Ron, apparently you forgot to copy Joe Biden and Barry Obama on your memo. An AP story from yestedays MSNBC.com:

WASHINGTON — The tea party is not a racist group, says Vice President Joe Biden, though he believes that some of those involved in the movement have expressed racist views.

"Very conservative, very different views on government and a whole lot of things," Biden said during an interview broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week." "But it is not a racist organization."

President Barack Obama doesn't think so, either, Biden said.

Ron,

I agree. This is a case of too little too late. By expelling the Tea Party Express I am not convinced that eliminates the problem of racism in that group. There are still several groups within the Tea Party that are suspect. I wonder how the republicans are going to respond now that they have a Tea Party Caucus. Who is going to join and who is not. Should tell us something.

Today President Obama will deliver another promise, to help the middle class with the passing of the Unemployment Insurance Extension.

BP is trying to buy up all the major scientists so they will not be able to testify against them. This is right out of the Soprano's (as per Rachael last night).

The republicans big talking point about how Tax Cuts should not be paid for because they pay for themselves in increased revenues. Who debunked this? George Bush Sr. when he campaigned against Ron Regan. He call this Voodoo Economics. The National Debit went from a 42% increase under Carter to 189% increase under Regan. This argument did not work under Regan, we know it did not work under Bush Jr so why would it work now?

Joe: Thank you for your comment. I did not copy anyone or receive a copy from anyone. I am a Democrat...so I think for myself.

Hey Ron - right on the money that the tea baggers are a bunch of racists and now even the extremist tea baggers are fighting between themselves because some of their most vocal and despicable racist elements like Racist Mark Williams and the tea party sexpress have caused them great embarassment with their obvious racist comments. You are correct that their sham racist summit will only try to whitewash their racist ways and will not stop their more radical racist ranters from keeping their arrogant ignorant mouths shut! Get used to it Facist Racist Tea Baggers you've earned the Racist label and we Democrats are going to make sure it sticks all the way to the November elections.

Nice post Ron. Very nice post.

Good post Ron.

Strangely enough, I find myself very uninterested in the tea party and their views about race or anything else.

So far, I haven't heard anything coming from any of the many groups that resembles reality based thinking or solutions to problems.

I have come to think of the tea party "movement" as a support group for those uncomfortable with the pace of change in this country.

I am glad they have a place to express their angst and misgivings . . . may help give some of the more unconsolable folks among them a non-violent outlet for their discomfort.

But as their "movement" figures out what it "stands for", I really don't feel compelled to watch.

Ron, great post. Voted. I would add to that, having a high tolerance for racist and bigoted opinions and signs, seeing nothing wrong with portraying the President of the United States, as Hitler, Lenin and much worse.

When one reads blogs on the internet and the opinions expressed by many who hate President Obama, not so much for his policies but because of his skin color it is very disheartning. We have not come far since the old days. As great as the Internet is in opening up the world to us, the anonomity it affords to many to bare their soul in such dark ways is truly unbelievable.

The media and the politicians on both sides that do not denounce the hate and who is saying is very sad. None have the courage to voice their outrage only giving a blind eye and a deaf ear to it all.

Shame on us all of us for not demanding better.

I don't believe for a moment that the tea parties are racist organizations. That said there's clearly a "New Southern Strategy" at work that aims to make racists comfortable within the Conservative Movement. Unfortunately that horse just doesn't want to go back into the barn and the Republican Party has unleashed forces of crazy that just can't be controlled. What I find most disagreeable about it is that it's created a new climate in our society where it's acceptable to say any hateful, horrible thing you're thinking and actually be proud of it. Yes, the First Amendment grants us freedom of speech, but decorum should put limits on the free expression of hate.

"If you distrust the government, you will continue to do so."

Do you trust your government Ron? I mean for Pete's sake our Senate is a corporate owned entity, nothing more, the proof is in the lobbyist written legislation that the Senate consistently turns out, any pro consumer or pro citizen piece of legislation that enters the Senate leaves a pro business/wealthy joke, tell me I am wrong Ron, I sincerely wish I were but fact is you and I have no representation in D.C. only lip service.

Not only do some politicians not denounce the hate, it is often them that do the encouraging.

John B: Excellent point. I expecially liked your last thought regarding the limits on the free expression of hate.

One of the things that has been facinating to me is that the Tea Party movement has been able to intimidate and create fear within the Republican Party. This statement is evidenced by GOP leadership and candidates inability to stand up to this block of voters.

Ron ~ Don't you wonder why they did that? Instead of expelling him, they should have just made lemonade out of it. Mmm, mmm ... maybe some Shaken Black Tea Lemonade from Starbucks. Yum.

Nash, you've echoed a lot of my thinking as I observe this "movement", which actually just consists of the most conservative within the Republican Party and partisans who fool themselves by declaring themselves to be independent while consitently voting a GOP straight ticket.

'I have come to think of the tea party "movement" as a support group for those uncomfortable with the pace of change in this country.'

Absolutely, there's no question about that. Listening to some of them I can almost imagine myself in the 60s. The only thing that's missing is complaints about "boys with long hair? Never heard of such a thing, can't tell the boys from the girls anymore." I'm sorry but the world is all about change and really always has been. I don't even believe the change is necessarily even that much faster than it was in the past. Look at how fast we went from candle light, no antibiotics, and infantry on horses to Interstate highways and imported fresh food. Is it because our "statesmen" are all gone? Ask the people who dealt with Boss Tweed and Yellow Journalism. Breakdown in morals? I detect a knowing smile from all the kindly old ladies who once were flappers.

I am interested in what the tea parties think, however. I'm interested because their a repressive, regressive force that's working very hard to prevent positive change and they're getting a lot of attention right now. I do think they'll flame out soon enough, but if we aren't vigilant and active the damage will be done.

"Joe: Thank you for your comment. I did not copy anyone or receive a copy from anyone. I am a Democrat...so I think for myself."

Ron, my comment was something you might not be aware of called "sarcasm". Most humorless liberals either haven't heard of it or just don't get it..

Oh, Joe ... how right you are. My mood ring today is green with envy for your obviously much superior powers of discernment. How DO you do that and maintain so much grace and humility? Poor Ron is definitely overmatched.

Good thing I'm not. Either humble or sarcastic, I mean.

wBush: Thank you for your comment: Yes, I trust our government more than large corporations. The goals of each are different. The government's job is to assist people as stated in the Preamble of the Constitution. Private business's goals are to make money. Both institutions are flawed and get it wrong, but the government's job is to serve the people.

With regard to the Senate: Yep, it's dysfunctional...big time. The Senate has deviated from the Constitution by not having a simple majority, with the VP being the tie breaker. I sincerely wish when the next congress convenes in January, the Senate changes its rules so it can be more functional.

Joe: Yes I have heard of sarcasm. I use it more often than I should. Thank you for clarifying your comments.

Anna, was that sarcasm? I'm Liberal and therefore obviously too emotionally and intellectually impaired to understand the concept, though I'm trying really hard.

Anna Molly: The thinking of the Tea Party is still a mystery to me. BTW, this is my personal invite to join the Vine. I enjoy your wit.

Enjoyed your thoughts, Ron.

The WH is correct, not every tea party member is a racist. But Ron is also correct, the racist horse is out of the barn because NONE of the members denounced or ejected members who carried racist signs or spoke hateful words. There are racists within the Tea Party--there are racist democrats but we don't see them and rarely hear from them. Mark Williams remarks were so egregious that the Tea party had no choice.

The problem for the Tea Party is they failed to denounce the racists within their ranks and the result is a perception by others that the TP consists of mostly racists. Right or wrong, perception becomes reality.

