotiated in a peace settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians.  

      That’s alright though, please continue living in your own private Idaho. 

      • modavations

        My intentions are not to abruptly change minds.My intention is to make you scratch your noddle.I plant doubt,then I slowly try to persuade.

        • JGC

          Better luck in 2016!

          • modavations

            I been biking in Denpasar again.What’s up!!!Everytime a Canadian goes into the woods they trip over “body parts”.Now your trying to “Off” the Premiere of Quebec”.You’re like Mexicans in sweaters!!…And I’m not here for your “licks”!!
                 Si tu veux parler avec moi, sans le sarcasme,je suis disponible.

          • JGC

            Non, sarcasme obligatoire! True about the body parts. But Pauline Marois lives on to fight for French grammar another day. 

      • Gregg Smith

        It was the Democrat Party not Obama.

      • Government_Banking_Serf

        Thank goodness Geithner, Summers, Bernanke apologist “liberals” don’t wear glasses…..

        Talk about sick, against your own interests, political choices…

        You can vote for people who want to make you more free to succeed or not,

        Or, for people who will promise you a Utopian Free Lunch to Success, ahem, security, but then bungle it due to bureaucracy, corruption, and the basic fallacy of being able to “plan” and control a whole population of people, leaving you worse off than if you had done your best in the first place.

        Keep your complaints of evil capitalists and rapacious business people in your pants. If Obama  would dump his collectivist, control principles, and adopt the Prosecutorial Mindset of Bill Black, punishing corrupt financial elites, instead of employing them, the regular folk would have a better chance of success in a less corrupted free market of organic (not Fed subsidized and mal-invested) supply and demand.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      It was hilarious that they were caught putting the voice vote results on the teleprompter BEFORE the vote was taken.  So much for Democracy in the the Democrat party.

  • modavations

    Hey Bostonians my Alma Mata,BC is have a Paul Klee exhibit.I love Miro,I love Klee.

  • modavations

    Look at the difference between Michigan and Wisconsin.One is Prom Labor,one is Pro Taxpayer.Look at the stats.They’re stark.
                 The Left wants to you think the Labor Union is Marlon Brando and “On The Waterfront”.In reality it’s Pinky Rings and their Dem. Solon Masters

  • modavations

    Ms.Elizabeth Warren,”Business”is not evil,the “Corporation”is not evil..Corporations put the Middle Class to work.NPR is a Corporation.No wonder you are behind by 5pts.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    WaPO has a great, detailed article today on how Obama’s HHS rule does gut the work requirement.  It is written by the author of the original workfare legislation.

    • neurohazard

      And of course no link is provided.

    • WorriedfortheCountry
      • neurohazard

        It’s not the reader’s job to look for things you claim. And here’s why: you’re misrepresenting this person as ” author of the original workfare legislation” when he says he only helped draft it. Which draft… who knows since the first bills on welfare reform in the Clinton era were being written by Democrats, and some GOP bills were vetoed by Clinton. You do remember that Clinton ran on this issue in 92, right? Or do you just believe Rush’s rewrite of history to give all the credit to Newt? 

        And this person is from Heritage. Their far right, pro GOP bias is well known. Which is why it’s on the OpEd page… and NOT a WaPo article as you claimed. More misrepresentations.The actual WaPo says Romney’s claims are FALSE. Yet you refused to cite that article.

        • Gregg Smith

          If the reader is ill-informed then they should inform themselves and thank the commenter for the heads up.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           Did you actually read the article?

          HHS changed the metrics from those that directly measure work for welfare to those loosely correlated and as the author points are meaningless.

          Further, the waiver is lawless.  The law provides NO provision for a waiver.  IF GOP Governors are requesting waiver there should be no issue going back to Congress to revise the law with bipartisan support.  Right?  There was no attempt to go back to Congress.

          • neurohazard

            No apologies for your gross misrepresentation of that OpEd piece or the author?

            According to the author the metrics were worthless BEFORE the change.

            He claims “At first blush, a 20 percent increase in “employment exits” sounds impressive. But what does it mean? In the typical state, about 1.5 percent of the TANF caseload leaves the rolls each month because of employment. To be exempt from the federal work requirement, a state would have to raise that number to about 1.8 percent of caseload. This is a minuscule change; as the economy improves, this small increase will occur automatically in most states. “

             If this 20% INCREASE in the work requirement is meaningless once the economy improves… why wasn’t the pre-20% increase  meaningless when the economy WAS good? Implicit in his claim is the welfare reform legislation was always a joke.

            Anyway, are YOU reading the rebuttals to Romney’s claim? Of course not.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Yes, I’ve read them.  They are a superficial analysis that uses as a defense that ‘not waivers have yet been given’.

            Duh.

            The point is IF the waiver is given then the work requirement would be weakened as outlined by Mr. Rector.

            Also, Mr. Kessler neglected to mention that the HHS secretary issued a second letter that tried to assuage doubters that the original rule would not weaken the work requirement but it wasn’t in the official HHS rules.

            Obama apologists are trying to spin the facts.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    From the Medicare actuary’s report on the effect of Obamacare’s $716B cut in Medicare:

    “The Affordable Care Act requires permanent annual productivity adjustments to price updates for most providers (such as hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and home health agencies), using a 10-year moving average of economy-wide private, non-farm productivity gains.
    While such payment update reductions will create a strong incentive for providers to maximize efficiency, it is doubtful that many will be able to improve their own productivity to the degree achieved by the economy at large… Thus, providers for whom Medicare
    constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable and, absent legislative intervention, might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries). Simulations by the Office of the Actuary suggest that roughly
    15 percent of Part A providers would become unprofitable within the
    10-year projection period as a result of the productivity adjustments.”

    And here the actuary points out that Obamacare uses Federal budget accounting tricks to claim it uses the ‘savings’ to both spend on Obamacare and extend the life of Medicare.  Of course you can’t do both:

    “The combination of lower Part A costs and higher tax revenues results in a lower Federal deficit based on budget accounting rules. However, trust fund accounting considers the same lower expenditures and additional revenues as extending the exhaustion date of the HI trust
    fund. In practice, the improved HI financing cannot be
    simultaneously used to finance other Federal outlays (such as the coverage expansions) and to extend the trust fund, despite the appearance of this result from the respective accounting conventions.”

    • neurohazard

      I’m not research challanged. I’m just for intelligent discussion where readers aren’t subjected to claims without proper sourcing. You are a serial offender in this area such as in the thread below where you misrepesented an op-ed piece by Heritage as being a news article by the Washington Post.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        I never said it was a news article, but I did say it was written by one of the authors of the workfare legislation.

        • neurohazard

          You certainly did say it was an article:

          “WaPO has a great, detailed article today on how Obama’s HHS rule does gut the work requirement. “

          You passed off someone’s OPINION… if not downright GOP spin as a legitimate news article. Which is probably why you didn’t want to provide a link.

          And no, you said it was written BY THE AUTHOR of the original workfare legislation.  

          So was he a democrat working on welfare reform right after Clinton took office? Didn’t think so.   

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Get a clue. 

            The welfare reform was written by the GOP and signed by Clinton after two vetoes.

            ps – I usually don’t like to be so harsh but your comments and accusations are over the top obnoxious.

          • neurohazard

            See what happen when you only read Orwellian Right rewrites of history instead of primary material! Clinton in 1992 RAN ON WELFARE REFORM. From his 1993 State Of The Union… “Later this year, we will offer a plan to end welfare as we know it. I have worked on this issue for the better part of a decade.”

            http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=47232

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Words are cheap.  It took a thumping in the midterm to get him to sign anything.

    • neurohazard

      Since you refuse to post links to your sources, here it is:http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/fostertestimony1262011.pdf

      BTW, I don’t support ObamaCare. I’m for Single Payer.

  • Government_Banking_Serf

    Ron Paul’s critique of the rigged nature of the status quo, the way it works from the Central Bankers on down, resulting in Financial Crises and Imperialistic Wars, puts Warren’s surface-scratching, emotional critique without mechanistic solutions, to shame.

    The emotional response is justifiable. The lack of mechanistic analysis of how/why things happen, i.e., refusing to follow the money any further than the criminal Wall Streeters (who gave it to them? Which party(ies)? For what purported reasons? Did that work? Are they accountable? Are they necessary?), is predictable (people who want to make money are bad and must be the source of all wrong, markets are evil) but sadly counterproductive and against the People’s long term interests.

  • Gregg Smith

    President Obama is forcing up to 2 million seniors out of Medicare and into a voucher program and he did it one day after promising not to. What a piece of work. 

    http://nationaljournal.com/healthcare/obama-more-flexible-on-medicare-than-rhetoric-suggests-20120908?page=1

    • Gregg Smith

      Crickets.

  • neurohazard

    Questions arose here about how much debt Bush ran up in his last year. Fiscal years don’t sync with presidential terms. But if we look at daily debt numbers from http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

    we get Bush’s new debt from Jan 22 2008 to Jan 20th 2009 to be over 1.4 TRILLION just for that one year. The actual budget numbers “only” show about a 650 billion deficit for FY08 because much of Bush’s frantic spending came in FY09 which the Right dishonestly wants to dump on Obama.  

    10,626,877,048,913.08

    - 9,191,074,962,157.16

    —————————

    1,435,802,086,755.92 = New Bush debt for his last year.

    • Gregg Smith

      What about TARP? Senator Obama voted for it and President Bush was around for only half of it. Obama got the other half and then when most of it was paid back he did not return it as agreed. It should have been a wash. He threw it down the “stimulus” rat hole. Work the numbers and get back.

      • neurohazard

        There was no Stimulus rat hole. Like TARP it help stablize the economy. Was it big enough to undo the damage Bush policies YOU supported did the the economy? Nope.

        • Gregg Smith

          Dodge. TARP was $700 Billion, if it were to be paid back then it should come off the top of your alleged number. Your number may be right but I don’t care. Call it 2 trillion if you want. Obama went nuts comparatively and needs to be replaced. Who cares about Bush right now?

          Or, if Obama implemented half of what he voted (and campaigned) for then $350 billion should come from Bush’s number and be put on Obama.

          On what basis do you disagree? 

          • neurohazard

            There is no “alleged number”. Unlike some here I provide sources so my claims can be verified.

            And you clearly misunderstand TARP. It wasn’t a one-time $700 billion expenditure. That $700 billion was the LIMIT the the Treasury could own in troubled assets at any given time… and it continues to this day. As some money was repaid, it went out again.  

            The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA, enacted as P.L. 110-343) authorized the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) to purchase or guarantee troubled assets and other financial instruments, provided that the total purchase price paid for assets held by the Secretary at anyone time not exceed $700 billion.

            http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/reports/emergency-economic-stabilization-act-of-2008.pdf

            Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (P.L. 111-203) further reduced total TARP purchase authority to a maximum of $475 billion in cumulative obligations.

            There’s be no point of this if TARP was not on-going.

          • Gregg Smith

            You have made up columns before and put your numbers in them.

            Dodd Frank was after TARP. Anything they did to change TARP was on Obama. You made my point but never mind. 

          • neurohazard

            No, I’ve made some budget projections and always explained my methodology. You just never liked when the numbers showed revenue losses after irresponsible Reagan or Bush tax cuts. You like to believe they pay for themselves even if Bush and Reagan used CBO estimates to revenue loses.  

          • Gregg Smith

            You mixed them right in with the actual numbers without saying they were yours. 

          • neurohazard

            Hardly. But feel free to keep dodging all that disproves your faith-based theory that tax CUTS create revenue booms.

          • neurohazard

            So you’re not going to admit you have NO idea how TARP worked?

          • Gregg Smith

            I know how TARP worked, you don’t seem to.

          • neurohazard

            More evasion? The question was HOW TARP worked, not WHETHER it worked. But then you knew that and just can’t admit your “logic” is, again, faulty.

          • neurohazard

            If you KNEW how TARP worked, you’d not have made the claim all the money was paid back therefore should not be counted as Bush debt.

        • Government_Banking_Serf

          Did you guys read “Bailout” yet? By the guy in charge of overseeing how TARP dispersed its funds to protect from fraud abuse?

          Not pretty for either party.

          No wonder Bill Black calling for firing Geithner, Holder, Bernanke:

          http://www.capitalismwithoutfailure.com/2011/10/bill-black-interviewed-on-democracy-now.html

    • neurohazard

      Here are the Obama 1 year debt stats… again from the same source:

      12,327,380,804,696.82

      - 10,626,877,048,913.08

      —————————

      1,700,503,755,783.74 = Obama’s new debt for first year.

      • neurohazard

        So if we simply subtract from this the roughly 420 billion reduction in revenue between FY08 and FY09 Obama’s first year debt is about the same as Bush’s last year.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      So Bush gets credit for all the so called benefits of the stimulus?

      Also, who signed the budget in March of 2009?  Obama.
      Your analysis is a FAIL.

      • neurohazard

        What part of debt created UP TO Jan 20th 09 are you having problems with?

      • neurohazard

        There is NO “analysis” of the numbers beyond subtracting the Jan 22 08 debt numbers from the Jan 20th 09 debt numbers… BOTH dates in Bush’s term. Sorry you’re having problems with what I was certain was pretty straight forward simple fact. 

  • Government_Banking_Serf

    How about the lessons from the McGovern report?

    When we talk about Health Care Costs, one of the biggest fiscal issues/disasters for this country, we can find comfort that the tremendous rise in Obesity, Diabetes, Heart Disease, and perhaps Cancers, is a DIRECT RESULT of George McGovern’s well-intentioned, but WRONG, and scientifically non-justified then, or now, report and recommendations via USDA, for Americans to shun natural fats, and instead move toward a more carbohydrate-rich diet (healthy grains).

    This reflected McGoverns own vegetarian dietary practices and prejudices, and not science. In response to Scientific criticism at the hearing, McGovern replied: ”I would only argue that senators don’t have the luxury that a research scientist has, of waiting until every last shred of evidence is in.”

    The last generation has been a part of a Discretionary Experiment pushed by well-intentioned liberals, using the force and bullhorn of government, with a good dose of USDA Grain lobby collusion thrown in.

    And now we have the Health/Spending Crisis to show for it.

    Sound like the wise government meddling in the housing sector?

    Sound like the economic management by Summers, Bernanke types?

    The road to hell is paved with Good Intentions. Granny couldn’t have said it any more clearly.  As she would have told you too much bread will make you fat.

    But that’s so…..  1700′s!  Today we have benevolent technocratic elites with the full force of government behind them to manage us into Nirvana!

    If it goes belly up? Bailout!!! The taxpayer won’t mind, your good intentions are a powerful salve.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Anyone notice a lot of idol worship going at the DNC?

    Not surprising given that at least half of the DNC delegates wanted to remove God.
     

    • neurohazard

      You mean like the Framers did when the made sure there were NO references to a God in the Constitution?