Any thought on the USDA expelling a member from their group (while not a political party) for making insensitive comments. What certain Tea Party Members have done is dispicable yes, but lets also look at select members in other groups who still try to flame racism, but from a different angle. Is the "cart out of the barn" for the USDA?

John B,

I agree that we cannot just ignore the members of the tea party. However, I do feel the attention they have received so far has been well out of proportion to the numbers of folks they represent and the usuable ideas they bring to the table.

I mean, once you express that you don't agree with something, I've got it. I don't need to hear it echoed daily.

The majority of Americans are not in the tea party, do not want the President or our country to fail, and want our country to move forward to solve its problems.

However, based on the media coverage, you would be forgiven if you drew the opposite conclusion.

I don't need to know what motivates someone to believe as they do. I need to know if they are offering anything of value that we can use to move this country forward.

So far, when it comes to the tea party, the answer is a resounding no.

Totally agree, Nash.

I have to say that the most annoying thing about your comment is to imply that Republicans did not support Barack Obama. Of course we did.

So because I am calling him a failed President, you are now calling me a racist? Not only do I find your comments to be annoying, they are a great part of what has caused the ranks of the TEA Parties to grow.

If our own parties were behaving as they should, the TEA Party would never have been born.

Layla-2031539

I have to say that the most annoying thing about your comment is to imply that Republicans did not support Barack Obama. Of course we did.

_______________

Care to clue the rest of us in on WHEN the Republican'ts have supported President Obama?

Somehow I don't think I'm the only one who's missed that 'memo'! lol

Ron, if all this racism has been proved please explain why no one to date has claimed the $100k reward for bringing forth a tape or picture of all the crap the left says but had nver proved happened at he DC rally?

Thousands of camera and mikes and NOT ONE ever caught on tape any of the signs or speach relating to racism.

It is all in your paranoid head

Thank you for the invite, Ron. And how exactly do I do that? I think I had an account once before, but it got lost in the deeps of time.

Feisty Feisty Feisty....

This conservative voted for Obama..... I gave him a chance.... but as soon as I realized that he wasn't what he said he was on the campaign trail (again Wilson was right....he LIED) I have had an immediate and continuous case of buyers remorse.

See when you say your going to surgically cut the deficit but then grow it exponentially that make you....come on Feisty say it with me.... a L-I-A-R! I could go on and on about the lies he has made....

Yes I wanted a change from Bush. But this isnt what I signed up for.... so I will criticize the man playing president until the day he leaves office (2012 if all goes right).

And yes I know.....no matter what I type here Im a "racist".... I get it....

Layla. It takes more than 19 months to solve the huge problems and claiming Pres Obama is a failed president is uninformed. You are entitled to your opinion, and you may not like some of his policies but those policies were explained often during the campaign. The economy may not be where it was in early 2007, but we are NOT in a second Great Depression with 25-30% official unemployment. And the President has done this without much, if any, help from congressional republicans.

No Larry - you're wrong!

I don't think you're a racist - I do however think you are a 'crazy' christian conservative bible banger who is incapable of understanding the separation of church & state!

Therefore I am not inclined to waste anymore time with you!

Are we clear now?

Ps: Where'd you go Layla? Still waiting for you to tell us when the Repubican'ts have supported President Obama?

Larry, I am going out on a limb by "assuming". As an adult, how did you expect any human being on this planet to turn around in 12 months what took 8 years?

The horse is already out of the barn. The racist signs, guns, and speeches have already demonstrated to the American people what the Tea Party members really believe. A Race Summit will not change any of that.

Name one. NAACP is racist by definition.

w bush

"If you distrust the government, you will continue to do so."

Do you trust your government Ron? I mean for Pete's sake our Senate is a corporate owned entity, nothing more, the proof is in the lobbyist written legislation that the Senate consistently turns out, any pro consumer or pro citizen piece of legislation that enters the Senate leaves a pro business/wealthy joke, tell me I am wrong Ron, I sincerely wish I were but fact is you and I have no representation in D.C. only lip service.

W, how do you expect then to change that outcome? Is it by voting for the same people who OBVIOUSLY and CONSISTENTLY choose corporate interests rather than our own? Do we just give up? I have listened to the Minority Leader McConnell, John Boehner, Eric Cantor and others on the Republican side, shamelessly stand with corporations. Yes, there must be a seat at the table for them (although I wish the lobbyists just got the finger), but what do you do to change the outcome? Ideas? Or do we just give up and let them totally take over, leave us nothing, and then we become a society very much like those in the middle east, where there is a reigning class and everyone else lives in poverty? I don't much like to see that happen to my country.

And yes, I believe that we can make government strong, good, and working for its citizens, rather than the corporations. But we must be willing to listen, to support, to build, and not always just tear down what is there. Even if it is just baby steps, we are making progress. And if more and more "constituencies" demand better and better government, we will get there eventually. If we allow the constant greed and usurping of citizens rights by corporate rights, we will have a corporate run country.

John B. (and others),

yes the cobstitution guarantees us freedom of speech, but I disagree that decorum should place limits on hate speech.

No one has ever adequately defined hate speech. A simple declaratory statement can be viewed by the speaker as a deeply held statement of empiracle fact based on peraonal experience, while a secnd person will, because of their personal beliefs, feel it to be vile hate speech. A third person might see the first two and see nothing but the individual definitions leading the shouting.

Personally, I want those filled with hate to speak it loud and clear. I don't want their inner feelings crouched in politically correct camouflage. If you are filled with unfounded hate due to religion, race,or anything else, its best to know who and where the crazies are ... and for the rest of us to hear their rants and be embarrassed that anyone can actually think that way ... thereby strengthing opposition to the hate. Those who would agree will need to defend the indefensable and show themselves as the keepers of this hatred for all to shun. but hopefully not to hate. Let us forgive and educate instead.

Let them make complete morons of themselves (apologies to non-hateful morons). But NEVER fall into the trap that an honest disagreement is hateful.

I disagree with Pres. Obama on his entire economic program -- which he did NOT parse for the people before the election -- preferring the undefined words "hope and change." To some this makes me racist -- as though no one can ever disagree with policy without an overriding racial component. But I have, do, and always will insist that my opposition comes from years of education (Ph.D. in economics from Northwestern) and may years living behind the "iron curtain" under communist rule.

Obama's policies are verifiably more marxist than free market. And to have left a communist state only to see the leading edge of socialist change originate from Obama in my chosen Homeland is the most frightening of all. Marx, Lenin,Stalin,etc. were white. THIS is the direction with which I disagree seeing my country proceed.

Am I racist? No. Obama's (anthropologically correct) stature as Mulatto has nothing to do with his economic policies --- but his education and guidance by hard-core socialists and avowed communists has. I cannot hate half of the man, so I choose to not hate any part of him. I just distrust him and his motivations.

Racism is just too easy an accusation to throw around. And if some true racists are in the TEA Party or in the ranks of NAACP or the Rainbow Coalition, then they are individuals in the organizations, not policy formers or enforcers.

SO:

Let anyone Speak their hate. Shout it from the rooftops and high ground. Let everyone see the face and hear the voice of ignorance, the rot of an ill-educated brain, and the shriveling of the very essence of what many call the"soul." I don't have to agree with you, but I need to know that such evil exists and must be fought. I nothing else, you will fulfill your destiny as a bad example to the rest of us.

Let anyone Speak their hate. Shout it from the rooftops and high ground. Let everyone see the face and hear the voice of ignorance, the rot of an ill-educated brain, and the shriveling of the very essence of what many call the"soul.