      I see no problem with a POLITICAL platform being secular.

      • notafeminista

        In the Declaration of Independence (preceding and thus necessitating the Constitution) who or what is the “Creator”?

        • neurohazard

          The DoI is a MORAL statement. It has no weight in law. In case you haven’t heard the Constitution is the supreme law of the land… AND IT’S A SECULAR DOCUMENT.

          • notafeminista

            A moral statement that led to a war…and a new political entity and ultimately the Constitution. So try again. To whom or what were the writers of the Declaration of Independence referring when they used the term “Creator”?

          • neurohazard

            The DoI refers to a creator not a Christian god. The Constitution is SECULAR. Please stop rewriting history and just deal with that simple reality.

          • notafeminista

            Well it’s “Creator” with a capital c (speaking of re-writing history). Creator of who or exactly? Be specific now.  And when the framers of the Constitution recorded said document in “the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eight seven” as quoted in Article 7 of said document, just WHO is the Lord to which they refer?  Lord Mountbatten?  Maybe the Lord of the Flies?  Maybe they really meant the Duke of Earl and just were mixed up.

          • neurohazard

            So a term of art is your “proof” the Constitution is a Christian document even when the rest of the document is DEVOID of any reference to religion?

          • notafeminista

            Sure..a term of art like “In God We Trust” or “Place your hand on the Bible” – like those terms of art.  Also, begging your pardon, the rest of the document is not devoid of religion – as it enumerates the right to worship as we please.  (Not to be free from worship as so many would have us believe.)

          • neurohazard

            Not in the Constitution, are they!

          • neurohazard

            Since the Constitution is a document ceding powers from the People and the States to the new federal government… just where is there in the Constitution is the “power” to favor ANY religious tradition?

            Secular as it was, the states demanded MORE protections. That’s why the First Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”

            Ball’s in your court!

          • notafeminista

            Um no.  The Constitution gives the power to the people and limits government.  Hence the three branches and the system of checks and balances to which is often referred.  The government only works if the people say it does.  Seems like we found the difficulty in your comprehension.

          • neurohazard

            The Constitution also EMPOWERS government.

          • sickofthechit

             It refers to “their Creator” not
            “our Creator”.  Big difference.

          • notafeminista

            Your point is that the writers of the Constitution were not men, or perhaps came about some other way independent of the men to whom they were referring (even while they dissolving the political bands and so on…..)? 

          • notafeminista

            Again, Creator of who or what?

          • jimino

            They weren’t referring to any “whom.”

            Their point was that rights did not come from or exist at the whim of the crown or feudal lord.  These rights were those inherently attached to being born  human.

            And before we had the brilliant secular government brought forth by our founders, God had a pretty poor record of protecting those “God-given” rights. 

          • notafeminista

            Article 7:  (read closely)
            Article. VII.

            The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall
            be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so
            ratifying the Same.

            The Word, “the,” being interlined between the seventh and eighth Lines of the
            first Page, the Word “Thirty” being partly written on an Erazure in the
            fifteenth Line of the first Page, The Words “is tried” being interlined between
            the thirty second and thirty third Lines of the first Page and the Word “the”
            being interlined between the forty third and forty fourth Lines of the second
            Page.

            Attest William Jackson Secretary

            done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the
            Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred
            and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the
            Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names

          • neurohazard

            UH?????

          • neurohazard

            Please show us some documentation that the language here “in the year of our lord” was actually voted on by the Constitutional Convention therefore reflects the views of the delegates.

            It sounds like the choice of wording here is all that of the Secretary: William Jackson.

            It does make a world of difference, don’t you think? Or don’t you?

          • notafeminista

            Again, fair point.  I take the US Government Archives at their word.

          • notafeminista

            Ok, once again it’s “Lord” with a capital “L”.   As for delegates’ belief or lack thereof – I’m gonna go with yes – insomuchas they squabbled over every word of every line.  Do you honestly think that one atheist or non-monotheist would have let “Lord” go by?

            Read the dratted thing would you please? Words mean something.  Usage means something.  They used “Lord” (with a capital L) for a reason.  It was not just a toss-off or “an art term.” 

          • neurohazard

            I write God with a capital G because it’s a proper name, not because I believe in this God. I use god when referring to non-demoninational “gods”.

            So there’s NO evidence that wording was actually voted on by the Convention. It seems a standard note added by a secretary.

    • notafeminista

      They didn’t want the competition.

    • JGC

      What is your favorite passage in the Bible that provides greatest comfort for you when life is harsh?

    • Mouse_2012

      nothing like that at the RNC….maybe a poll on republicans who dream of reagan(the guy that cut than raised taxes, fled Lebanon and don’t forget the Iranian Contra oh yea his support for death squads) 

  • neurohazard

    Has anyone seen ANY of our conservative friends here show ANY second thoughts or remorse about those right wing Clinton/Bush policies that destroyed our economy? How about those GOP policies of irresponsible tax cuts that stopped debt paydown and sabotaged the fiscal health of the nation? How much more evidence do they need that their policies failed disastrously?  

    I believe inherent in the definition of patriotism is to place the welfare of the nation above delusions of infallibility.

    • William

       Which policies destroyed our economy? Be very specific. Tax cuts? Can’t blame that because it was endorsed and extended by the Liberals/Obama. So what was it?

      • neurohazard

        Obama agreed to an extention of the Bush tax cut AFTER the Bush economy self-destructed. So what’s your point?

        What policies? How about irresponsible “supply side” tax cuts that have cost the government trillions in revenue? How about deregulation of the commodity and banking sectors that brought us unregulated derivatives and allowed banks to use consumer money to gamble on them? How about Bush allowing banks merge into megabanks? How about Bush letting banks leverage up to 40:1 of the assets when once it was about 15:1? How about free trade which sabotaged the US industrial base and helped build Red China into our biggest economic… and soon military competitor? How about letting us become beholden to Red China for much of our debt? How about Bush promising to pay down debt then doing everything he could to INCREASE debt.

        Is that a good start?

        • sickofthechit

           I predict you won’t receive a cogent response on this one.

          • neurohazard

            I knew that. If those on the right had a shred of intellectual honesty and cared about this nation, they’d place that above mindless ideology.

        • William

           Tax cuts “don’t cost the government because it is not the government’s money”. The government overspends so it has put the economy in to a debt tailspin. Deregulation of banks was signed under Clinton.  How about nobody but Bush tried to kill off the government policies of forcing banks and freddy/fani to give loans to people that could not pay them back? Free Trade? Does not bother me a bit to toss all the current so called “free trade” agreements and go to a fair trade system. You import something you need to export something. Don’t forget Clinton signed NAFTA. How about Obama promising to cut the deficit in half and did not even try to do that or get a budget passed.

          There is plenty of blame to go around but at the core of most of our economic problems is the failed and corrupt U.S. Government.

          • neurohazard

            If We The People are in debt, then when we give ourselves a tax cut that prevents debt paydown, we are STEALING that money from our kids and spending it on ourselves.

            Did you miss where I said CLINTON/BUSH policies? Just because Clinton accepted some bad right wing ideas DOESN’T MEAN THEY WEREN’T RIGHT WING IDEAS!!! And Bush expanded free trade because he AGREED with free trade.

            BTW, It was the GOP CONTROLLED CONGRESS that killed any reforms of Freddie and Fannie… and it’s not as if Bush didn’t push Fannie to give loans to those with poor credit.

            So thanks for proving my point… that right wingers are intellectually incapable of taking any responsibility for destroying the economy.

    • notafeminista

      Good – direct your comments towards Evan Thomas please.

  • hennorama

    OK, perhaps this is another fool’s errand, but I’m gonna give it a shot.

    Can we agree that Federal programs and policies do not all suddenly begin or end on the day a President is inaugurated or leaves office?  There is overlap and underlap, for a variety of reasons.

    If the above is true, it makes it almost impossible to accurately measure and attribute every single item of Federal revenue or outlay to any individual President.

    And if this is true, then why waste time on the whole argument of “Such and such occured during Pres. (insert your choice here)’s time in office, so he did all of this, and it did this to the deficit and debt and he’s 100% to blame for the mess we’re in now!” ?

    I’m sure we all agree that the current economy is far from ideal.  I think we can all agree that the situation didn’t happen overnight, and won’t be resolved overnight.

    The past is interesting, and fun to argue about, but it can’t be changed and therefore it would be more productive to talk about the future.

    So … let’s stop wasting time trying to assign blame on what’s already happened, and talk about what we want to happen, or what we think will happen.

    For example – if Romney is elected, what spending do you think should be cut?  He says he will cut 5% of ”non-security discretionary spending” on Day One, totaling $20 Billion.  What should he cut?  What will the impact of the cuts be?  Will it stimulate the economy?

    • neurohazard

      Partisan propagandists have no end of arguments to blame the other side and deprive them of all credit while absolving their side of all guilt and praising them as the fountain of all that is good and wonderful.

      A case in point is the argument that the House must be responsible for anything to do with the budget. So if Newt took over the House in 95, and a balance budget, and a surplus followed… it had to be Newt’s doing.

      The obvious problem with this argument is the House doesn’t have unitary power over the budget. It only has the power to initiate spending bills. Newt was unable to undo the Clinton tax hikes which he opposed. He deserves NO credit for revenue he opposed.

      Yet political propagandists claim… even here, that Newt balanced the budget in the 90′s. Do they have numbers? Of course not. Did his spending cuts help… a bit, but some of that was offset by GOP tax cuts in 97. And the GOP proposed bigger tax cuts in 98 and 99 both of which Clinton vetoed. If Newt had his way there never would have been a Clinton Surplus.

      And in this is a story of fiscal schizophrenia with the GOP at least in the 90′s. The old style fiscal conservatives were still worried about deficits. By the Bush era the Starve The Beast tax cut crazies had taken over the GOP.

      Now the GOP thinks they’ve created enough damage to the fiscal health of the government they are going in for the kill. But they can’t do so without a cadre of even more extreme crazies who have sabotaged their own intellects and are now immune to common sense. They actually deny that more revenues have any place in balancing the budget! Yikes! With such a loyal base of Dittoheads… the GOP is free to propose cutting services while giving even more tax cuts to the rich knowing all their propaganda and Orwellian nonsense has paid off. Their loyal base has been totally duped and they’re more than willing to chop off their nose to spite their face.

       

      • hennorama

        There is no lack of partisans among members of both major parties, as is easily seen in here when reading these passionate posts.

        That partisanship is a large part of the problem, however.  Accomplishing anything when you espouse that your side is 100% right, and the other side is 100% wrong all the time, is practically impossible.  Witness the feckless Congress.

        And while it is interesting and fun to argue about the past, and to try to assess blame or fault for problems, or to take credit for accomplishments, it is ultimately a complete waste of time and energy.

        Don’t get me wrong – passion is great and when passion fuels action, amazing things can result.

        My point was not about passionate argument, but rather that we should discuss the FUTURE, not the past.

        You never know, something good may come out of it.

        As I said, this may be another fool’s errand that I’m on, but I still think it’s worth a shot.

        • neurohazard

          I never meant to exempt Liberals or Dems. They have their own contradictions which they will forever deny . For example they claim to have a monopoly on democracy when they are oblivious to how anti-democratic our entire system is. I think our dysfunctional two party system leads to such dementia in both parties.

  • carnus72

    prove that god exists.  God is not a fact of life, it is part of your imagination.

    • Gregg Smith

      That one’s easy, prove that God doesn’t exist. It’s just as hard. So here we are, stuck. We may as well respect one another’s spiritual beliefs.

      • Government_Banking_Serf

        Christ you guys. :) The Founders were deists, more just that some bigger force, Nature/God gave rise to the Universe.  Barely and argument worth having. What’s clear is they weren’t bible-thumping evangelists trying to force specific religious doctrine into the public sphere, and were most concerned about protecting everyones liberty to believe whatever the hell they wanted and not be persecuted for it.

        Even though I am an atheist, and certainly disagree with those who want to push religiosity upon others, I still don’t believe that all religious people want to use the force of government to impose their lifestyle on everyone else, any more than atheists, gays or anyone else does. Mostly the religious just don’t like the attacks of the more arrogant and judgmental atheists, or of course the idea of Government coercing them into acting ways that go against their core beliefs. That really does go too far, and is what the founders wanted to protect against.

        Keep the Activism out of Government, protect our right to do and think what we want in our own homes short of harming others, and we’ll be fine.

        Live and Let Live.  Wow, radical.

        Lets prosecute the banksters and government enablers, and move forward.

        • sickofthechit

           I just saw the Reverend Horton Heat for the first time a week ago.  One of his tee-shirts says it best.

          “Ya’ll M.F.’s need to find Jesus!”

          Personally, I believe in infinity.

      • carnus72

        Ask him to answer your prayers and let me know how it goes. The burden of proof may not lay with the critic but with those whom in his name impose exclusive social concepts and “moral” pressures on those less fortunate.
        Respect is the basis of community. The social ecology of cooperation and progressive advancement of society has not been dismantled by anything but the exclusivism of those whom “believe” that god is other than man, other than the natural world and other than one another.

      • carnus72

        Yeah, easy to be full of ****. Easy to base platforms, planks, war on a framework that cannot be shared by those “believers” and repeaters with those whom withhold assent.

        • Gregg Smith

          I don’t know about all that but know one knows for sure what happens when you die. 

          • carnus72

            So why make something up about what happens after one dies?

          • neurohazard

            But not before…

            The danger here is those fairy tales can sure be used to manipulate the masses. Think we’d have many so wars or suicide bombings if so not for tales of a wonderful afterlife?

          • Gregg Smith

            I cannot say for sure that Mohammed Atta doesn’t have 72 virgins as we speak. If so, it’s a bad deal for the virgins.

          • neurohazard

            The human mind is prone to accept the plausible over the knowable. It’s much more adept at generating nonsense than respecting reality. Trying to disprove every negative the creative human mind can generate is not the path to wisdom. So if I say your posts here are actually being written by a purple unicorn living on the moon who telepathically controls your mind, you’re going to accept that until it’s disproven? That mode of thinking is not intellectually irrational, it’s inefficient. It bogs one down giving fairytales equal weight with known facts.

      • neurohazard

        Never heard of the scientific method? The burden of proof is not on anyone to disprove a negative.

        • notafeminista

          That’s a cop out answer.  Atheists make the assertion there is no God and then can’t substantiate it.  It’s almost like they are expecting people to accept their premise on ………well, on faith.

          • neurohazard

            If such is assertion is made in that manner, I’d agree. Rightfully it should be stated there’s no proof a god exists. But that’s NOT the same as saying someone must believe in a god because they can’t disprove it exists.

            I can live with doubt. I don’t need to delude myself that I know the answer.

          • notafeminista

            Referring to one’s belief system as a fairy tale, is not indicative of doubt.

            Referring it to as being deluded and/or having delusions…is not indicative of doubt.  Your mind is made up.

          • neurohazard

            You have NO idea what I believe. That you THINK you do is the only projection here.

          • notafeminista

            Fair point, I go by what you post.  I presume  you are truthful.

          • neurohazard

            I don’t recall an OP forum on metaphysics.
            Not that it matters since this is a discussion on politics, right?

          • notafeminista

            So when you referred to fairy tales and delusions, you meant what exactly?

        • Gregg Smith

          Ultimately science can be known but look up and contemplate the universe. What’s on the outside of it’s edge? What was there before the Big Bang (if that’s the theory of choice)? What happened the day before the beginning of time? 

          We not only can’t know these answers, we cannot even fully grasp the questions. No one, no one, knows what happens when we die. At some point it all comes down to faith even if it’s faith in nothingness. I remember thinking when Pope John Paul died how comforting it must have been through his last days. It is for many. Maybe they’re right. Maybe not but everyone gets to cope with their own mortality how they want to. My own beliefs differ but I have the highest respect for people of faith.

          • neurohazard

            G wrote: “We not only can’t know these answers, we cannot even fully grasp the questions. No one, no one, knows what happens when we die. At some point it all comes down to faith even if it’s faith in nothingness.”

            Well, that explains much of your amusing faith-based political, fiscal and economic “theories”.

            This is just another area were we obviously disagree. When in doubt, faced with cosmic unknowns, belief in fairytales is NOT a virtue. Being aware of what one doesn’t know and being comfortable with doubt is. Being aware that one’s spiritual beliefs are just BELIEFS and not proven facts is a virtue… as is not trying to impose those beliefs on others. Our species is young. I don’t maintain as you do we can NEVER know about the nature of the universe so we must comfort ourselves with fairytales. 10-50-100 years from now we’ll KNOW much more than now just as we KNOW much more now than 10-50-100 years ago… well at least some of us do. Many are satisfied with 2000 year old fairytales.

            The downside of being faith-based instead of evidence-based is soon those fairytales take on a life of their own. The human mind has some defects in this area and being aware of them is crucial in dealing with life, the universe, and everything. We all feel some imperative to believe in our own infallibility. We gladly settle for the plausible and then shut down our critical thinking. It’s in the very nature of belief to deprive oneself of the intellectual tools to disprove the belief system one subscribes to. Belief is self-justifying instead of self-correcting. Belief puts the human mind on auto-pilot even if one’s about to crash into a mountain.

          • Gregg Smith

            That there is no God may be the biggest fairy tale of all. You don’t know. 

  • carnus72

    No one can say and that is the point.  they did not say jesus or his holy father or the trinity or anything else. Essentially they founders were not as foolish to assume something that cannot be defined and there in is not a fact nor a basis for augmenting reality for others.  Try inclusiveism, jesus did.

  • Government_Banking_Serf

    “Woody Brock: Capitalism is Great, but Our Corrupted, Bastardized, Crony Capitalist System Stinks; It’s Rigged”

    http://www.capitalismwithoutfailure.com

    • Government_Banking_Serf

      Above a great video to watch.

      “Under true capitalism…. Goldman Sachs wouldn’t exist….”

  • Government_Banking_Serf

    “Under true capitalism, no agent has any bargaining power whatsoever. The notion of 4 investment bankers taking a private plane to Washington tomake sure that leverage would be tripled in April 2004 in exchange for some nice payments, is outrageous and scandalous and they all should be in jail. Adam Smith wouldn’t roll in his grave; he would gyrate.”

    Who was the poster telling me that “true capitalism”, and a market more in the flavor or Ron Pauls critiques and Bill Black style prosecutions of those who rig the system is……  ”what we have, and it hasn’t worked”

    ….sigh.

    • neurohazard

      Color me confused. Are you’re saying it was a mistake to permit Wall Street banks to go from about 15:1 leverage to 40:1? Or not? Of course from a Progressive viewpoint it was an insane ruling. It’s one of those “little” deregulatory moves from the Bush Junta that ultimately brought down the economy.   

      • Government_Banking_Serf

        mistake. Regulatory Capture. Disdain for fixed, transparent rules of game for all. For equality before the law.

        If we would just carry a big stick in the Financial Regulatory arena, Clear, consistent rules  to the game and punishments to sociopaths, then the rest of us could enjoy the fruits of a free market and free society.

        • Government_Banking_Serf

          Rigged, and Discretionarily Ruled by elites Capitalism is not “true capitalism”.

          • neurohazard

            OK, it’s late and I’m not following. If left to themselves without regulations then these banks would not have to beg or bribe for 40:1 leverage when without rules or regs they’d be free to go to 100:1 or 1000:1.

            You seem to be making the case that the market can NOT be trusted and needs regulation, but the flaw is the regulators can be corrupted.

            So how is this a defense of the free market?   

          • Government_Banking_Serf

            What does Liberty and The Rule of Law mean to you?  Start by looking up Classical Rule of Law. Read the writings of the Founders, where they abhor tyranny, want liberty, but are acutely aware of human nature and historical empirical reality.

            The confusion is your narrow view, knee-jerk fallacies about “right-wingers”, with respect.

            You can incorporate more into your world view than the gut compassion and wishes for fairness we all have as young, thoughtful people, and bring in the reality of human nature and hence need for Constitutional Law and Liberty for long term peace and prosperity, that time and wisdom brings.

            Its you guys, who make the claims I argue for No Regulation. Again, you guys don’t understand Rule of Law, and the difference between Rule of Law and Discretion.

            I am all for Bill Black opening a can of whup-ass on the Financial Sector and Central Banking colluders. They do NOT play by an “equality before the law” with the rest of us, but rule by collusion and corruption and Discretion for the benefit of their cabal.

            Both parties are up to their chins.

            Setting the Rules of the Game, and then letting people free, is vastly different than the ACTIVE Management of our economy and lives by the federal government. The Feds should ENFORCE THE LAW not Decide our directions. 

            You need to understand the criticisms of Central Banking and the “Business Cycle”. The power of the Fed is out of control.

            If Obama hired Bill Black, and took up Ron Paul’s desire to Audit the Fed, sincerely, I would vote for him.

            Its corrupted markets that are failing us, not markets.

            We don’t need Command and Control, Centralized, Beurocratic solutions. That’s a false choice. 

            We need Law Enforcement 101.  Glass Steagal was Rule of Law that worked and was not activist. A broad principle of preventing obvious conflict of interest.

            Thanks Clinton and Rubin.

          • Government_Banking_Serf

            Its about throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and the shortsighted stupidity of that, regardless of our emotional disgust at recent times. 

            See the Glen Greenwald link and the Woody Brock link.

            Think about Rule of Law vs. Discretion used as collusion/corruption, and make an effort to understand the Ron Paul/libertarian critique of Monetary Policy.

        • neurohazard

          So you’re in favor of government regulations because the greed of some in the private sector can bring down the entire economy? Weren’t you the free market guy? Or am I confused?

    • sickofthechit

       I think they would have taken four private planes surely..  Risk management practices would demand it.

  • carnus72

    adam smith was a classical liberal ideologue, god bless him;)

      that economy is based on two fundemental requirements;

    the rule of law and the marketplace.

       The rule of law as in government that maintains, creates and fosters a free marketplace; outside of the undue influence of misinformantion or overt manipulation.

       

    • notafeminista

      Like paying someone to keep people from building next to your casino.

      • Mouse_2012

        sheldon anderson?

        • notafeminista

          The Native American Tribe who hired Jack Ambramoff.

          • Mouse_2012

            my b he’s in trouble for this 
            Local police reportedly arrested more than a hundred prostitutes and twenty-two syndicate leaders in a 2010 operation at Adelson’s Venetian Maca

            The filing also accused Adelson of allegedly hiring illegal workers, and controlling a “Chairman’s Club” that permitted “favored members, including known or suspected organized crime figures.”

            Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/evanosnos/2012/07/sheldon-adelson-and-macau.html#ixzz25u4gKi1A 

            Good thing Mitts flying around with the guy who not only hires illegals but works with organized crime figures and pimps hookers

          • notafeminista

            Let me know when he’s convicted of same.

  • carnus72

    cheney knew that we could spend as much money as the treasury could print in Afgahnastan and thats why we went. 

      The Bush Regime were traitors and criminals and should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. exhibit A;  the deficeit and rate at which such a surplus vanishes in” thin air.”

    • sickofthechit

       cheney should have been tried for treason. Outing Valerie Plame was a clear instance of aiding and abetting our enemies.  Revealing her identity was the tip of the iceberg.  Every agent she ever had contact with overseas was put at risk.  We’ll never know how many operations were ruined because of his vindictiveness.  He is a coward and should be treated as such.  Evidence?  How about five deferments? How about getting an apology from the poor old guy he shot in the face when a flight of quail spooked him?  How about torture?  The tool of a bully, who is nothing more than a coward.

      • JGC

        I agree the Plame incident was treasonous on the part of Cheney. He must be thankful Scooter Libby “took the bullet” for him; ironic, huh? Under the Ryan Medicare plan, being born before 1958, Cheney will be around for years, getting all sorts of replacement mechanical body parts so he can extend his reptilian influence well into the future.

        • notafeminista

          To both of you:  Cheney was treasonous, yet Assange is a hero?

          • JGC

            Who said Assange is a hero?  Are you saying Assange is a hero?  

        • Gregg Smith

          Libby was not convicted or even charged with outing Plame. Cheney is a patriot.

          • sickofthechit

             Of what, or who?

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Hahahaha.

            Yes, let’s flip that script and see what happens when a left-wing apparitchik outs a spy.

          • Gregg Smith

            She was not covert, there was no crime. We spent millions on Fitzgerald and zip.

            And for good measure a Democrat controlled Senate committee determined Joe Wilson was a liar.

          • JGC

            I don’t think even Cheney would say his motivations were patriotic. He was always about the power; if there were any patriotic side benefits to be accrued, well, so be it. But it was never to put country first.

        • modavations

          Treasonous,Reptilian…..Madame we have enough Home Grown Hate Speech.We don’t need Canadian

          • JGC

            Sorry…must be the bitter influence of the Harperian overlords…

      • Gregg Smith

        You can’t be serious. Cheney outed no one, certainly not Plame. Nor did Scooter Libby. It was Richard Armitage and he was not charged because Plame was not covert. Where do you guys get this stuff? Meanwhile Obama is leaking like a sieve and he even outed the guy who gave up Bin Laden.

        • sickofthechit

           Where do you think Armitage  got his info?

          • Gregg Smith

            Wink wink, nod nod, everybody knows.

        • modavations

          Daily Kos

      • JONBOSTON

        sicko comments from sick of thechit

    • JONBOSTON

      A tour de force in intelligent thought!

  • carnus72

    wihtout the government there is no marketplace for 99%

  • carnus72

    without prosecutions there is no functioning government.

      If BO had a spine of steel Dicky Donnie and Jorge would be at Gitmo drinking theyre fair share of cuban water.

  • Government_Banking_Serf
  • WorriedfortheCountry

    How did my greeny friends like Obama’s big fat wet kiss for fracking on Thursday?

  • Government_Banking_Serf

    Bill Black’s eye-popping opening statement at House FinServ hearing on Lehman Bros. failure.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld5tERIBvsg&feature=related

  • Government_Banking_Serf

    Ron Paul on MORE regulations in finance.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/42154.html

    • modavations

      Son you are obsessed.Ron Paul is everyones Crazy Uncle.The Left has Nader,the Right has Uncle Ron.

  • Mouse_2012

    BREAKING THE SILENCE
    Children and Youth - 
    Soldiers’ Testimonies 2005-2011

    http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Children_and_Youth_Soldiers_Testimonies_2005_2011_Eng.pdf 

    “There was this incident where a ‘straw widow’ was put up following a riot at Qalandiya on a Friday, in an abandoned house near the square. Soldiers got out with army clubs and beat people to a pulp. Finally the children who remained on the ground were arrested. The order was to run, make people fall to the ground. There was a 10-12 man team, 4 soldiers lighting up the area. People were made to fall to the ground, and then the soldiers with the clubs would go over to them and beat them. A slow runner was beaten, that was the rule…”

  • JGC

    Every Un-Green Republican is waiting for the great Stephen Harper/Mitt Romney/Barack Obama agreement on the Keystone Pipeline that will bring thousands of (extremely temporary) jobs to the Heartland U.S.   Harper’s other possible arrangement is to try to get the pipeline headed through western Canada, the oil en route to China.  To do this Harper is proposing that First Nations people be better able to control their destiny by changing their collective tribal holdings to personal ownership of property, supposedly to enable the individual to extract maximal value through business claims.  Of course, to continue on this path only ensures fragmentation of claimants, making it easier for the large global companies to divide and conquer individual claimaints to seize a path from Alberta to the Pacific.  They would try to undermine the intent of the First Nations agreement to their entire society, to try to introduce a personal/corporate ownership to divide and conquer this group.

         

    • modavations

      Indians are Tourists.They are the heirs of Genghis Khan.They crossed the land bridge 19,000 yrs ago.The first migration from Olduvai Gorge happened 100,000ish years ago.They hung in Mesopotamia for 20,000ish years and leaped again 80,000,years ago.One crew headed north and became Honkies.The rest migrated East.Note that Indians have ovoid eyes.

    • modavations

      Martin was as good as Harper and he was of the “Left”.When the Socialists ran Canada the exchange rate was 1.50 to the dollar.Today Harper’s Laiisez Faire economy has the Canada Dollar at Parity.I will trade you 20 Pres.Obamas for one Harper,any day.I’ll grant you this,the U.S. would have been alot better off and have a lot more oil ,if we’d invaded Alberta.

      • JGC

        U.S. invade Alberta?  Speaking of invasions, Harper has a campaign going on to educate all Canadians that it was Canada that won the War of 1812.  I guess textbooks in the U.S. will now have to be revised, because that is not the way I remember the War of 1812 being taught by all the high school social studies teacher/football coaches back in the day…
         

  • Government_Banking_Serf

    Glenn Greenwald on Rule of Law.

    As so many ask what it means around here….

    http://www.capitalismwithoutfailure.com/2012/08/glenn-greenwald-two-tier-legal-system.html

    • Government_Banking_Serf

      “The abandonment of the rule of law: The downward spiral began with Ford’s pardon of Nixon, continued through the shielding of Iran-Contra criminals, and is now culminating with the Obama administration’s decision to shield all Bush crimes of torture and illegal warrantless eavesdropping, obstruction of justice, the aggressive attack on Iraq, and now the Administration’s decision not to prosecute Wall Street criminals for precipitating a crisis based on systemic financial fraud. The template now is to exempt the most powerful from consequences of their criminal acts. This is radically different from what we previously experienced.”