The problem is that there are young not yet educated children (of all ages) who hear this but can't make the distinctions an educated adult can. This open display and pride of ignorance has adverse effects and consequences on impressionable and weak minds. It does not promote national unity, it divides us in spirit and eventually in purpose, to the delight of any and all of our foes.

Mr. Gump,

We must never deny freedom of speech to anyone based on the inability of a listener to distinguish what is being said. That is unacceptable censorship.

As to children: this is where adults come in. Its called (are you ready?) PARENTING. Yes! It's when the mom and dad put down their distractions long enough to help shape the very essence of their children.

It's not society's job to choose what speech to hear or not. It IS the parents job to show their children the right and wrong of what is being said. And if they abdicate that responsibility, we may have perpetuation of hate ... but to deny free speech is an insult to the Constitution that must never be tollerated.

A Democrat's definition of thinking for oneself apparently means agreeing with them.

The Carpathian - I see your moniker is named after the Carpathian Mountains. That's very interesting. I have read your post, and I find your post fascinating. I see that you disagree with President Obama's economic policies, and that is fine with me. However, I would be interested in hearing your arguments on WHY you disagree.

I know this thread was about racism and race speech, but I think that we are waaay past that sort of thing in our discussions here. The Tea party doesn't interest me (its more noise than substance); what interests me is how a person - who has lived behind the Iron Curtain - can argue for/against economic policies. It is my take that you would prefer a more capitalistic approach to our situation here in America, and I submit that we need to have a more BALANCED approach to 'pure' capitalism. I do not see the harm in having elements of BOTH societies melded together so that we can survive in this society given the challenges we have, but a differing opinion - without the baiting and name calling - would be welcome because MAYBE we can all learn something from someone who has seen Communism up close and personal.

Sir, I hope that you continue to post your thoughts. I am sure you are well able to handle the arguments you make (hopefully without too much hyperbole), and I am really interested in hearing them.

Pocka!

Funny Richard, I would have said the same thing about Republicans during those years when I was called a traitor for disagreeing with the President's policies.

Carpathian, very noble and you're right to the extent that the ACLU was correct to define the right of the American Nazi party to assemble peaceably and express their crazy ideas to be freely and widely discredited. Where are you on the subject of subtly coded phrases that are crystal clear to those who have predudices, but designed to slip by the notice of those who aren't tuned in http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1830590,00.html ?

John B:

Just pointing out that it's a two way street.

It is, isn't it?

Free speech is free speech. So, who on the Left is using short hand or code words to convey subtle messages that there are people we need to be afraid of in order to gain electoral advantage?

Nice post IR,

I was Racheal last night and guess what? BP is trying to get all the major scientist under contract to them so they will not be able to testify against them during the Damage Lawsuits. Right out of the Soprano's story line.

Yeh Navy B.P.'s been throwing money at anybody in the Engineering and Scientific fields since about two days after the rig sank. She's one of the few in the media that comes thru on taking a closer look at who's Hoodooing Who and Why. And there's a lot of Hoodooing been going on.

Good morning IR.

Thanks for keeping your keen eye on what is cooking in the Gulf of Mexico . . . Lord knows we need some folks with some good old common sense monitoring things down there . . . never before have I seen folks work so hard to protect the guilty and blame the innocent.

Money truly does make strange bed fellows.

Frying pan?! Ouch. Real women use much more subtle tactics than that one, IR. Of course, subtlety is sometimes lost on the delusional.

But I've never heard a more oxymoronic pairing that "hero" and "BP." Kudos.

Vet ~ One of the oldest tricks in a lawyer's arsenal. The made-up conflict.

Anna Molly some of the fellows sad to say do not recognize that fine femine subtility as well as others. Since most of that group seem to be made up of T.P. ers and their Fine Republican Brethren I thought I would use something a little more recognizable to them.

Hi Anna M.,

Nice to see you this AM, nice post. Keep up that fine femine subtility. Those that matter will understand. Have a great day.

Well said. The smart fellow in Washington gets little credit for sending those other smart people to the Gulf.

I.R. ~ You do realize, of course, what else T.P. stands for. Ironic, no? They should go drape themselves on a house or something. That's THEIR level of subtlety.

Good morning to you, Vet. You have a great day, too, and thanks for the kind words. Don't worry. I'm not going anywhere, except on vacation for a few days.

Anna M,

Have a great vacation and a cold one for me. Stay safe and relax.

One of the big differences between Democrats and (contemporary) Republicans is that many Democrats really do seem to believe the old saying that "good government makes good politics" while the Republicans like Bobby Jindal spend their time chatting up Anderson Cooper on the Corporate News Network instead of doing their job. The Republican philosophy is "good photo ops make good politics." Unfortunately, it seems to be a winning philosophy more often than not.

Houston, someone on DK over the weekend mentioned he/she had an opportunity speak with David Plouffe recently in California and they talked about getting messages out. And evidently Mr. Plouffe said that even though Fox Propaganda reaches about 14 million a week, when the Democrats (OFA) send out their emails, they reach 12 million people.

And obviously the only we can get the message out is through emails as the media for the most part is in the can for the GOP and have been for many many years. Raising money for ads is key as well. I see Karl Rove is targeting Senator Reid with his usual lies.

Some people never change.

Enjoyed your thoughts. I heard those poll numbers, too. The momentum seems to be shifting for now. Possibly the GOPers own words are sinking in to voters as is their obstructionism. All politics is local and voters will choose the candidate they feel has or will work for them. Americans wanted financial regulatory reform and they want unemployment benefits extended. The GOP fought both those issues failing to recognize that republicans also wanted reform and republicans are also unemployed.

Interesting comments, Ezra Klein I think, that the Tea Party itself is likely to cost otherwise sure republican takeovers. Reid now leads in NV, Rand Paul is in a dead heat, Rubio is trailing Crist, they drove Arlen Specter out of the GOP and now Sestak is leading. the TP candidate to name a few. Nothing will rally democrats and independents quicker than fringe views.

Leo,

Right on. I am going to keep reminding people what the previous administration did for us middle class. Drug Plan, Tax Cuts where 50% of the benefits went to the richest 5%, 2 wars. NONE of this was paid for and they now have the nerve to stop the unemployed from getting the lifeline they need and to add insult, they want to keep the tax cuts (about 1Trillion) intact. THese guys just have no shame, morals or ethics.

RM last night, with the help of GB Sr. completely debunked the talking point on Tax Cuts should not be paid for because they pay for themselves (revenue generated greater than costs). This is just not true and George Sr. called it Voodoo economics.

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

Leo,

Right on. I am going to keep reminding people what the previous administration did for us middle class.

And what has the current administration done for the middle class? Nothing. Not a da*n thing. Oh, except pass out unfunded unemployment checks. What a deal, the government will pay you forever not work. I guess it's another new entitlement that Obama cooked up.

You lefties have to keep fabricating all the evils of some other administration because Lord knows you can't talk about any of the Obama and the Democrats successes. The man and his party are a complete failure, so you have to babble on and on about Bush instead. Obama is making Bush look good though. Bush had an idea of how to lead, Obama only knows how to be critical of businesses and how to spend tons more money then Bush ever did.

Still waiting for that first job to be created by Obama. So far he's down well over 2 million for his 18 months of "effort".

JoAnnaSmitth

You lefties have to keep fabricating all the evils of some other administration because Lord knows you can't talk about any of the Obama and the Democrats successes.

Gee, it's good to know that the hideous misadventure in Iraq, the torture of prisoners, the out-of-control intelligence agencies, and the wrecked economy were all just terrible fictions dreamt up by "lefties". Thanks, JoAnna. I feel much better now.