      • neurohazard

        This is one genie I don’t think we can ever put back in the bottle. 

        • Government_Banking_Serf

          You give up?

  • neurohazard

    A question to the 24/7 crowd that is addicted to this or other forums… what are we doing here?

    I read the posts here of obviously passionate far Right wingers and see nothing but nonsense. I’m sure they think the same of my posts. Sure, I could get into an implicit value analysis of how one is dealing with reality, but would that miss the point?

    Politics isn’t religion yet it’s often treated as if it is. If they are just belief systems, then none more sacrosanct than the other even if one claims to deal with the spritual.

    But what drives such strong beliefs? There’s a recent book out called The Righteous Mind… or something like that. In it a discussion that strong beliefs are not driven by evidence but strong belief is driven by dopamine. I stopped a movie I was really into just to see what was going on back here. Why? Don’t we get a kick out of some zinger we post thinking it’s a devastating rebuttal? 

    Are some of us just dopamine junkies?

    • sickofthechit

       Guilty, but I really, really, really believe what I write may make a positive difference.  Just wish I was reaching a larger audience….

      • modavations

        I don’t even read you.You are a “Screamer”

      • neurohazard

         It is, of course, a worthwhile exercise to truth squad some of the nutty, and often deceitful claims made here usually by our right wing friends. One can reach lurkers who read these forums but don’t post. But it’s a sad part of the human condition that those with self-sabotaged intellects can ever be persuaded with evidence. They’ve already inoculated themselves against anything that threatens their far right ideology.

    • modavations

      NPR is 80% Lefty in my opinion.Laissez Faire types are trying to switch some of the 80%.Lefties are “Preaching to the Choir”,so in reality this is “Hand Holding,a giant AA Meeting”!!

  • modavations

    Mr Villaregosa…..So what is it???Is there room for A God in the Democrat Platform and has Jeruselum been returned to my Atlas?
           The first action of a Communist Tyrant is to ban God.The State is the “All Mighty”,the State is your Daddy.The first act of a Liberated People  is to reopen the church

  • carnus72

    No one is banning god. The freedom to pursue life and liberty as an individual sees fit; without the undue influence of others beliefs is the point. Freedom from religion, not freedom of it.

    • DrewInGeorgia

      There’s this thing called a reply function here that’s really helpful. It’s easier to find what you’re looking for if you keep your room clean. Just a suggestion.

      • carnus72

        Why are you looking for something in my room? Stay out.

      • carnus72

        Keep those skeletons in your closet with your libido. What’s under the bed? Oh look it’s a new board game called “The Squeeze”. About the biggest fleecing in World History! Good thing we didnt throw that out! Now I can play just like Jorge Jr; look out Tehran!

        • DrewInGeorgia

          Are you okay? I was just trying to be helpful, stop taking offense where there was none intended. On the other hand, if you want me to get offensive you should watch what you wish for.

          • carnus72

            Offended? Are you? I’m not offended by you, I’m using your point to “disqus” matter that pertain.

          • carnus72

            I wish you could teach me math. Is that watching what I wish for mr. Offensive, as you portray yourself?

  • carnus72

    Zionist zealotry is the guns and butter canon.

  • Steve__T

    To all who post here:

    This is for all not right left or middle all. It has come a time in our history we have forgotten who we are. We the people.

    It is written,  “United we stand Divided we fall” as we have in evidence here, we are all of us divided, and will fall.

    As Americans we must put aside our differences and come together or utterly fail as a Nation, no matter who wins the election we must unite as one, so that the truth of “Liberty and Justus for all” remains our goal. If not remember the cliff of division is near and there are a lot of other nations who would love to see us go over it. Will you be an America United or continue to fracture it with divisiveness. It’s up to you, All of you the The People.

    What say ye.

    • hennorama

      Yes.

      I dunno if you had a typo or if it was intentional, but I kinda like Liberty and Just US for all.” (emphasis and space added)

    • carnus72

      Grover Norquist is a tyrant that cannot be protected any longer. If have of elected representative are more loyal to him than the constitution it’s already over. By the way the oceans are rising.

      • Gregg Smith

        He’s irrelevant. He doesn’t even hold office.

        • carnus72

          As are you. Irrelevent and without office.

          • Gregg Smith

            No one claimed the Republican Party was beholden to me.

          • carnus72

            That makes you no more relevant.

          • Gregg Smith

            No one claimed I was relevant either.

          • modavations

            General G,Commander of the Liberated Middle States.You and the other 5 Laissez Faire types on this blog tie up 500 Liberals daily

          • modavations

            And are therefore,most relevent

          • Gregg Smith

            I take it back one has. 

      • modavations

        Real Men don’t take orders!!!

        • carnus72

          So Stalin was a “real man” and therein a true conservative. Theta what you’re saying.

        • John English

          So none of our soldiers are real men?

          • modavations

            They sign a contract.A Legally Binding Contract

          • Mouse_2012

            so if you sign a legally binding contract your not a man?

    • Gregg Smith

      I agree, we need to stand together to defeat Obama if there is to be a chance of unity.

      • neurohazard

        TRANSLATION: As long as the nation totally supports G’s point radical right wing policies that have already proven to be a disaster, we’ll all get along.

  • neurohazard

    Live now on NBC Ann Romney just said no, she and Mitt never had any financial problems. But she wants the American People to BELIEVE they did.

    Unbelievable.

    • modavations

      Press.Obamas school in Hawaii is 26,000.00 per annum.Romneys money was earned.He gave his Daddy’s inheritence away

      • carnus72

        You mean george Romney was a big goverment tax raiding liberal? Oh yeah, he sure was.

        • neurohazard

          Romney likes to play the “I didn’t raise taxes in Massachusetts” game. That’s because income taxes are limited by the state constitution. What he did was drastically raise FEES. My permit to carry a firearm went up from $25 to $100 under Romney.

          As for balancing the budget… that also is required by state law. So where’s Romeny’s great skill when EVERY governor has to do this?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Romney raised NO broad based fees.  Under MA law fees cannot be larger than the services they pay for.

            Fee for service is an efficient and conservative model and that is exactly what he implemented.

            When Romney came into office we under severe $3B budget shortfall and the pundits and Democrats claimed the only way out of the mess was to raise broad based taxes.  Romney proved them wrong with government efficiency reforms.

          • neurohazard

            If a Dem push up so many fees as Romney did, would you be as forgiving? Didn’t think so.

            A fee IS STILL A TAX.  

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Once again you have a listening comprehension problem.

    • neurohazard

      Ann Romney 1994; “Another son came along 18 months later, although we waited four years to have the third, because Mitt was still in school and we had no income except the stock we were chipping away at. We were living on the edge, not entertaining.”

      http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/08/fact-checking-ann-and-mitt-romneys-hardknock-early-years/56321/

      Poor Ann and Mitt… living on the edge of desperation, eating pasta, not entertaining.
       

  • carnus72

    The earth needs a restart. When the big waves come and endless winter darkens her sky’s; the new beginning is at hand. The toxic hatred of the neocon Stalinist right wing agenda has to end somehow.
    Inherent in the thought design of your maker is the ultimate kill switch. Hope all you republicans know how to swim.

    • modavations

      Stalin,Hitler,Pol Pot,Mao,Cusceaucu(?),Tito,Honnecker,Hoxha,Fidel,Chavez,are all Leftists.The fault is in the DNA.The Left dissuades competition,difference of opininion.They want the Yin without the Yang and thus all become diabaolical 1 party Regimes.

      • carnus72

        Wrong, they were all conservatives.

        Who is more conservative; FDR or Stalin?

        Russia and its context is ultimately and traditionally the most conservative state on planet for hundreds of years. Out of this context you want to paint “left” as such then just like every Neo con argument you nihlate the contextual comprehension

        • modavations

          NAZI-National Workers Socialist Party.Hitler’s side kick,Musollini(?),began as the Editor of the Socialist Paper,Avanti in Trento.
                   And Abraham Lincoln was not a closet Democrat.He was the Father of the Republican Party and freed the Black man from the Democrat Plantation owner.
                 ”We are Socialists,we are enemies of todays Capitalistic System for the exploitation of the economically weak,with it’s unfair salaries….”
              Adolph Hitler    Berlin   1925

          • carnus72

            Hilter was a right wing conservative. “socialist” or not. He never would have been elected in Germany as a lefty or liberal. Some people will say anything or havent you n

          • modavations

            hearsay

          • carnus72

            That’s a fact based in history. My years in Germany not being the only testimony. You’re a waste of time Moda.

          • modavations

            My zillion times in Berlin(I leave Sept.27) say heasrsay.And you’re not a waste of time,just niave

          • carnus72

            Ha, I lived in Bavaria for 5 years, not in the army. While you’re there ask some one who was alive then. My father inlaw was as was his mother. They are not liars.

            No you’re not a waste of time, your a waste of protoplasm.

          • J__o__h__n

            More of this nonsense . . .  We already read this several times before your sabatical. 

        • neurohazard

          The real divide is who trusts and wants to advance the interests of the People. Clearly ALL dictators do not. So it comes as no surprise that it’s the GOP in the US that most tries to sabotage democracy. The GOP trusts markets in which dollars, thus the rich, have the bigger vote. They want government to operate that way too.  

  • modavations

    Mr.President,for every job created 4 quit looking.If these folks were included,the rate would be 11.2%.
         Today on NBC,or CBS’s morning show, they had a poll.They asked, would you prefer larger govt. with more services,but a higher unemployement rate,or a smaller govt.with less services and more folks employed.By 70% to 16% they the vote was for smaller govt!!A Pox on the Nanny State and Big Brother

    • neurohazard

      PLEASE… if you’re going to repost talking points you steal from the right wing sources you never have the decency to cite… at least try to UNDERSTAND them first before you butcher the repost.

      Adding back in those who dropped out of the job market in the last month doesn’t raise the unemployment rate to 11.2% which is higher than the peak unemployment rate of 10.2% in fall 2009. It brings it back to around July’s 8.3%.

    • neurohazard

      Here’s a quick lesson on how to understand BLS stats. The most recent stats for August show, in millions:

      154.645  Labor Force

      142.101 Employed

      Divide the employed by the labor force and we get

      142,101  

      154,645 ÷

      ——————–

      0.918885188657894

      So about 91.888% of the current labor force is employed. Subtract that from 100% and…

      100 – 91.8885188657894   =  

      a  8.1114811342106% unemployment rate rounded off to 8.1%

      In July the labor force was 155.013 million. Feel free to do the math that gives us that 11.2% unemployment rate you’re claiming. I won’t hold my breath.

  • Ellen Dibble

    I listened to snippets of interviews with Mitt Romney, and I think it was David Gregory asking him what he would do if he lost the election.  Answer:  Continue on with his life.  
        I’m thinking that when you’re rich enough to take several years off to zero in on resume building and campaigning, you have quite a few options.  Bill Gates is surely a model.  No, he didn’t “save the Olympics,” and maybe that is a great model for what a leader can do.  But he’s set a model for how to deploy resources that move us ahead, as a human species and as a nation.  So I see in the local paper that Bill McKibben is suggesting that institutions like Amherst College divest from coal and oil, thereby helping elected officials in Washington to know they have support to steer us toward a more sustainable energy future.  
          And I’m thinking, wasn’t the divestiture approach (led by institutions like Yale, as I recall) actually effective in shifting South Africa away from apartheid?  ”Responsible investing” portfolios can apparently take the lead in pushing us ahead rather than in reverse.  
         Yes, I’m interested in how Romney’s vision of the future plays out in the particular portfolio of investments that he has fostered in his own life.  Maybe we could take a hint and move our own money towards solar and wind, for example.   Let the big endowments do their part, we’ll do ours.  If Romney cannot show us how, as private citizens, to move this country and this planet forward, and can only do it as a president, that’s a bit unnerving.  But he wasn’t specific.  He said, “I’ve lived in this economy; I know how it works.”  Okay.  I’ve lived in it too, and so have a lot of us.  And a lot of us know how it does Not work, so I’d like to know more about that.

  • Ellen Dibble

    Are there academics who can and will discuss the intersecting roles of the leading clerics in the Shi’ia Middle East?  It’s surely dead center in the national headlights right now.  I suppose politics in Iraq and Syria and Lebanon and Iran are influenced by religion just as it is here.  I know in Iran there is veto power right at the top, and the person wielding that power is not exactly young, but surely not out of touch.  I  don’t know how the dialogue and interplay among those clerics, Iraq to Iran, for instance, compares to the dialogue among, say, archbishops internationally sort of under the aegis of the pope.  
         I can only imagine it, but the exact framing of Iran’s position vis-a-vis the West and our “schemes,” and vis-a-vis (a) the Holocaust and (b) the Israeli state and Palestinians, that framing is probably somewhat like a party platform, partly political, partly conferenced among who knows what sort of colleagues — not sprung like Venus from the sea, not sui generis.  Policy probably derives from knowledge of how it can play to other clerics, and how it will play to people in this nation or that.  
         Iran is probably a clear-cut instance, by itself, but Iraq and many other smaller countries are not so clear-cut.  After I figure that out, I’d ask the same questions about Sunni religious political coordination within and between.  
         Without understanding some of those, um, call it religious politics, we Americans are likely to view confrontations in the Middle East as epic challenge, on the scale of a blockbuster movie, to entrenched ideas of the Holy Land rooted as far back as the Crusades, as a sort of Camelot, real and not real.  Monsters can seem to appear, instead of actually traditions struggling into the future, and can hit us in the gut, playing upon our least informed instincts.  

        And this could happen while we’re debating full out about how to divide up the debt, the tax and spending, the blame for jobs and banks, all that.  Sure that matters, and the sequestration of January 1st looms large, but aren’t we vulnerable to being herded, while we argue these campaign issues, by our worst instincts?  I’m wanting to ask someone like Shimon Peres. 

  • neurohazard

    Someone wrote below, demonstrating the problem with faith-based logic: “Cheney is a patriot”. 

     And Cheney “proved” his “patriotism” by encouraging irresponsible tax cuts that sabotaged debt paydown and the fiscal health of the nation. By running up more debt he sabotaged the nation’s ability to deal with emergencies. Cheney “proved” his “patriotism” by ignoring the true source of Islamic terrorism and going after a nation that posed no threat to us at the cost of around $trillion and almost breaking the military in the process. In the mean time he starved the war in Afghanistan of resources to the point it may never be winnable. Cheney “proved” his “patriotism” by encouraging neocon bluff and bluster which threatened two other “Axis Of Evil” nations that did not attack us on 911 and by going after Iraq, these other nations realized they had to acquire atomic weapons to defend themselves. I could go on. Anyone see any evidence the nation or the world is better off because of Cheney’s beliefs or actions?

    With “patriots” like this, who needs enemies?