JoAnna:

We "lefties" are noticing that aside from alot of manufactured vitriol, you don't have much to say.

The stimulus bill has helped the middle class, especially if your job was saved in state government or you are unemployed.

The consumer protections against fraud in the financial reform bill that just passed will help the middle class.

Not being excluded from purchasing health insurance because you have a pre-existing condition will help the middle class.

Those tax credits to purchase cars and homes helped the middle class.

Not having to pay extra fees to banks on student loans will help the middle class.

Not losing 750,000 jobs a month has helped the middle class.

Not having your 401 K plan being destroyed by a stock market in free fall has helped the middle class.

Getting a tax cut has helped the middle class.

Preserving what is left of America's manufacturing base has helped the middle class.

Not being on the brink of World War III because of cowboy foreign policy helps the middle class.

Cracking down on medicare fraud that is costing us billions of dollars a year helps the middle class.

And I'm just scratching the surface.

Nashville_fan

JoAnna:

We "lefties" are noticing that aside from alot of manufactured vitriol, you don't have much to say.

The stimulus bill has helped the middle class, especially if your job was saved in state government or you are unemployed.

10% unemployment (at least within the margin of error) 20% underemployment for the middle class. Many others worried they won't have a job at the end of the day. So, explain again how Obama is "helping the middle class".

And I'm just scratching the surface.

You're scratching something, but I think it's behind you.

Nashville,

Gets a vote. We just keep getting the same old talking points and misinformation from the same people over and over. They never answer questions with facts or ideas just more talking points. They ignore the real facts that many of us present or switch topics trying to draw our attention away from the orginal discussion.

Just a question to everyone... Who creates the laws in this country, the Congress or the President? Why do we focus on WJC and GWB and BHO instead of focusing on who was and is in charge of passing the laws that destroy our economy. The president does NOT pass the laws, he enforces the laws passed by Congress. Now, let's see who has been in charge of Congress for the past 4 years?

It's much easier to blame everything on presidents instead of looking at those who are supposed to represent us.

Houston!

JoAnnaSmitth

You lefties have to keep fabricating all the evils of some other administration because Lord knows you can't talk about any of the Obama and the Democrats successes.

Gee, it's good to know that the hideous misadventure in Iraq, the torture of prisoners, the out-of-control intelligence agencies, and the wrecked economy were all just terrible fictions dreamt up by "lefties". Thanks, JoAnna. I feel much better now.

Hideous indeed. Recall that the Democratic leadership at the time was totally against that war. In fact, here are some quotes to back that fact up:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1051684/posts

JoAnna. All I can say is that you have my deepest sympathy. Obviously you are a miserable person who is filled with hate for any person and any view that is not in line with your own. That is sad because the world is filled with those who disagree and that is how it should be.

Jody, Iowa

JoAnna. All I can say is that you have my deepest sympathy. Obviously you are a miserable person who is filled with hate for any person and any view that is not in line with your own. That is sad because the world is filled with those who disagree and that is how it should be

The summer Iowa heat must be getting to you Jody.

I'm just doing what your Great Hero told us all to do: "Argue with neighbors, get in their face".

Apparently you have a problem with that? Too bad.

I am so very tired of the continued "blame Bush" attitude. Fact: he inherited a "paper" surplus that was not actually IN the treasury, but looked good when addressed through creative accounting.

Fact: you cannot fight a war, much less two of them, on a peacetime budget. Bye-bye surplus.

Fact: he authored an accross the board tax cut. But it was not aimed at the rich, for everyone got the same percentage. If you paid $1,000,000 in taxes, you saved more. But it was not graduated so that the middle class paid more. Its just that you had more to save.

Fact: almost 50% of the citizens pay NO tax. So they're not getting a tax savings is a stupid argument. Any cash back would have to be from other programs such as earned income tax credits. It is logically and factually IMPOSSIBLE to give tax breaks to those who already have no tax liability.

Fact: had Gore won the election (conspiracy theorists please hold back on this for now), it would have been HIM to loose the surplus. It would have been HIM to rack up war-related defecits. It would have been HIM to have taken us into a recession that originated not from internal policy, but from external forces pressuring our economy.

Remember, it was a Liberal Democrat, John F. Kennedy, who saw and understood -- and then ACTED ON IT -- to drop the tax rates for the rich. The result was increased revenues as these monies were used to expand business, hire people who would pay taxes, and increase the output of the economy. Tax cuts have worked each time tried. EACH time. In the case of Bush, the costs of two wars and the coming recession outstripped the ability of the tax cuts to have lasting effect.

'Nuff said

"Fact: almost 50% of the citizens pay NO tax."

Labeling something a fact doesn't make it so. http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/debunking-47-pay-no-taxes-talking-point

Had Gore been elected (he actually was), 9/11 would have been stopped before it happened, therefore no war in Afghanistan and certainly no war in Iraq. Much less deficit spending required.

Al Gore promised to spend the non-existent surplus on programs. Different spending, eventually the same deficits, recession etc.

And stop the 9/11 attacks? Now that's unsubstantiated Monday morning quarterbacking on steroids! Al Gore went off the mental deep end because he couldn't handle the election results. Then his party abandoned him and Gore had to get by on Michael Moore style PT Barnum tactics. Brother Al's Travelling Salvation Show made a few stops with the masseuse along the way, too.

Not to mention that Al Gore was only months removed from actually being on the inside. Surely, that and his omnipotent omniscience should have helped him sound the warning, huh?

No war in Iraq? Maybe. No war in Afghanistan? If so, Gore would have ended up a one termer.

Come now, Richard, you are speculating about something we will never know about. The mathematical certaintly here is the spending spree the repubs went on for eight years.

No war in Iraq? W would have been the one termer. But wait, I see the fear code, it's yellow now; but just two days before the election - they jumped it to Hail Mary orange! Be afraid, Richard, be VERY, VERY afraid,...

or something like that!

Then the republicans continue to have their heads handed to them by a wimp.

Touche'

I saw Joan Walsh say that, and I don't think she was right. She seems to forget how far President Obama went out on a limb to get health care reform past, and cowards like G. W. Bush wouldn't have had the courage to confront the Congress members of the opposition party the way Obama did on live TV (no teleprompter), and shoot them down in flames using facts and logic against the Republicans mindless talking points.

In my opionion, Obama's real weakness has been thinking he can deal with Republicans as if they were rational adults with the best interests of the country at heart when they've stabbed him in the back every chance they could get, hoping to "break him." Fortunately, it looks like Obama is beginning to treat them like they deserve to be treated.

You know, it is strange how folks can only remember what was broadcast on the news on the day they were talking.

President Obama and his Administration have been asking for the unemployment benefit to be extended even before it lapsed.

It's not like yesterday was the first time he spoke about it, so once again, much ado about nothing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWE4urpqf54

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/statement-press-secretary-house-passage-extension-unemployment-insurance-benefits

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/05/27/growing-businesses-and-putting-unemployed-workers-back-job

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/07/14/economic-case-extending-unemployment-insurance

Houston, I agree but only to a point. I believe that Obama had to give Republicans enough rope to hange themselves. Going on the offensive early would have put the lie to his rhetoric that he wanted a new, bipartisan spirit in Washington. Jumping up and saying "says you" the first time the Republicans balked him wouldn't have done much good. At this point it's clearly the Republican strategy and no one on the Democratic side should be shy about pointing it out.

John B, I'm not talking so much about Obama's generally mild rhetoric, but mainly how he's bargained with them, especially his opening bargaining position on the stimulus bill, which seemed to give too much away to the Republicans at the start. I tend to agree with Paul Krugman that Obama started with a bill that was too modest. There was some of that with the health care bill, too, but I think Sen. DeMint (Confederate Senator from South Carolina) may have helped Obama understand the kind of weasels he was dealing with when DeMint started talking about how the Republicans could use health care to "break" the President of the United States.

Point taken, Houston. While I can't recall the quote or the originator well enough to link to it there are statements in the public domain that Conservatives automatically stake out the most extreme position they can make a case for, knowing that whatever they get will be a win for them as a result. As proof look no further than health care reform, which mimics Romney's MassCare law in many if not most respects but is still reviled as "socialized medicine" and a "government takeover of the health care industry."

Houston,

Good post and I feel pretty much the same way. The Dems have given up to much on some of the bills and have not displayed enough backbone in some cases to defend their positions and call the republicans out. While the working together to help America is a great concept it was apparent very early that he was not going to get much if any support from across the aisle. We wasted a lot of time in diluting bills (that got voted down anyway) trying to get a republican vote or two.

That appears to be changing somewhat. With the stimulus bill I keep hearing that it was not strong enough, I wonder why that is. Was not big enough, same question. The rebublicans time and time again get there agenda in the bill (which typical favors big business, wall street and the richest people) then vote it down. If it does pass, they later claim that it was too weak. President Obama can not win no matter which way he goes. The Republicans wil always argue that it is too little, too much, too soon or too late. But, I think people are finally starting to see the hypocrisy of this party. I just hope that there are enough.

John B, Des Moines, IA

I believe that Obama had to give Republicans enough rope to hange themselves. Going on the offensive early would have put the lie to his rhetoric that he wanted a new, bipartisan spirit in Washington.

_______________________________________

And you DON't think his going out into the Rose Garden yesterday and piling on the Republican's for political points after he has the vote already won is putting "the lie to his rhetoric that he wanted a new, bipartisan spirit in Washington."??

If so, then P.T. Barnum is right once again.

Joan isn't the only one who made that comment. Chris Hayes said something similar. What they fail to remember is that Pres Obama has commented on the GOP's obstructionist tactics regarding unemployment before--this was NOT the first time. He did it in his weekly address I think the week of July 4th congressional vacation. The media did little to report these comments, a blip on the radar. The GOP didn't get the message, failed to understand the dynamics, so it's Rose Garden time.

As I've said before, Pres Obama is way ahead of everyone else. In the Rose Garden, he was able to pound the point home by referencing the GOPers block "not once but three times" and bring faces of the unemployed before the TV cameras. This was smart political tactics and it was planned for the biggest impact. What better timing that to admonish the GOP, have the visual of the President with 3 unemployed people the day before the vote which will likely extend the benefit. I'd say that's smart politics, and far from a wimp.

'And you DON't think his going out into the Rose Garden yesterday and piling on the Republican's for political points after he has the vote already won is putting "the lie to his rhetoric that he wanted a new, bipartisan spirit in Washington."??'

18 months isn't enough time to establish that the GOP is following an obstructionist agenda and call them on it? How long should he roll over and pretend that the obvious (and stated) goal isn't to block everything the President wishes to do?

My question is why is it that we all sit back and expect President Obama to "speak" on these things. Where are all the Dem Senators and Dem Representatives, why aren't they on some show - any show - 24/7 making their points, or Chris Van Hollen, who is DNC Chairman. I do see some on some of the time, but to expect President Obama with the schedule he has and the hard work he is doing to be the constant "voice" is beyond me. We should all be writing, speaking, donating, whatever we can do. He cannot do it without us, he cannot do it without his party showing some backbone! What about the give-away of the core of HCR - what did the Blue Dogs do for you? As far as the Senate, even though I would hate to give up the Majority Leadership, I sure do wish it would change to a Dem other than Harry Reid, who I think is the one who should ride roughshod over the idiots on the right, as well as the idiots in his own party. HARRY REID NEEDS TO GET A BACKBONE!

Feisty,

Good morning and happy Tuesday. Looks like things may be a changing out there but as you said, we need to keep up the pressure and constantly remind people who created this mess and their policy to do nothing about it, let alone take responsibilty. Rachael had another great show last night. Larry O did good also. All he would say is that he will be on in the fall following TRMS.

I really enjoyed the peice on VooDoo economics. Now what are the republicans going to talk about this week??

I live in Missouri Roy Blunt is a joke. "I'll work for Missouri" his ad never states he is already a congressman. Please, Please First Read Prop C is on the ballot for August 3, trying to repeal

part of the health care bill. I know how I want to vote, however, the ballot wording is not clear to my husband, either. The GOP is happy it is on the ballot.

Hey Feisty! When Lawrence O looked directly into the camera last night, I KNOW that smile was for you.... LOL

Sandy, Prop C is trying to make MO exempt from the provisions of HCR. It's embarassing it's even on the ballot, but all things considered, it could be worse... Blunt could win. Prop C is a definate NO.

Hey Lynn! lmao!

What can I say - smarts and good looks! Don't need to tell you how happy I'll be to see him on a regular basis! ;0)

The 2008 election opened the eyes of many Americans, and the Republicans and pundits failed to understand the change in the country and continue with the same playbook.

I, for one is listening more, reading and getting diverse views on various topics and discussing it with my family. Although there are many who continue to cling to the old ways, the eyes of their children are open. Personally, I am challenging Republicans who are my acquaitances to tell me about their party's plans for our state and country.

GM: That was so so funny last night! Unfortunately, her supporters don't care. They're unconcerned about her intellectual capabilities (or lack of) to care. They just like to be entertained with divisiveness and she fits the bill.

Palin's suporters don't understand words that contain more than 6 letters so they have no idea even now what th fuss is all about.

And don't forget.............. "Grow your own dope, plant a Palin".

Pat, I hope she does win the nomination in 2012......that would be a fun trip.

Hi Gingerbread,

To coin a phrase from Keith, "that woman is an idiot".

Hi retired, Amen. She just keeps on giving.

Have a wonderful day. Your posts make great reading.

Needless to say "Ground Zero Mosque" is the most inflammatory way possible to describe a multi-use building proposed by an Islamic group which actively renounces violence and refuses to cede Islam to exremists http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/ground-zero-mosque-project-fuels-heated-debate/19486708 .

Referring back to my earlier comment about the "New Southern Strategy" freeing people to express hate in whatever form they choose, one couldn't find a more perfect example than referring to Allah as "the terrorists monkey-god."

Palin, Boehner, and McConnell - Winking, Blinking, and Nod.

Palin - gawd what an embarrassment she is.

I just don't know any better way to sum it up.

I hear you. I saw those tweets, each one digging a deeper hole. As I said yesterday, I tend to be intolerant of incurious and flakey in one bundle.

FG

That is to funny!!! LOL

Pat,

I agree about helping out in our districts. Wish I could "HELP OUT" in Michellle Bachmann

and John Boehner districts.

Isn't that the truth Sandy? lol

Sandy, what I would give to come here some morning on First Thoughts and the first thing I read is -

JOHN BOEHNER TRAILING TO THE DEMOCRAT.

Aaah, I can dream can't I?

Hi Forrest, that is one funny post. She never disappoints, does she?....but dont go giving her any ideas on how to further mangle the language, as she appears to have a talent for that.

Last night I watched Forrest Gump for the umpteenth time, I like your handle almost as much as I like the movie.

My momma said it is good to laugh sometimes.

Got a good chuckle out of that one, Forest Grump!

There is no question that it's going to be all about how the economy performs in the coming months.

Remember where you are, dangerfield.