  • hennorama

    Romney Day One (from ”Mitt Romney’s Plan for Jobs and Economic Growth.”  I’ve shortened the copy and added my interpretations.  Anything in quotes is direct from the website)

    Cut corporate taxesImplement more free trade agreementsDrill baby, drillDump job (re)training onto the statesCut “non-security discretionary spending” by 5 percent = $20 Billion
    “Pave the Way to End Obamacare”
    Cut “regulations that unduly burden the economy or job creation”"Sanction China for Unfair Trade Practices”Discourage “union labor on major government construction projects”

    This is not his entire plan, of course.

    My comments: clearly this agenda is pro-business (primarily pro-BIG business), which is Mr. Romney’s main focus.  He appears to believe that if the Federal government was only more pro-business, all of our economic problems would be resolved.

    He may be right.  Large corporations would certainly benefit.  But do they need help right now?  Corporate profits are at or near record highs.  This is clearly reflected in the massive turnaround in the stock markets, with the Dow doubling off its lows of only 3 1/2 years ago.

    Corporate taxes contributed 7.9% of Federal revenue in 2011.  Is this too much?

    One interesting thing to note is that with the exception of “drill baby, drill,” none of these things directly address unemployment in the short term.  Romney’s contention is that if these changes are made, businesses will hire people quickly and en masse.

    He may be right, but probably not in the short term.

    One thing I note is that large corporations are holding TRILLIONS of dollars in cash.  Does Mr. Romney think that they are not putting this money to profitable use because they think their taxes are too high?  Or that they aren’t hiring people for the same reason?

    If that was true, then this would be the logic (obviously simplified for the sake of brevity):  Let’s say a corporate employer can make $10,000 of profit from hiring 1 new employee.  Let’s assume the corp.’s Federal tax rate is 35% currently.  So the after-tax profit is $6500.  Now let’s assume the tax rate is lowered to 25% (Romney’s proposal).  Now they have $7500 after-tax.

    This is great, right?  But do you really believe that a corp. would sit on its cash, giving up $6500 of after-tax profit year after year, waiting for a tax cut?

    Hard to make a case for that, right?

    Business would love lower taxes, of course.  But that’s not the reason they aren’t hiring.  Lack of strong demand is what’s holding them back.  The private economy of individuals and businesses continue paying down debt and adding to savings, rather than borrowing and spending.  Witness again the trillions corporations are holding, for example.  This is unlikely to change quickly, which is why I believe the recovery will continue to be “The Great BBQ Recovery” – low and slow.

    As I’ve said before, there’s no magic bullet.  Mr. Romney’s proposals might work, they might not.  I don’t think there will be much economic difference regardless of who is in the Oval Office.

    But my preference is for a President who tends to favor humans over corporations, not vice-versa.

    • modavations

      I agree with Romney

  • Mouse_2012

    http://www.fair.org/blog/2012/09/07/fair-tv-iran-misreporting-labor-day-and-cnns-unbelievable-romney/
    FAIR TV: Iran Misreporting, Labor Day and CNN’s Unbelievable Romney

    The new episode of FAIR TV is here, featuring misreporting on Iran’s nuclear energy program, NewsHour lecturing labor leaders on Labor Day, and some of the most embarrassing biographical puffery for a presidential candidate you’re likely to ever hear 

  • modavations

    Mr.President if you want to “End these Endless Wars”,let us drill our own copius energy sources.We can develop Green Alternatives simultaneously,if the markets warrant them.Germany now pays 300 to 500% more for Energy now that they are Green.Green was such a fiasco that Germany no longer subsidizes these Ventures.Same with Spain.

    • neurohazard

      More baseless claims?

  • carnus72

    If you want to play world domination on the basis of petroleum we will eventually lose. We’re not geographically situated well enough. Bottom line is that Russia primarily has the upper hand in that position. As we all well know there are alternative resources in natural gas form at our reach, however, without government subsidizing expanding markets and accessibility it won’t happen. That means you can’t drill PNG any faster or current price supports will falter even further. Mandate a percentage of Trans to be on CNG and methanol like china has and drilling rates will increase.

  • neurohazard

    As in 2010 Obama isn’t thinking strategically. He didn’t seem to be paying attention to the Tea Party insanity before the 2010 election. Look how that turned out. And now in 2012 he’s repeating his 2010 failure.

    Fair or not he KNEW a poor job market was his Achilles Heel as did the GOP.Yet Obama has no consistent record of trying to get the GOP Congress to pass any jobs bills. Why hasn’t he gone on TV to demand the passage of such bills? Why hasn’t he tried to expose the intransigence of the GOP as they sabotage the economy knowing it’s their best chance to defeat Obama?

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Talk to Harry Reid.

      Reid is blocking 32 jobs bills put forward by the GOP.  I guess Harry Reid is trying to torpedo Obama.

      • neurohazard

        If only they were REAL jobs bills instead of bills to impose a right wing agenda using jobs as a pretense.

        • Gregg Smith

          That’s silly.

          • neurohazard

            You consider that a rebuttal? Now THAT’S what’s silly.

          • Gregg Smith

            That’s even sillier.

          • neurohazard

            I’ll take your inability to form a cogent answer here as proof you’re compelled to post even when you have nothing to say.

          • Gregg Smith

            You have a silly idea of “proof”… always have.

          • neurohazard

            You only consider having to provide proof silly because respecting facts isn’t high on your agenda. Posting right wing political spin trumps all.

          • Gregg Smith

            I consider having to provide proof silly? Huh?

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          It turns out that Obama’s job bill was a phony election gimmick.

          His jobs bill was largely for hiring unneeded teachers which did the following during an election year:

          - reduce unemployment figures
          - increase union membership

          Hiring teachers is a local function.  This is the classic paying people to dig holes and then fill them.

          Further, he did this with additional borrowed money.  Where did PAYGO — go?

          The GOP ideas were for systemic improvement in the private sector job market.
           

          • neurohazard

            There’s no reason why he could not have proposed any number of jobs bills. When the economy was in the pits, it was pointless to keep paying long-term unemployment without the nation getting something back. I would have liked to seen a return of the WPA or CETA for a few years.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             How about reforming the corporate tax code so American companies would bring jobs back from countries like Ireland?

            The GOP were for that.

          • neurohazard

            So at a time of near record deficits and record debt your “solution” is not to protect US jobs AND earn revenue from import duties, but to cut corporate and personal income taxes?
              

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAoUgKVpe10 Moronee

    It was funny.  The day after the convention the Romney people were paying all these journalists to write about the monthly jobs report instead of Obama’s speech.  He still got the bounce.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92L4LHcT75s&feature=relmfu
     

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Dead cat bounce.  Romney is still ahead of Reagan vs. Carter.

  • Gregg Smith

    GM is losing $49,000 on each Volt they manufacture. Can someone please remind me how Obama saved them?

    • neurohazard

      No source? Of course not.

      You’re misrepresenting the number for political purposes. In ANY such endeavor initial investments, design, tooling costs, etc have to be included in the price of the product. so arguably even a popular car like the Camery would be sold at a loss until those initial investments are recouped.

      According to the original article: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/10/us-generalmotors-autos-volt-idUSBRE88904J20120910

      GM needs to “to increase sales volume so that it can spread its estimated $1.2-billion investment in the Volt over more vehicles while reducing manufacturing and component costs…”

      According to GM: “It wasn’t conceived as a way to make tons of money,” he said. “It was a big dip in the technology pool for GM. We’ve learned a boatload of stuff that we’re deploying on other models…”

      Now are there peculiar problems with the Volt? Perhaps. Given we’ve had gas/electric hybrids for over a decade, I don’t see why it required so much reengineering to just make one capable of taking a charge from the grid compared to the on-board generator. But then what the hell do I know about such cars. What I DO know is we need plug-in hybrids.

      • Gregg Smith

        People buy Camry’s so a successful business model can be constructed after the initial run is “sold for a loss” The key word is “sold”. No one wants a Volt. They are a toy for the rich to delude themselves into thinking they are saving the planet. Only a few affluent yuppies buy them.

        It would be fine but they owe us big time money. We are throwing good money after bad by funding their failure. 

        GM is losing $49,000 for every Volt manufactured. Have the reopened the Volt plant they closed yet? Have they rehired all those workers yet? I’m not sure. 

        • neurohazard

          Progress is being made. At least now you’re getting off your partisan high horse and admitting basic economics that initally new or newly designed cars DO sell for a loss.

          • Gregg Smith

            I’m also “admitting” the sky is blue… finally. Maybe you can show me where I claimed it wasn’t. 

            The plant closed. No one is buying them and they are not making them. It’s a disaster. There will be no profit.

          • neurohazard

            You do know what CLOSED means, right? The plant has been IDLED for a month in part because the supply of Volt’s is sufficient, but mainly while there’s retooling for the Impala

            http://www.hybridcars.com/news/chevy-volt-plant-be-idled-mid-september-october-50730.html

            http://www.freep.com/article/20120828/BUSINESS0101/120828019/General-Motors-Volt-suspending-production-Impala-automaker

            What that you said to me when I got the Janesville details wrong? Say it Gregg… you are wrong… again. ;-)

          • Gregg Smith

            Perfect. Once again your news sources have let you down. In the first place, you asked for a link so you didn’t know about it to begin with. That’s fine but you extol the virtues of a lemon so you should be up on it. 
            Then you google up something and think your up to snuff and the embarrassment ensues. Here’s the difference between you and I. I knew about it AND had a memory of the context  without google. It’s the better news sources. Instead of googling I just gave a caveat: “I’m not sure”. Thanks for the update.The plant (same one) already “idled’ for five weeks back in March. That’s what I was referring to.http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/03/gm-suspending-volt-production-for-5-weeks/Then they decided to add an extra week to the normal summer shutdown for the Volt.http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/04/gm_adds_week_to_volt_plants_us.htmlNow they are doing another four weeks according to your link. The reason given is to”control the supply”Oh yea, they’re selling like hotcakes and will be turning a profit any day. Right? This would never fly in the private sector.

          • neurohazard

            You said the plant was CLOSED. In the light of Janesville, are you reinventing what the word CLOSED means?

            Of the two claims you’ve made in this thread both are at best misleading if not untrue.

            But then that’s what happens when you’re here 24/7 compelled to post nothing but right wing political spin.

          • Gregg Smith

            GM is losing $49,000 on each Volt they manufacture. Can someone please remind me how Obama saved them?

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Don’t worry, they’ll make it up on volume.  LOL!!

      Pushing a technology before it is ready is really stupid business.  It sounds like something the government would do.

      Ooops!!!

      • neurohazard

        No one knows if technology is “ready” until the limits are pushed. In this case the technology is an incremental advance over existing hybrid cars and the Volt was designed for first adopters with money to spare. Lessons learned will be used to make cheaper plug-ins.
         

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           Huge difference.  Don’t do it on the taxpayers dime.

          Listen, I drive a hybrid.  I want plug hybrids to work.

          Toyota now has a plug in hybrid but it isn’t subsidized by the US taxpayer.

          • neurohazard

            Please make up your mind plug-in hybrids. You’re on record ”Pushing a technology before it is ready is really stupid business.”

            Now you’re praising Toyota?

            This is what happens when you post nothing but right wing spin. You become so intent on doing damage to the Dems, you lose sight of your contradictions.  

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Again, not on the taxpayers dime.

            Of course, private business will market to early adopters but you were promoting using tax payer dollars to ‘scale up’ the Volt business.

          • neurohazard

            I could care less about your “taxpayers dime” argument. I’m sure it’s highly selective and you’re sweeping under the carpet all those subsidies you favor. I live in a town whose industries were saved by FDRs National Industrial Recovery Act. It provided subsidies to companies to keep companies open. The factories flew the WPA flag.

            When your precious private sector implodes because of irresponsibile and reckless right wing policies, we need someone to protect the little guy from a mess they had no part in making.

          • neurohazard

            If the nation needs new technology and the private sector is too shortsighted to develop it, I have no problem with using public money. Do you think nuclear power was developed by the private sector or that it can run without government subsidies for insurance?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             But Toyota already developed it.  Your argument is nonsense.

          • neurohazard

            Let’s see… so if the Volt comes out in 2010

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevy_volt

             and the plug-in Prius comes out in September 2011,

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius_Plug-in_Hybrid

            you have a magic time machine that still gives Toyota credit for the technology?

            As I observed earlier: when you post nothing but right wing spin hoping to do damage to the Dems, you lose sight of your contradictions.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Another straw man argument.

            I haven’t introduced a contradiction.

            You are falsely claiming that GM is somehow responsible for Toyota introducing the new version of the Prius which they’ve been working on ever since the Prius came out.  They were clearly waiting for the technology to catch up.

            No evidence  == FAIL.

          • neurohazard

            No, YOU are the one who said it was pointless to waste taxpayer money on a plug-in hybrid when Toyota already had one. In reality the VOLT was out first beating even the Japanese introduction of the new Prius by over a year.

            But feel free to rewrite the history of this thread. I’m used to it.

      • neurohazard

        It cost Toyota about a billion back in 1995 to design and build the Prius. They were pushing the envelope. There were MANY problems.

        http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/17/news/companies/mostadmired_fortune_toyota/

        I wonder when they first turned a profit on it?

        So if the Japanese push the envelope, that’s good. If the US does… it’s bad. Am I understanding your argument?

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           Again, not on the taxpayers dime.

          Toyota now has a plug in hybrid.  If Toyota wants to sell it at a loss that is between them and their shareholders.  It isn’t even clear that Toyota is selling theirs at a loss.

          GM is in a limbo state now because it is owned by the taxpayers.

  • Gregg Smith

    MSNBC messed up and accidently had a fair journalist moment with the liberal from “The Nation”. He makes a great point about Kerry and Biden criticizing Iraq after having voted for the action.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvAU0FCu4xI&feature=player_embedded

    • J__o__h__n

      Even though they made an error in voting for it, I don’t think either of them supported the inept way it was executed by the Bush adminstration. 

      • neurohazard

        The Authorization To Use Force against Iraq came with two key CONDITIONS…. both of which Bush violated… to work with the UN to enforce UN sanctions AND to certify to Congress that Iraq DID pose a security threat to the US. In reality Bush sabotaged the work of UN WMD inspectors and lied that Iraq posed a threat.

        • Gregg Smith

          That is completely false. A total rewrite of history.

          • neurohazard

            You’ve already lost this debate… how many times now?

            SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

            (a) Authorization.–The President is authorized to use the Armed
            Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
            appropriate in order to–
            (1) defend the national security of the United States
            against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
            (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
            resolutions regarding Iraq.

            (b) Presidential Determination.–In connection with the exercise of
            the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
            shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
            but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
            available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
            President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that–
            (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
            other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
            protect the national security of the United States against the
            continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
            enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
            resolutions regarding Iraq; and

            http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/html/PLAW-107publ40.htm

            There were NO UN resolutions to enforce that authorized force and Iraq posed NO threat to the US.