The outcome of the midterms in November will be decided by the verbal gaffes of Michael Steele, John Boehner, and Joe Barton...and, of course, Sarah Palin's mangling of the English language. The White House and the DNC have made that perfectly clear.

Americans don't care about the economy, or unemployment, and haven't noticed that the jobs, retail sales, and housing numbers suggest a weakening economy...

And, despite what they continually tell the major polling organizations, they believe that the Administration's $800+ billion (revised) stimulus package is working, and improving their daily lives...just as they believe that Obamacare will improve the quality and cost of their health care.

The upcoming mid-terms will be all atmospherics...no issues of substance will get in the way.

I couldn't agree more Mixed Bag . . . here's hoping that "Obama" gets "angry enough" before November and spends all of his weekends in the Gulf of Mexico . . . or this country is dooooooooooooomed!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1Y73sPHKxw

GDP growth, +3.101%, investment growth +15.735%, inflation, only 2.135%, (all from http://www.economywatch.com/economic-statistics/year/2010 ), unemployment rate declining http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Unemployment-rate.aspx?Symbol=USD

Will it be enough to help the Democrats in November? That's yet to be determined. It's nice to see that you have so much faith in the abilities of Conservative leaders, though, MB.

John B, Des Moines, IA

There is no question that it's going to be all about how the economy performs in the coming months.

On that we can agree. But much of the economic news is already known. Again today we are reminded that things very important to the economy are not improving. Things like housing development and durable good orders are both sinking. Banks are flush with money, ready to move out their doors at record low interest rates to American businesses, yet the cash sits there unused, at least by the American businesses. The banks are managing to get foreign borrowers to take their money. Obama and his economic team may manage to cook a few books between now and November, but it may only save a couple of Democrats jobs in Congress.

8 months ago it was absurd to talk about the totally disorganized Republicans taking the House in 2010. Now it's nearly a fact they will. Even less likely was the idea that the Republicans would take the Senate. That one is now a toss-up as the GOP would have to run the table, but even that is looking more possible every day. And yes, this is all because the Democrats have performed so badly.

...and in the same vein...

John B, Des Moines, IA

There is no question that it's going to be all about how the economy performs in the coming months.

...and in the same vein...
July 19, 2010, 12:40 am

Mystery for White House: Where Did the Jobs Go?

By JOHN HARWOOD
Breaking Okun’s Law

In January 2009, Mr. Obama’s economic advisers predicted that unemployment would peak around 8 percent if Congress passed their recommended stimulus program. As Republicans never tire of pointing out now, the rate hit 10.1 percent by October and has fallen less than one percentage point since.

In part, the White House responds, that’s because contraction of economic output was much larger than expected. Yet the rise in unemployment far exceeded what economists would have forecast even had they known that. Under Okun’s Law, a formula for the relationship between output and unemployment described by the 1960s-era White House economist Arthur Okun, the jobless rate at the end of 2009 would have been around 8.3 percent instead of 10 percent."

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/19/mystery-for-white-house-where-did-the-jobs-go/?ref=politics

GDP growth, +3.101%, investment growth +15.735%, inflation, only 2.135%

Inflation certainly isn't an issue. But deflation is, and that one is even worse. That's where the supply of goods and services exceeds demand, and even at lower prices, the demand does not improve. That of course leads to massive layoffs. So keep a close eye on that inflation number, and if it goes any lower, then we'll start to see some real problems with the economy.

OMG . . .

Not the old "stimulus will keep unemployment under 8%" talking point.

I'll be brief:

-The report in question was issued before President Obama was Inaugurated, meaning before the size of the actual stimulus was even known. So any "predictions" are in fact works of "analytical fiction" based on what they were PROPOSING, not what PASSED.

-The unemployment rate in January 2009 was 7.6%, so CLEARLY nobody in there RIGHT MIND thought that the Stimulus package was going to be able to hold it under 8%. The stimulus bill wasn’t signed into law until mid February . . . the unemployment rate then was ALREADY 8.1%.

Finally, this is one of the MANY disclaimers THROUGHOUT the report:

"there is considerable uncertainty in our estimates: both the impact of the package on GDP and the relationship between higher GDP and job creation are hard to estimate precisely. . ."

How any of this adds up to a hard and fast "prediction" that unemployment would not rise above 8% is a mystery to me.

But hey, at least this time they didn't claim that President Obama said it.

That's progress I guess.

http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf

Nash...you are the only one I know who is still clinging to "Obama didn't say it would keep unemployment under 8%". Even left-wing pundits and Obama supporters cite this number. It was put out by his advisers, he didn't say it. Big Deal. His administration is responsible for number existing. It was not plucked out of thin air.

OMG . . .

Not the old "stimulus will keep unemployment under 8%" talking point.

OMG

It's mr. Harwood in the NYT...again, did you read the piece?

as to the "talking points"...

www.politico.com/static/PPM116_obamadoc.html

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/10/romer-and-bernstein-on-stimulus/

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:2FX5-rHK64IJ:news.uchicago.edu/files/newsrelease_20090227.pdf+christina+romer+stimulus&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESj8uKWUVO0BgOFMNZmrMRBboYp4hkerG30xHEBK2wAH0hyDLFebMGQFh07S3hVcoyEpJWTCrYlVXd9xE3SCGbAZ6r5s1Ufzj0SXXzn3YZ60J_K_Lk7DgPT_y1_jEdRcHetfdS46&sig=AHIEtbTUCej0d6v9y64b9Jctuv78hoA2qw

http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea/chair-remarks-08062009/

http://mostlyeconomics.wordpress.com/2009/01/12/christina-romer-advocates-monetary-stimulus-in-research-and-fiscal-stimulus-in-policy/

Please, it is what it is...

dangerfield,

It is the week of my daughters birthday . . . my "reading" time is severly limited . . . I do recognize that the job loss is worse than predicted . . . and I wish folks would just say that instead of pretending that President Obama pinky swore unemployment wouldn't go over 8%.

That's alls I'm saying.

Back to finding a b'day gift for a precocious 11 year old who wants a cell phone (not gonna happen).

Morning Alan.

I'm not clinging . . . I'm presenting the truth.

And I note that no one can really tell me that what I'm saying is not true.

Just that everyone has accepted the misrepresentation so I should too.

Maybe next week, but not today.

Enjoy them while they're young Nash! Best wishes to her!

BTW: Totally agree about the cell phone! ;0)

Thanks Feisty . . . she is already just as tall as me so I am definitely trying to savor every minute! :o)

Happy B-day to your daughter....get her the cell phone, it's inevitable anyway...:)

I have presented copious documentation, when you get time to read it, mostly from the administration, charts, Cheistina Romer video and all, that should put this silly issue to bed once and for all. There is nothing to misinterpret, it's all there, and directly relates to Harwood's article and Okun...

Nash

Happy Birthday to your daughter!!!!! I do remember that President Obama mentioned that the stimulus will last for two years. Still have the rest of 2010 to go.

She's to young for a cell phone but do keep in mind that she can have one where you can put in what numbers she allowed to call.

Have a nice day!!!

Alan, NJ

Nash...you are the only one I know who is still clinging to "Obama didn't say it would keep unemployment under 8%".

Only her and everyone else who has the slightest regard for the truth. His advisers gave an ESTIMATE that unfortunately proved to be too optimistic. I've heard Republican politicians like Boehner and McConnel assert that Obama "promised" to keep unemployment under 8%. That's called LYING.

Thanks everyone for all the well wishes for my daughter . . . much appreciated! :o)

I am reminded of...