          • Gregg Smith

            Dude, there were 17 UN resolutions and sanctions out the wazoo. How’d “Oil for food” workout. He was shooting at pro jets patrolling the no=fly zone to protect the Kurd who were gassed with WMD he didn’t have. The last Resolution authorizing “serious consequences” was unanamous. I suppose you could argue that does not mean force if it was the first one but not after 12 years and 16 resolutions of having our toothless efforts so thoroughly rebuked. It meant force and we STILL gave him one more chance. Having a sworn enemy in the heart of the Middle East on the supporter of terrorist list in violation of a cease fire agreement and 17 resolutions with nuclear ambitions and 500 tons of yellow cake in a post 9/11 world is a threat. You’re hopeless. Argue with yourself.

          • neurohazard

            There were NO old UNSC resolutions in effect that authorized the use of force and the UNSC refused to do so in 2002.

            None of your Orwellian tapdancing changes that fact.

          • Gregg Smith

            Alrighty then.

          • neurohazard

            Thanks for admitting you were wrong.

          • neurohazard

            G wrote: “The last Resolution authorizing “serious consequences” was unanamous.”

            Yup… but the UNSC REJECTED authorizing force, didn’t they? The US TRIED to get that language AND IT WAS VOTED DOWN. That attempt by the US proved it wanted cover for a war Bush intended to wage regardless of what the UN or Saddam did.

            The UNSC  LEFT IT TO THE FUTURE TO DECIDE WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES WOULD BE.

          • neurohazard

            So Greggg… you’re claiming there were NO conditions on the AUMF. Do you intend to prove it? Or just make a baseless claim? Are you saying my quote from the AUMF is a fabrication?

            Do you intend to show us what old UNSC resolution existed that authorized any nation to invade Iraq or depose Saddam?

            Do you intend to show us how Bush allowed the UN WMD inspectors to do their work when the US warned them to leave in mid March 2003?

          • Gregg Smith

            Why do you always tell me what I’m claiming or what I think proves something? I claimed no such thing.

          • neurohazard

            Ambitious project you have going here Gregg… trying to rewrite history that still up for all to see. I wrote:

            The Authorization To Use Force against Iraq came with two key CONDITIONS…. both of which Bush violated… to work with the UN to enforce UN sanctions AND to certify to Congress that Iraq DID pose a security threat to the US. In reality Bush sabotaged the work of UN WMD inspectors and lied that Iraq posed a threat.

            YOU responded ACCUSING ME OF LYING:

            That is completely false. A total rewrite of history.

            So I’m sure readers here assumed you’d try and PROVE your claim… point by point. Instead you again play games trying to have your cake and eat it. Which again raises the question why do you feel compelled to post when you have nothing to say.

          • Gregg Smith

            You just make up your own dialog, don’t you? How about reading what I write Einstein? I’ve already addressed your disruptiveness a few pages down.

            Lying? I accused you of being dead-assed wrong, that’s all. And it wasn’t about the  AUMF. It was about the notion the requirements had not been met, there was no threat or that the action was not justified and widely supported. I’m not going to debate Iraq with you, that’s not what my comment was about.

            I agreed with Jeremy Scahill about the Convention. We both want an honest vetting and we’re not getting it. Kerry and Biden are being hypocrites, which is cool but it’s true. That was my point. I have no idea why you want to talk about Bush, it’s nuts. You’re all over the place.Try to be more like J_O_H_N who at least made some kind of a case and stayed out of the weeds.

          • neurohazard

            YOU start a thread on the AUMF Iraq vote then criticize me for discussing it?

            You’re losing it Gregg old friend.

          • Gregg Smith

            The thread was about the Democrat foreign policy, smarty pants.

          • neurohazard

            I’m being “disruptive” for taking on the Orwellian Right bullcrap posted here? Ya, you probably would see that as a threat.

      • Gregg Smith

        Like TARP? Fair enough but they sure take credit for the results. It think the criticism about the lack of serious discussion of foreign policy at the convention is valid. I may disagree with Scahill but he is honest about it.

  • Gregg Smith
  • WorriedfortheCountry

    The Obama administration violated the transparency law by not releasing the defense department sequestration cuts by last Friday.

    This is a blatant political ploy to avoid thousand of defense industry pink slips being sent out a week before the election.

    Media coverage of this scandal?

    Crickets!!!!

    • Gregg Smith

      It’s embarrassing especially when thou consider how it all got started. No one is accountable.

    • neurohazard

      Of course AGAIN no source so readers can evaluate your claim for themselves.

      • Gregg Smith

        Are you seriously not following this saga? It all stems from the debt ceiling negotiations. It has been a folly, from the Presidents lack of leadership, to Congress ceding their obligation to a Committee who had a dead line they couldn’t meet, so automatic triggers kick in. This is the latest in the entire comedy of errors. You go on and on about Clinton and Bush who have no bearing on squat this cycle. How can you not know about it? This stuff matters especially if you are going to vote for more of it.

        • neurohazard

          I’m not the issue. Some here repeatedly misrepresent news stories and make misleading claims if not tell downright falsehoods. Readers have a right to know if they are using credible sources… that is if they even have any.  

          • Gregg Smith

            Did you read the comment, it said last Friday. It was reported everywhere except the usual hard core lefty outlets for the uncurious. But even if you missed it you should have known it was approaching. I did and dollars to donuts Worried did too. I wasn’t sure of the exact date but this saga has been going on for a year now. And you had no idea. No sane person would tacitly accuse someone of making up a story that everybody already knows is true.

          • neurohazard

            It’s NOT the reader’s job to prove points you, or others, claim to be true.

            Why does it seem only the most partisan right wingers here are so resistant to posting their sources?

            Bottom line extreme partisans Dem or GOP can’t be trusted. They live in a world of spin and half-truths and they believe it all.

            Your defense of NOT providing sources speaks volumes about the quality of discussion you prefer to engage in.

            I believe readers here deserve better even if you don’t.

          • Gregg Smith

            You are very uninformed.

          • neurohazard

            Trust YOU? Moda? Bradstand? Worried? Jon?ROTF

            AGAIN it’s NOT the reader’s job to prove points you, or others, claim to be true.

            Readers have a RIGHT to know where you get your “information” so we can evaluate it for ourselves.

            Asking for sources  should NOT be controversial except to someone here hoping to mislead and misinform readers.

            See that person in the mirror much?

          • Gregg Smith

            What, do you live under a rock trying to avoid news of consequence?

          • neurohazard

            Thanks for AGAIN proving me correct!

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Auto bailout facts:

    - Net loss to taxpayers ($40B) (not including cash for clunkers)

    -Workers added since the bailout  236,000 but only 4500 at GM and that is offset by the car czar forcing 63,000 GM dealership employees out of a job

    -Chrysler is now an Italian company

    -GM has lost half its value since Jan. 2011 – against an large increase in the stock market

    -GM’s competitiveness is still hampered by unsustainable UAW contracts.  Normally, these contracts would be adjusted in bankruptcy proceedings.

    -Many analysts believe GM is in danger of returning to bankruptcy

    -If GM was sold today, the taxpayers would lose an additional $25B. 

    The auto bailout is still unpopular and could have been handled much better.

    • Gregg Smith

      I forgot all about “Cash for clunkers”. Another “stimulus” success.

      That’s a devastating analysis and there really is no path to recovery as they are now structured. Thanks.

    • neurohazard

      AGAIN no source readers can evaluate.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        I have another one for you.

        Bill Clinton: “Not even I could have turned this economy”

        I call complete BS with one caveat. It would depend on the crop of interns that happened to be serving. The is a chance Bubba would be too distracted.

        The sad truth is Carter would have done a better job than Obama.

        • neurohazard

          That’s an odd way of saying YOU HAVE NO SOURCE FOR THE INFO YOU POSTED.

    • neurohazard

      So are you suggesting that Bush’s 17.4 billion TARP loan to the auto industry back in late 2008 was a mistake?

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Probably. They would have better off going through a bankruptcy prior to even the Bush loan. Actually it would have been best for GM to renegotiate the UAW contracts when Ford did so they wouldn’t have been vulnerable to the downturn.

        • neurohazard

          THERE WAS NO PRIVATE SECTOR MONEY TO GET GM BACK ON ITS FEET.

          What part of there being a credit freeze in 08 do you not understand?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Calm down. I am very consistent.

            My point is IF the restructuring/bankruptcy was done at the time of the orginal Bush loans then the $25B in combined Bush and Obama loans could have been saved for the taxpayer.

            They still should have restructured when Ford did.

          • neurohazard

            If you’re consistent, it’s because you AGAIN resort to retroactive Magic Time Machine logic. GM and Chrysler were heading towards bankrupcy in the last quarter of 08 during which there was a credit freeze up. According to you, GM only needed government money in late 08 because they failed to restructure its debt like Ford. But did Ford restructure its debt earlier in 2008 before the credit freeze?????  NO, they did started the process 6 months LATER, in March 09.

            http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=29977

                And before we blame this all on the automotive companies, the emergency was brought about by the GOP pushing SUVs, Bush’s $4 a gallon gas, then his crashing the economy.

  • neurohazard

    I think I’ll pose this question again:

    Has anyone seen ANY of our conservative friends here show ANY second thoughts or remorse about those right wing Clinton/Bush policies that destroyed our economy? How about those GOP policies of irresponsible tax cuts that stopped debt paydown and sabotaged the fiscal health of the nation? How much more evidence do they need that their policies failed disastrously? Why do they want to do it all over again only next time on steroids? 

    I believe inherent in the definition of patriotism is to place the welfare of the nation above delusions of infallibility. Sadly that’s not usually the case with True Believers.

    • pete18

      Tax cuts under Bush, Reagan and Kennedy increased revenue to the treasury and improved employment, what
      is it about those results that you find irresponsible?

      • neurohazard

        If only it were true. For example… there were 3 take HIKES between the so-called JFK tax cuts in 1964 and 1969. The Orwellian Right counts that revenue and credits it to the tax cuts. NBER credits the economic expansion in the 60′s to spending on the Vietnam War… not tax cuts.

        Leaving aside the massive Reagan Recession, the Reagan revenue record also includes 2 massive tax hikes in 82 and 83. The Orwellian Right dishonestly counts that revenue as “proof” of a revenue boom from the tax cuts. In constant dollars revenues only rose during Reagan’s 8 years about 13.5%. Not very impressive. I believe that rise was about 50% during the Clinton years.

        Bush… in constant dollars revenues only rose above Clinton’s last year for two of Bush’s 6 years. Color me impressed.

        There’s simply NO correlation between tax cuts and growth. But if a tax cut is timed right… it might seem so. So did the low Bush tax rates inoculate the economy against the Bush crash?

        I’ve posted hard numbers in previous forums. I don’t have them at my fingertips… but can get them.

      • neurohazard

        And let’s not forget that Bush RAN ON PAYING DOWN DEBT!! Are you old enough to remember that? If not, then read this:

        http://romcache.tripod.com/bush2000.pdf

        So pray tell… if We The People were SIX TRILLION in debt back in 2001… how could we afford a massive tax cut??? If Bush really wanted to pay down debt… why didn’t he wait before rushing to a tax cut? What could he gain politically by INCREASING debt?

        It’s all in his press release. If paying down debt would PROTECT Social Security… then increasing debt would DESTABILIZE Social Security. How? Because those SS IOUs would be coming due in about 2018 and if the government was still running a large deficit, there’d be pressure to cut SS benefits so the general fund would not owe that much to SS beneficiaries. Threatening SS payback also allowed the GOP to claim SS might not be there for today’s workers. So why not privatize it all!

        THIS was Bush’s BIGGEST regret of his 8 years.

      • neurohazard

        I posted above the income tax receipts under Bush correcting for inflation. Bush did not exceed Clinton’s last year EVER.

    • neurohazard

      I gave it 24 hours. It comes as no surprise that none of the right wingers here believes that little financial/housing/automotive disaster we had in 08 was caused by ANY of their ideas.

      • Gregg Smith

        So you post some irrelevant stupid question that nobody cares about and then use the lack of response to draw the mother of all ridiculous conclusions. So now you are locked in to a delusion built on a false premise of your own making… all in your head.

        • neurohazard

          As usual, you’re misreading the evidence. No one’s responding BECAUSE NO ONE IS HERE… the exceptions being those still roasting marshmellows.

  • Darmok

    If tax cuts improve revenue, then why were there 3 straight years of revenue decreases under W, and why is it that now, with lower rates, are we only taking in a fraction more than we were in 2000, given that the breaks were supposed to create some sort of super boom during the Bush years?
     

    1992
    1,091,208

    1993
    1,154,335

    1994
    1,258,566

    1995
    1,351,790

    1996
    1,453,053

    1997
    1,579,232

    1998
    1,721,728

    1999
    1,827,452

    2000
    2,025,191

    2001
    1,991,082

    2002
    1,853,136

    2003
    1,782,314

    2004
    1,880,114

    2005
    2,153,611

    2006
    2,406,869

    2007
    2,567,985

    2008
    2,523,991

    2009
    2,104,989

    2010
    2,162,724

    2011
    2,303,466

    • Gregg Smith

      The tax cuts didn’t kick in until 2003. In 2001 virtually all the relief went to the poor who don’t stimulate much.

      • Darmok

        Many of the 2001 cuts were taking effect in 2002, and there was decent GDP growth throughout that year.  If lower taxes create growth, then how is it that we prospered through the 1990s with higher rates and wobbled along in the naughty-aughties with lower growth, except in gov’t spending, when the supposed fiscal conservatives went to town?

        If you want to get money moving, hoping to stimulate demand, then the poor are certainly going to move it, because so many of them are hand to mouthing it.  How exactly do tax cuts to the rich stimulate the economy?  They buy a second dressage horse and need a place to put it or something?  Hire some extra people to mow the grass at their 2nd vacation home?

        • pete18

          If you are asking that question seriously, rather than rhetorically, I suggest you read this speech given to the Economic Club of New York by a former President, who was an advocate of supply-side economics.

          “In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.”

          –John F Kennedy  1963

          The full speech–

          http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkeconomicclubaddress.html

          • neurohazard

            Yawn… the so-called JFK tax cuts stopped at a top rate of about 70%. It’s the far Right that is now claiming that he’d cut taxes forever.

            But if you like those so-called JFK tax cuts… fine LET’S BRING THEM BACK!!!!

          • pete18

            It’s always useful to have straw men so you can debate yourself but no serious thinker on the right, “far” or “close” claims Kennedy or any other supply-sider would cut taxes forever. The Kennedy speech is for those of you who are unable to consider or comprehend the merits of the tax-cutting argument because you’ve so demonized Republicans. This give you an excuse to avoid listening to serious arguments counter to your own. Since Kennedy is an icon to the progressive left he is not easily dismissed. The reasoning of his speech relative to taxation and the economy doen’t just apply to
            tax rates of 70%.