April 1980
Philippines - Mindoro Island
Captain of the Japanese Imperial Army, Fumio Nakahira, held out until April 1980 before being discovered at Mt. Halcon.

http://www.wanpela.com/holdouts/list.html

Amazing isn't it? Especially Reagan's number, as I shake my head at the difference between the real Ronald Reagan and the one that Peggy Noonan and & Co. continue to bow down to like he was some sort of ugh! messiah.

Now where have I heard that word before? lol It is they the GOP who worship Reagan and GWB and Palin. Yet it is what they accuse us of with the President. What hypocrites.

TRR Barboursville, WV

Republicans are calling for the return of voodoo economics. Everyone knows that didn't work.

Now the liberals are back to living in the early '90s.

The truth of course is that tax cuts aren't the only reason for economic growth. The economy is much more complex then that, but liberals need to break it all down to something simple so their type can have a somewhat reasonable of chance of understanding the Leftwing dogma put out by the Democrats.

When Reagan was president the deficit went from 994 billion to 2.8 trillion

Um, that would be debt, not deficit. You do understand the difference, correct? And that was done in 8 years, and he closed out the Cold War in the process, saving trillions. And you must be totally out of your mind that Obama has taken the debt from $10 trillion to $14 trillion, in less then 2 years, and for what?

JoAnna,

Are you able to back up anything that you say with documentable facts?

That would really help us all understand so much more if we didn't have to take your word for it.

You have posted so many things that have not been true, I've got to say I just don't trust you.

Sorry.

P.S. Consider it an attempt to be civil that I refrained from calling you that word that rhymes with dryer. . . but my gut is telling me that word might be more approrpriate.

Nashville_fan

JoAnna,

Are you able to back up anything that you say with documentable facts?

What exactly isn't true? Unemployment numbers? Look them up. Underemployment numbers? The same, look'em up. It's not anyones fault but your own if you're too damn lazy to to look around you and see what is going on. Net loss of jobs since Obama took office, well over 2 million.

If you want to keep puking the party line that Obama has been a great success, you're going to have to back it up with facts, but you can't because you don't have those facts, that's all you have is spin.

You obviously have some homework to do if you want to be aware of the state of the country. I suggest you take the time and do it rather then embarrass yourself here on a daily basis.

JoAnna, I've stayed away from your posts for the last couple of days, but "Look them up" is your mantra. When someone does, and points out that your just flat WRONG, you ignore it entirely and continue to spout the same lines, unresponsive to the conversation going on around you. If you do respond it's with accusations that others are wrong in spite of the facts. Look, I enjoy a good debate with a Conservative, my brother for example. You, however, have zero credibility because you refuse to engage in the debate.

I liked how David Gregory of Meet the Press finally started asking specific details on just how the republicans were going to bring down the debt, since they now claim this is what they are concerned with. Now it seems all TV news hosts are chiming in asking specifics in which they still refuse to answer.

I'm just wondering if they are'nt responding with any specifics on how they would target our debt is due in large part by the negative response Sharon Angle and Rand Paul have gotten from the American public on how they would target our debt (eliminating ss, eliminating medi care). I think all Americans would be wise to consider this may be exactly how they would govern, but refuse to state it publicly, for fear it would crush any chance they may have at being elected. Just a thought since when peppered on just what specifically they would cut, they continue the same vague republican talking points.

I think the American public should continue to hound them on the specifics till election time, however, since they see the writing on the wall, we probably won't get any! Letting the tax cuts expire seems to give us the most bang for the buck on cutting the deficit and it does appear before they were enacted, everyone receiving them were doing just fine economically.

To JoAnna Smith:

Why would you (and many others) be so foolish as to compare Reagan's 8 years to Obama's 18 months? Since you don't know what our economy will look like in 2012 your accusations and arguments have no merit. I see you go on and on about accomplishments in your posts (and believe me, the are plenty of others doing it too) yet you've not given the man the 4 years he was elected to serve.

Are you one of those "instant gratification" people? If so, give this some thought. If you personally lost your job, the house payments are in arrears as are all of the other payments, unemployment is about to run out, savings is depleted and, of course, the retirement is no longer what it once was. Now apply the same expectations to yourself as you do the President. Could YOU pull yourself out of the mess you're in - in 18 months? That's 540 days.

JoAnna,

You and I had a nice "discussion" last week.

I posted links refuting your . . . untruths.

You said you had wasted enough time talking with me.

Ironically enough, you have completely discounted the fact that the bulk of the debt and the deficit is the result of the policies of "conservative" Presidents.

Then you deftly change the subject to unemployment.

Unemployment is high, but it is not President Obama's fault. The stimulus was needed to address a problem that was left unaddressed by the previous Administration . . . kind of like the two unfinished wars, and Guantanomo Bay, and financial reform.

Conservatives left everything in shambles, and now are refusing to accept personal responsibility for it by filling the airwaves with lies to confuse folks.

I'm not confused JoAnna, and your deflection technique is not working with me.

Ronald Reagan saved money by ending the Cold War? I will give you extra credit for creativity.

Jo Anna I keep a right close eye on things around me. And just for the record I haven't ever seen Nash embarrass herself on any occasion. You on the other hand seem to have quite the penchant for it and manage to spread it across a whole day and many subjects. Instead of interspersing your self where your comments aren't needed or wanted why don't you ease on down the board and talk to C.A. He does seem to have a thought or two that you might be able to clear up for him.

Good to see you around IR . . .

I am sure I have embarrassed myself once or twice . . . glad you missed those days! :o)

VermontGirl

To JoAnna Smith:

Why would you (and many others) be so foolish as to compare Reagan's 8 years to Obama's 18 months?

VG, I was responding to others that were making the comparison between Obama and Reagan. You are correct that Obama will have to stand on his 4 year record if/when he runs for the office again in 2012. And it's not about "instant gratification", it's about determining the next course of action after 2 years with Obama-nomics. There are in general two camps, one that says wait and see, the other that says we're on the wrong track. Current polls say the latter camp is growing while the former camp is shrinking. You can believe the fruits of Obama's labor will pay off over time, but I don't see how that is possible, not with the growth of government, the number of entitlements it provides, and the current entitlements that are bleeding the country dry. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.

Nashville_fan

JoAnna,

You and I had a nice "discussion" last week.

I posted links refuting your . . . untruths.

You said you had wasted enough time talking with me.

Ironically enough, you have completely discounted the fact that the bulk of the debt and the deficit is the result of the policies of "conservative" Presidents.

NF, you have a debate technique that defies reason. You're what is called a "fence-sitter", one that sits on the fence and is critical of others, well attempting to not open themselves up to be criticized. Exa: You complain about the Bush tax cuts, but hedge on raising taxes. So, which is it? Where do you stand? You point out so called "facts", but never make the connection between those so called "facts" and reality. Exa: You say most of the debt was accumulated during Republicans presidencies. Okay, so what? What were the circumstances where that occurred? Even though there was a Republican in the White House,. who ran Congress (who appropriates the budgets). You're apocalyptic about the deficit spending Bush did, but stand by idle when Obama quadruples it. Again, no rhyme, no reason.

In short, take a stand, for once in your life.

JoAnna:

My time to play the dozens with you has run out . . . but I did post a link last week refuting your "Obama quadrupled the deficit" line.

I am not on the fence - I am supporting President Obama's attempt to move this country forward.

But of course, you knew that.

You like to throw out the most ridiculous thing you can type and watch other folks try to clean up your mess.

Typical conservative! :o)

TRR Barboursville, WV

Republicans are calling for the return of voodoo economics. Everyone knows that didn't work.

Republicans keep saying that the tax cuts will pay for themselves and not add to the deficit. Anyone in right mind knows it adds to the deficit.