          • neurohazard

            And yet THAT’S WHAT THE RIGHT DOES… use JFK’s words to justify continuous tax cuts… even if the top rate now is HALF of what came out of the so-called JFK tax cuts. Do you seriously believe you’re the first person to post that here? You seriously believe you’re the onlyother right winger here that reposts arguments made by Heritage, Cato CIE, or the WSJ OpEd page?

            These arguments can be dismissed BECAUSE THERE’S NO PROOF SUCH TAX CUTS INCREASE REVENUE. If they did, the Orwellian Right would not have to constantly fudge the numbers. And there’s NO proof such tax cuts bring dramatic growth to the economy. But that is the claim the Right always makes. We’ve had higher growth under Clinton’s tax hike than under Bush’s tax cuts.

            Last, it’s time We The People PAID for that $15 TRILLION we’ve spent on ourselves the past 30 years but refuse to tax ourselves for. It’s money we’re stealing from future taxpayers. What Romney/Ryan want to do is seal that theft in cement.

            How goddamn noble.

          • neurohazard

            Wow… that was fast. So you’ve already given up trying to “prove” that tax cuts bring in more revenue, create more jobs, and cure acne?

        • neurohazard

          There’s no way to argue numbers with G. He’s a Tax Cut True Believer… no matter if in constant dollars revenues have been BELOW Clinton’s last year for all but two of the past 12. G blinds himself to the trillions in revenue loss and just focuses on that pathetic 140ish billion for those two years.

        • Gregg Smith

          Nothing happened in 2002. Massive tax relief for the poor in 2001 gave much relief but did not stimulate. when the rates were lowered in 2003 the unemployment rate went down for 52 months and revenue grew over a half trillion by 2007.

          • neurohazard

            Of COURSE “something” happened in 2002. The Bush tax cuts were starting to be phased in calendar year 2001.

            There were TWO Bush tax cuts between 2001 and 2002. Here are revenue effect numbers from http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/ota81.pdf for the first years of each bill

            Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001

            2001: -34.42002: -85.5

            Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002

            2002: -46.0

            By 2002 there had already been cumulative tax cuts of 165 billion. Feel free to call that “nothing”.

          • Gregg Smith

            What is your problem? The thing in 2002 was not part of the tax cut bill and it wasn’t even a tax cut. What I wrote is true. 

            The 2001 bill did this:

            a new 10% bracket was created for single filers with taxable income up to $6,000, joint filers up to $12,000, and heads of households up to $10,000.the 15% bracket’s lower threshold was indexed to the new 10% bracketthe 28% bracket would be lowered to 25% by 2006.the 31% bracket would be lowered to 28% by 2006the 36% bracket would be lowered to 33% by 2006the 39.6% bracket would be lowered to 35% by 2006

            As I said. 
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2001In 2003 it was not only accelerated it was made retroactive to Jan.1.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_and_Growth_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2003

            Wiki doesn’t mention it but I think the top rate was also lowered a wee bit in 2001. You are just wrong dude, don’t
            t doubt me.

          • neurohazard

            More rewriting of history? the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 *created 30% expensing for certain capital asset purchases (thru September 2004)

            *extended of exception under Subpart F for active financing income (thru 2006)

            *increased carryback of net operating losses to 5 years (thru September 2003)

            Revenue losses for the first two years were
            about 73 billion though it was expected to raise revenue later. But the issue here is tax cuts between 2001 and 2003.

          • neurohazard

            “Don’t doubt me” Listen ro Rush much? Those are his favorite words.

            Your original claim was “Nothing happened in 2002. Massive tax relief for the poor in 2001 gave much relief but did not stimulate. when the rates were lowered in 2003.

            In fact those top rates were being reduced every year from 01 on. So YES, there WERE taxes being cut in 01 AND 02.

            I await your newest attempt to sleaze out from beneath your own claims.

             

          • Gregg Smith

            The rates weren’t lowered until 2003.

          • neurohazard

            EGTRRA called for “Reduce the four highest income tax rates over the 2001-2006 period”http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/28xx/doc2867/hr1836omb.pdf NOT to start reducing those top rates in 2003.

          • Gregg Smith

            EGTRRAwasnot fast enugh sotheydid the 2003bill to kick it allin at once.

      • neurohazard

        double checking info

        • neurohazard

          The 2001 tax cuts were to be phased in over, I believe, 5 years. The 2003 legislation didn’t start the phase in. It accelerated the existing phase in. So, no, the Bush tax cuts did NOT start in 2003. You’ve been corrected on this now how many times?

          • Gregg Smith

            I was mad as hell in 2001 when I heard how long it took for the rates to be phased in. Was it Bill Archer? It was something like 5 or 6 maybe 7 years. The EIC took place right away (2001) and that’s largely why 6 million of the poorest didn’t have to pay anything anymore. The 15% bracket (bottom) got cut to 10% right away for the poor who were left. And I think the top rate might have got a tiny cut. Less than a point as I recall. Or not, I could be wrong. In 2003 ALL THE RATES WERE LOWERED! The top down to 35%; the rest down around 3% each. None of them were set to come down for years under the 2001 bill. In 2001 the cuts helped a lot of people right away. All of the sudden they didn’t have to pay taxes or got a cut and they got a $300 check. That helped, usually you guys like that sort of thing. 2003 was when the rubber hit the road.

            Nope, everything I said is true. Why do you doubt me?

          • neurohazard

            I must have asked you 100 times over the past 18 months why you believe we could afford a tax cut when We The People were SIX TRILLION in debt… especially knowing the tax cut would sabotage debt paydown and run up more debt. And I’ve STILL not gotten a rational answer.

          • Gregg Smith

            You’re like a pinball. You were wrong about the tax cats so you bounce to something else. 

            I’m not calling for tax cuts. I oppose tax hikes in this economy.

          • neurohazard

            Another vacuous claim. I’m wrong because you assert as much. You need not bother to try and demonstrate that claim to the satisfaction of fair minded readers here. .  

          • Gregg Smith

            I am right about 2001 v 2003. look it up.

          • neurohazard

            Already did. You’re wrong as usual.

          • Gregg Smith

            You should know already that you’re wrong. Try Wiki.

        • Gregg Smith

          But that’s not what happened, it went up dramatically. Now, you’ll go on about how i think it proves something or how much more it would have been if… but that’s just a fantasy. It is what it is and is a matter of record. Revenue went up.

          • neurohazard

            We’ve been over this 1000 times and you still NEED to regurgitate your Orwellian tax cuts = revenue boom nonsense. This is NOT religion. This about NUMBERS.

            No one said tax cuts MUST reduce revenue forever. That’s the red herring you always use.

            There is natural growth in revenues from inflation and the growth in the economy. What GOP-style tax cuts do is set the growth curve back usually 3-4-5 YEARS then they go back to previous levels. YOU make that sound as if NO revenue is lost even though revenues under OLD tax law would have been perhaps hundreds of billions HIGHER for the same year.

            If the tax cuts are that drastic, as the Bush tax cuts were, then we might see some rebound but where we really see how irresponsible there were is when we correct for inflation. When we do we see Bush revenues LOWER that Clinton’s last year for SIX of Bush’s eight years. As I demonstrated before, when we just project Clinton’s last year revenues into the Bush years… not even taking into account any natural increase in revenues from growth in the economy, the Bush cumulative revenues were -1159.7 billion lower in constant 2005 dollars. Because there IS natural growth, the real revenue loss is perhaps closer to 1.5 trillion which is about what Bush predicted would be lost.

            The Right loves the Laffer Curve when they can use it to justify irresponsible tax cuts. What they sweep under the carpet is the other half of his theory: when tax rates are too low, they LOSE revenue. And this is what has happened. The Bush tax rates are so irresponsibly low, that revenues now in constant dollars have been BELOW Clinton’s last year for 10 of the past 12 years… and even those two exceptions only add up to a pathetic 120 billion or so. It’s takes an awful lot of selective perception to see THAT as proof tax cuts bring in more revenue while ignoring the -1159.7 billion to 2.5 trillion loss, depending.

          • Gregg Smith

            2007 holds the all time highest revenue in the history of the universe record. So there.  

          • neurohazard

            So in the mind of an Orwellian Right winger SIX YEARS of lower revenue in constant dollars = a Revenue Boom.

            Why didn’t you just say so!

            (And let’s sweep under the carpet how much HIGHER revenue WOULD have been under old Clinton era law. And let’s sweep under the rug Bush’s PROMISE to pay down debt.)

          • Gregg Smith

            Revenue increased over a half trillion dollars from 2003 (when the rates were lowered) to 2007 (when Dems took Congress. That is in constant 2005 dollars.

          • neurohazard

            Without context it’s a meaningless number. Clinton’s revenue growth for his last 4 years was LARGER than Bush’s even though the economy was smaller: 534 billion vs 512 in 2005 constant dollars. And of course you’re STILL pretending that the higher Clinton rates would not have brought in even MORE revenue. According to http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41134.pdf just the 2001 tax cuts alone cost some 552 BILLION by FY06.

          • Gregg Smith

            Whereis that column?

          • neurohazard

            I posted the income tax recepits above correcting for inflation. In not ONE of Bush’s eight years did his income tax revenues exceed Clinton’s last year. I’m sure you’ll see that as more “proof” the irresponsible Bush tax cuts created a revenue boom.

      • neurohazard

        Tax cuts started retroactive to Jan 1, 2001. By the end of 2002 there had already been cumulative tax cuts of 165 billion from two tax cut bills. Details below.

        • Gregg Smith

          When you take 6 million of the poorest taxpayers off the rolls it’s going to reduce revenue. That’s basically all that happened in 2001… that and a mass redistribution of wealth with the checks but I digress. I guess that’s what you’re talking about. The 2002 thing was not a tax cut. No rate was reduced by it. It’s like calling a tax credit a tax cut. 2003 was the year we downshifted and popped the clutch on the economy by lowering all rates across the board. I don’t know why you want to argue about it. You look silly.

          • neurohazard

            THE PHASE IN OF TAX CUTS DID NOT STOP IN 2001 any more than some “REAL” tax cut started in 2003. Your claim nothing happened tax cut wise in 2002 is untrue.

            But I can see why you need to believe that. You NEED to gloss over the low revenues in the early Bush years so you can credit the higher revenues later to the 2003 acceleration of the EGTRRA  phase-in. You sweep under the table all of Bush’s deficit spending that pumped up the economy or that in constant dollars revenue revenue  still lower that Clinton’s last year until 06.

            So the only one looking silly here isn’t I. It’s the person who claims LOWER revenues for SIX YEARS… hundreds of billions of LOST revenue, is a ”proof” tax cuts bring in more revenue.

              

          • Gregg Smith

            The poor were not phased in. It was all at once in 2001. Nothing happened in 2002. It all happened in 2003. The rates were not to be lowered until 2006 but they all went down in 2003 at once. No phase in. There was no phase in.

            The 2002 bill was not a tax cut. Why are you doubling down on your erroneous delusion?

          • neurohazard

            Tables won’t display right here here so I’m responding above.

      • neurohazard

        If a tax payer had $10 million in taxable income in 2000 s/he’d pay around $3,960,000 at the old Clinton top tax rate of 39.6%. When the top rate was cut to 36.1% in 2001 they’d pay around $3,910,000. This $50,000 slashing in taxes for ONE person, in Greggg’s mind, is proof the benefits went to the poor.  

    • hennorama

      Correlation does not equal causation, no matter how much one wants it to be true.

      • neurohazard

        In this case it does. The most predictable effect of tax cuts is TO REDUCE REVENUE.

    • neurohazard

      This is to Greggg who insists the first round of Bush tax cuts (aka EGTTRA) contained NO phased reduction of upper marginal tax rates starting in 2001. He writes below: “The poor were not phased in. It was all at once in 2001. Nothing happened in 2002. It all happened in 2003. The rates were not to be lowered until 2006 but they all went down in 2003 at once. No phase in. There was no phase in.”

      Table is from the actual legislation starting with the old Clinton tax rates:

      2000:    28.0% 31.0% 36.0% 39.6%

      2001:    27.5% 30.5% 35.5% 39.1%

      02-03:   27.0% 30.0% 35.0% 38.6%

      04-05:   26.0% 29.0% 34.0% 37.6%

      06 on:   25.0% 28.0% 33.0% 35.0%

      http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-107hr1836enr/pdf/BILLS-107hr1836enr.pdf

      NOTE PHASE IN DROP IN MARGINAL RATES STARTING IN 2001!

      Your humble concession is noted even if not offered.

       

      • Gregg Smith

        Your link is a 2002 document so it does not reflect what happened in 2003. 2003 is when the rubber met the road as I have maintained all along. 2001 was the big huge cut for the poor and the new 10% bracket. That cost a little revenue as I said. 

        So, if the rates dropped a half point in 2002, my sincerest and most humble apologies oh ye of anal retentive bliss. But 2 things: 1) You tried to cloud the issue with an unrelated 2002 bill, and 2) My most excellent point stands. 

        The tax cuts didn’t kick in until 2003. In 2001 virtually all the relief went to the poor who don’t stimulate much.

        That simple reply to Darmok is what sent you into a tizzy but truer words have never be spoken.

        Oh and 3) When the tax rates were lowered in 2003 the unemployment rate went down for 52 months and revenue increased by over a half trillion by 2007. Deal with reality.

        • neurohazard

          What were those words of yours to me when I got a small detail abouty Janesville wrong?

          Come on Greggg, say it… you were wrong. Man up Skippy. or are you just going to keep repeating your false claims in future posts. That’s been your pattern.

          You’ve consistently DENIED there were ANY phased in reductions in the upper tax brackets between 01 and 03 so they had to be kicked in in 03. In reality someone making making 10 million in taxable income would have ALREADY received about a $200k cumulative tax break… $50k in 01 and 02, and $100,000 in 03 under EGTRRA.

          So thanks for AGAIN proving that you only make excuses when you’re wrong. And the link is to the Tax Cut legislation AS PASSED in 2001, not a draft.

          • Gregg Smith

            There you go again. You had no idea Janesville continued to make trucks well into 2009 because you considered Rachel Maddow credible. He made a fool of you. You didn’t get a small detail wrong, you attacked me and others for being right. And you did it for a day or two. You were duped as you accused others of lying. That’s bad form. I would never do that especially on the shoulders of Maddow.

            What the hell do you want? I already apologized for being mistaken but it was all something you went nuts on that did not take away from my point. 

             The tax cuts didn’t kick in until 2003. In 2001 virtually all the relief went to the poor who don’t stimulate much.

            I said “virtually”, didn’t I? I was and am right. That you want to hang you hat on some accuracy police moment is bizarre. How was taking 6 million off the rolls supposed to be offset by a half point cut. In 2003 when the rates were lowered the unemployment rate went down for 52 months and revenue increased by over a half trillion by 2007. That’s my undeniable claim. The ground on which it stands is just as solid as before your rants as is my reply to Darmok. Sorry you have to invent something to gripe about because you cannot refute it.

          • neurohazard

            Thanks AGAIN for another demonstration of your intellectual integrity. When proven wrong you get sleazy.And no one cares if revenue finally rebounds. It’s just the only red herring you have to cover up the undeniable REVENUE LOSSES from the irresponsible Bush Tax Cuts. NO ONE SAID TAX CUT MUST DEPRESS REVENUE FOREVER. And the rebound didn’t come close to making up for the losses. There was no break even here. The losses in revenue were well over 1.5 trillion.  

            At least I admitted I was wrong at about Janesville, not because I read Maddow’s article I LOOKED AT THE PHOTO OF THE GM WORKERS WITH A SIGN LAST CAR MADE IN JANESVILLE. In the context of that discussion it was Ryan who made it sound as if the Janesville closing was Obama’s fault when about 96% of the remaining workers WERE laid off during the Bush era and 4% technincally stayed on for a few months to finish up a truck line.

          • neurohazard

            You apologized? Really? For what? When? On being wrong about the Bush tax cut phase in starting in 2001?

            Oh, nope… that can’t be it. You’ve been totally wrong on that and yet you’re still sleazing out excuses for yourself…

            I said “virtually”, didn’t I? I was and am right. That you want to hang you hat on some accuracy police moment is bizarre.

            yet you’ve been bashing me for being 96% right about Janesville closing during the Bush years with about 1200 losing their jobs but because 54 workers stayed a few more months to finish up a truck order.

            BTW, next time you’re over for a beer, check out the new stuffed head I have hanging over my fireplace.

          • Gregg Smith

            “So, if the rates dropped a half point in 2002, my sincerest and most humble apologies oh ye of anal retentive bliss. But 2 things: 1) You tried to cloud the issue with an unrelated 2002 bill, and 2) My most excellent point stands.”

            You have humiliated yourself without putting a dent in my position. I did not bash you for being wrong at all. I bashed you for being a self-righteous know-it-all calling names when you were wrong and had only looked at a Maddow picture for validation. You said Ryan was a liar because Maddow told you to. You’re an obedient sheep.

        • neurohazard

          I didn’t try to “cloud” anything by referring to a second tax cut in 2002. It just wasn’t an INCOME TAX CUT.

          I posted the revenue losss numbers for BOTH.

    • neurohazard

      One suggestion when quoting government revenue numbers… if we’re looking for effects of income tax cuts/hikes, revenue from other sources and off-budget revenues should not be included.

      Table 2.1—RECEIPTS BY SOURCE in the Historical Budget tables gives receipts by source.

      Sadly these numbers aren’t also provided in constant dollars.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Classic polling to depress GOP turnout.

    CNN had Obama with a +6 advantage.

    Unfortunately for Obama that same poll had Romney +14 with independents and Romney taking 97% of the GOP vote. The only way they have Obama leading is over sample of Dems.

    • neurohazard

      Will the far Right psychosis ever end?

      So if independent third party polls show Obama ahead for now… that’s a conspiracy to… what? Somehow “depress” Romney voters who have NO legal obstacles to overcome but might be discouraged but otherwise free to vote? 

      Yet if only GOP controlled states ARE placing legal obstacles to mostly Democratic constituencies… that’s just insuring against voter fraud?

      • neurohazard

        Dear Mods… for the sake of some intelligent quality discussion here… I hope all the right wing idiots are banned.

        I’ve just about had it.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           Censorship is a trademark of the left.

          • neurohazard

            Hardly, but I’m sure you prefer an environment where half-truths, even untruths are given equal protection with genuine attempts to be fair or even get to the truth.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            No but the truth will set you free.

            However you are free to delude yourself under the veil of propaganda. Your choice.

          • neurohazard

            Unlike you I prefer getting to the truth to political spin… left or right. I may spend a lot of time here rebutting Right wing nonsense but I have never been shy about criticizing Dems. I don’t think Obama is doing a good job and I’ve certainly posted on that. What I’ve tried to do, however, is be fair. But otherwise I have NO use for Dems as a party except as the lesser of the evils.

            I prefer providing sources and I can retract if I’m wrong. If you shared such basic values, we’d see evidence of that in your posts. Instead you still REFUSE to post your sources so readers can evaluate your claims for themselves and everything you post is completely partisan: your side is completely noble deserving of all credit. The other side is demonized and deserves no credit for anything. The obvious problem with being so partisan is it doesn’t mesh with reality. So inherent in extreme partisan thinking is selective perception and irrational thinking to self-justify the ideology. That’s the opposite of self-corrective thinking. THAT’S the what sets one’s mind free, now wallowing in partisan half-truths and lies.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            At least we can agree that Obama’s been a poor President.

            Despite your claims, I am not a partisan. I do my own analysis and research and I am frustrated my media distortions and enjoy pointing them out.

            I feel strongly that Washington bloat, inertia and corruption is destroying our country. This observation has convinced me that we to move the government back to the local level where it can be more accountable.

            The debt, unfounded entitlement obligations and anti growth tax policies are linked and holding back the middle class. I only see Romney and Ryan offering realistic solutions to these problems.

            Further I see Romney’s record of solving problems and turning around failing enterprises this choice isn’t close. I firmly believe Romney will be a great Presdent.

          • neurohazard

            Partisans don’t see themselves as biased. They love to see themselves as free thinker. Your posts prove otherwise.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         Wow.  I’m questioning the veracity of the poll because of some of the internals.

        The identical poll had a 48/48 tie the week before.

        It turns out that this poll was one of the most inaccurate in 2008.

        Voter ID is not voter suppression.  Heck, you needed ID to get into the DNC last week.  Also, you need photo ID to purchase a gun.

        • neurohazard

          Many states have long histories of trying to supress the vote of certain groups. There’s any number of methods some blatant, some less obvious.

          Lost in this debate is what’s the law. The range and scope of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 have been expanded in the subsequent years. Leaving aside the fact that some states/counties are still on a legal watch list for past voter discrimination, the law is Quote:

          (a) No citizen shall be denied, because of his failure to comply with any test or device, the right to vote in any Federal, State, or local election conducted in any State or political subdivision of a State.
          (b) As used in this section, the term “test or device” means any requirement that a person as a prerequisite for voting or registration for voting
          (1) demonstrate the ability to read, write, understand, or interpret any matter,
          (2) demonstrate any educational achievement or his knowledge of any particular subject,
          (3) possess good moral character, or
          (4) prove his qualifications by the voucher of registered voters or members of any other class.

          http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1973aa So, do voter ID laws violate the “test or device” provisions of this law? I suspect so.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Get back to me when they pass the airline passenger act that bans the checking of photo id.

          • neurohazard

            So your only response is to pretend EXISTING voting rights law doesn’t exist?

        • neurohazard

          WHAT POLL???? You AGAIN refuse to post a link to a source so readers can evaluate your claims for themselves.

          Do you even know what a URL is? Do you know you can cut and paste those URLs to a post?

          BTW, should it come as a surprise that Obama might have received a convention bounce? That’s pretty common even if we don’t see much of one for Romney.

    • Regular_Listener

      You’re forgetting something – the Democratic Party has a larger membership.  

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Dem registration is down and GOP is up in almost all swing states.

        If Romney is up +14 with independents he will win in a landslide.

        • neurohazard

          What does that have to do with an opinion “poll” you refuse to identify which probably has a sampling of 1000-1500 people nationally? And how is it not somewhere between paranoid ridiculous to claim ANY poll that shows Obama in the lead for now is really some secret plot to “suppress” the GOP vote?
           
          Thanks, again, for “proving” you’re an objective thinker, not some gullible far right GOP dup.  

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Time for some neurohazard self reflection.

            -I wasn’t referring to every poll with Obama in the lead but ONE poll.  You have a tendency revise what I write to suit your argument.

            -I did identify the poll (CNN +6). It was poll that made national headlines.  Again, I can’t help it if you can’t keep up.

            -So we aren’t allowed to analyze the internals of polls for a sanity check to see if it is an outlier?  You would do the exact same thing if you saw a poll that had Romney +6.

            Funny that you accuse me of not being objective when the evidence in this thread shows you are the one not being objective.

          • neurohazard

            Yup, I was careless. My apologies. YOU SHOULD STILL PROVIDE LINKS.

            And your conclusion that this is some devious attempt at vote supression is laughable.

  • JGC

    Tea Party activist Senator Jim “You Lie!” DeMint supports the intemperate, ill-considered, craven Libyan rant of the increasingly desperate Mitt Romney.  And he may be the only one who does. 

    • Gregg Smith

      That was Joe Wilson.

      • JGC

        Oops, wrong South Carolinian. Thanks for the correction.  And my apologies to Senator DeMint for confusing him with the equally deranged Rep. Joe Wilson.

        • Gregg Smith

          That’s alright but let me ask you, are illegals covered by Obamacare? Consider his recent EO on certain illegals. Is proof of citizenship required to be covered? You have to admit it was confusing when we learned the number of uninsured that was beat like a drum included illegals. I think it’s pretty clear illegals are covered but President Obama stood up there at the State of the Union speech and told us they were not. Joe Wilson was right.

          Mitt was right too. I’m assuming it will be tomorrow’s topic.

          • neurohazard

            If you are claiming illegals are covered by ObamaCare then why not just look up the legislation and see for yourself instead of posting uninformed opinions.

          • JGC

            I wonder if it will be. Anyway,  to the question, are illegals covered by Obamacare?  The answer from Politifact, if you trust a fact checking organization, is:

            Romneycare’s Health Safety Net reimburses health care providers who care for the poor, regardless of whether they are in the country legally. Obamacare provides grants to the community health centers, which can treat anyone who can’t afford to pay for healthcare.   Neither law provides any form of insurance coverage to undocumented workers.

          • Gregg Smith

            So Joe Wilson was right.

  • neurohazard

    The Orwellian Right loves to claim that income tax cuts, especially for the rich bring make the rich pay more, and even bring in more revenue. They tend to be dishonest about this and have even included revenue from other tax hikes. If we’re to look for such an increase in revenue we should then look at income tax revenues. But since we’re looking at effects over time there are two variable at work here… inflation which is easy to correct for, and % of GDP. Here’s a look at Bush income tax revenues compared to Clinton’s last year correcting for inflation.

    Numbers are from Table 2.1—RECEIPTS BY SOURCE of the US Historical Budget Tables. Since this source does NOT correct for inflation in this chart, I used the inflation calculator at

    http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm set for constant 2005 dollars.

    Using constant dollars means revenue from years before the target year will inflate in value, those after will deflate. Column one is the year. Column 2 is income tax revenue in CURRENT dollars. Column 3 is revenue in billions of 2005 CONSTANT dollars.

    2000 1004.462 = 1,139.206

    2001 994.339 = 1,096.524

    2002 858.345 = 931.822

    2003 793.699 = 842.442

    2004 808.959 = 808.959

    2005 927.222 = 927.222

    2006 1043.908 = 1011.285

    2007 1163.472 = 1095.899

    2008 1145.747 = 1039.299

    If my math is correct, what we see is that even at the end of Bush’s term, income tax revenues NEVER AGAIN EXCEEDED CLINTON’S LAST YEAR. I’m sure some here will see that as “proof” tax cuts create revenue booms.

    • Gregg Smith

      You’re making up numbers again. Thanks for the belly laugh.

  • JGC

    Mitt Romney is always trying to gage the temperature in the room before he ventures a comment.  He is always trying to say what he thinks his audience wants to hear, instead of what he believes.  He has grown up in a famous wealthy political family, and so there are many old quotes attributed to him from when he was young to not-so-young. Many of his thoughts, due to the flip flops and expediency of the moment, do not weather time well.  I wonder how he would fare growing up in these days of Facebook and Twitter; everything recorded for all and for all time. Not well, I think…

  • JGC
ONPOINT
TODAY
Apr 18, 2014
Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks during a nationally televised question-and-answer session in Moscow on Thursday, April 17, 2014. President Vladimir Putin has urged an end to the blockade of Moldova’s separatist province of Trans-Dniester. Trans-Dniester, located in eastern part of Moldova on border with Ukraine, has run its own affairs without international recognition since a 1992 war. Russian troops are stationed there.  (AP)

Deadly clashes in Eastern Ukraine. A white supremacist rocks Kansas City. The Marathon bombing anniversary. And Bloomberg on guns. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

Apr 18, 2014
This undated photo provided by NASA on April 2, 2014 shows Saturn's moon Enceladus. The "tiger stripes" are long fractures from which water vapor jets are emitted. Scientists have uncovered a vast ocean beneath the icy surface of the moon, they announced Thursday, April 3, 2014. Italian and American researchers made the discovery using Cassini, a NASA-European spacecraft still exploring Saturn and its rings 17 years after its launch from Cape Canaveral. (AP)

Oceans in Space. The new discovery on a moon of Saturn, and the possibility of life there.

RECENT
SHOWS
Apr 17, 2014
Ultra-Orthodox Jewish men burn leavened items in final preparation for the Passover holiday in the ultra-Orthodox Jewish town of Bnei Brak, near Tel Aviv, Israel, Monday, April 14, 2014. Jews are forbidden to eat leavened foodstuffs during the Passover holiday that celebrates the biblical story of the Israelites' escape from slavery and exodus from Egypt. (AP)

In the week of Passover and anti-Semitic gunfire, we look at the history of the Jews with acclaimed historian Simon Schama. Plus, Pope Francis and the Catholic Church today.

 
Apr 17, 2014
Students cheer and wave as President Barack Obama, not pictured, exits the podium after speaking at the University at Buffalo, in Buffalo, N.Y., Thursday, Aug. 22, 2013, beginning his two day bus tour speaking about college financial aid.  (AP)

The inside dope on college financial aid. The way it really works, who gets what, and how.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
Some Tools And Tricks For College Financial Aid
Thursday, Apr 17, 2014

Some helpful links and tools for navigating FAFSA and other college financial aid tools.

More »
Comment
 
How Boston Is Getting Ready For the 2014 Boston Marathon
Tuesday, Apr 15, 2014

Boston Globe metro reporter Maria Cramer explains how the 2014 Boston Marathon will be different than races in the past.

More »
Comment
 
WBUR’s David Boeri: ‘There’s Still Much We Don’t Know’
Tuesday, Apr 15, 2014

WBUR’s senior reporter David Boeri details the ongoing investigation into the alleged Boston Marathon Bombing perpetrators.

More »
Comment