My question is of tax cut pays for them selves then why didn't the tax cuts in 2001 pervent the mess we are in right now. they can't blame the congressor the senate they were in control of both from 2001 till 2006. some one tell me if the tax cuts of 2001 were suppose to keep the economy afloat when what happened ?

John B, Des Moines, IA

JoAnna, I've stayed away from your posts for the last couple of days, but "Look them up" is your mantra.

For easily found numbers like unemployment and underemployment, you should be able to find out what those specific numbers are on your own. It's not like we're discussing some obscure or arcane number that some researcher is deriving from many different sources.

One can expect that people on a political board will have some rudamentary idea of what is going on in the world around them. If you have to hand feed them everything they ask for, then there is really no point to bother with them.

JoAnna

Yes, I do know the difference but do the Republicans?

Joanna,

"One can expect that people on a political board will have some rudamentary idea of what is going on in the world around them."

I guess you are the exception to your own rule. Not only do you rarely make sense but when you do it is obviously a borrowed talking point. You are a bore. Hope your inbreeding goes well.

Something that JoAnna Smith seems to forget when she complains about progressives 'living in the past' is that those who do not learn from history end up repeating it. The Greater Majority of Americans learned very well that the VooDoo Economics presented by Reagan did NOT work, trickle down was a huge lie. Bush went and repeated the whole shtick and we can plainly see where that got us to, and We, The People REFUSE to go back to that mindless, wanton destruction of our economy again.

Considering that we have handed JoAnna links to FACTS, time and time again, yet she is TOTALLY unable to do the same means that she HAS NO FACTS to fall back on, just the Right Wing and Used Teabagger talking points, almost all of which have been totally debunked for the lies and misinformation or distractions that they are. If she were not so lazy she would post some of her 'facts' for the rest of us, we have DONE our research and debunked her left and right, yet she brings NOthing to the table but vitriol, misinformation and insults. She has marginalized herself as a kNOw NOthing and is not worth the time of day responding to.

Joanna,

3.6 million jobs had already been lost during the recession by January, 2009 and the vast majority of the net loss you cite for President Obama occurred during the first 6 months after he was sworn in. It would be intellectually disingenuous for you to suggest that losses that were already ongoing as part of a massive avalanche of losses were somehow his responsibility.

You can make the argument that his policies have not led to a faster recovery, but not that his policies have led to job losses. If you promote one of the ship's officers to captain while the ship is sinking, it is not as though it's that officer's fault if the ship continues to go under for awhile because the ship has taken on water.

I am not blaming Bush, no more than I am blaming anyone who has held the levers of power in recent decades and allowed the cycle of a boom/bust economy to accelerate to the point where we have a 'bubble' burst seemingly every 10-15 years, but blaming the current president for the last 1/3 of a total of 7 million jobs lost during a single economic event does not make sense.

If you want to blame him for things, blame him for things that are real flaws in his policies and that he could control, not for things that were already happening when he was sworn in.

American Joe: Last night I watched dumbfounded as Chris Matthews allowed Mike Pence to not answer the questions specifically. Pence went on for at least 5-10 minutes without interruption by Matthews. Heck of a reporting job, Chris! I used to think Matthews was pretty good, heard him ferret around for the truth, but now I think he's become twitterpated by Sara Palin, as well as enamored of the balls of the T-partiers, and he has given up any credibility he has had in the past. He'll have a repub and a dem on, and he'll pretend he's questioning the repub, but just keeps saying, yea, uh-huh, yea, uh-huh, while they prattle on and on evading the serious question, and while the dem has to just sit there and look on. I'd like to snap Chris out of it! It's that tingle he gets, I guess, listening to BS.

Cathy I agree with you. Chris has become way too enamored of the process of political disengenuousness. Rather than demand facts and specifics, he enjoys listening to the lies and the willingness of the liars to engage in "the campaign". He's become just about worthless to anyone looking for political "JOURNALISM".

Dems pound the talking point daily, self proclaiming themselves as the party of ideas and the Repubs void of such. Of course with “Tax and Spend” at the very core of their centuries old existence, one can’t call them good ideas, original or new.

You falsely accuse the Democrats of using "talking points" and then you use the most idiotic right wing talking point there is about "tax and spend" Democrats. It's not only stupid, it's a lie. President Obama CUT taxes for most Americans and 90% of the deficit in the federal budget is the result of what the Republicans did to the eocnomy when they were in power, and abused their power. Your "Mirror of Truth" is broken. Better get a new one.

Hey Houston you obviously didn't read close enough. I specifically said the Dems changed from Tax and Spend to Spend and Tax. The tax part hasn't come yet because they aren't done stealing, I mean spending. The spending is on track to exceed that of all previous presidents combined. As far as abuse of power goes you must not be including the blatant corruption and bribery between BO and his admin for Louisiana, Nebraska, SEIU, ACORN, HCR...etc etc etc etc. Oh, looks like my mirror isn't broke after all. Careful, don't look, you might see the truth.

Hey, Paul - Mirror of Truth You're moniker makes me just want to pass you by, but thought I would just give it a look-see and of course, only the righties have the "mirror of truth", their little sloganeering campaign. I only know what I feel inside, and what my intelligence tells me, and I know that I would much rather have a 1st class country with 1st class infrastructure, schools, healthcare, SS, Medicare for seniors, and give a helping hand to those who have nothing, than war, war, war and more war, and pushing ourselves into every facet of every other countries cultures, whether they like it or not, all based on how much oil and how much corporate greed we can satisfy. Only a repub could possibly think they are a "mirror of truth", just like they are "real Americans", or that the rest of us are "unpatriotic", or that they are going to "take THEIR country back". Only someone who thinks like that, from the past, could use "mirror of truth" to describe themselves. The only truth you have is your truth.

Yes, Paul I suppose to you the Republican mantra of "Borrow and Spend" is so much better.

Cathy

If all you can do is attack my screen name I'm ok with that. A mirror is neither repub or dem, it's completely unbiased and unpartisan. That's what makes it so effective. I wish more people would look in the mirror, use it to view others and what they say versus what they do. Appling what you believe and what others say to real life, coupled with a mirror, you will see the truth every time. By the way, several Dems are associated with several major wars throughout history. Wars aren't just a repub thing. See how the mirror works?

Paul (MI) Mirror of Truth:

Try selling it to the Evil Queen. (Snow White reference, in case your denser than most)

CA,

You are always respectful in your posts. JoAnnaS has not added anything of value to these posts since she came aboard. Today she said that President Obama has not created one job. She just keeps repeating herself playing copy and post (usually the same talking points over and over). Ignore her and just keep your great posts coming. The people on this board know what she is and she is not worth your time.

U.S. Navy:

Like I said, JoAnna lives in another world with plenty of non-existent flies and walls battered by head butting.

A friend operates a large highway/bridge construction company and has in the last eight months employed an addional 300 people who are working on Federal stimulus highway/bridge projects in MS. This same friend is now bidding on a Federal stimulus project in the millions that includes 13 new bridges and new highway construction around the Birmingham area that once the contract is awarded will employ an additional 700+ people. Now what was that about Obama not creating one single job?

In my state we have two semi-conductor companies that just got a big chunck of money from the Fed's. One is keeping their business in this state, moving to a much larger facility and looking for 50 - 60 techs to hire. The other is using the all the money to hire about 30 people that they wanted to do last year but could not get a loan from their bank. There are a ton of stories like that. Obama just the other day was at a battery company with a similar story.

About Joanna living in another world. I think it may be a totally different dimension in time and space. Have a good day.

CA,

The point here being that he is working on a federal project. I know personally dozens of businesses who have had to close their doors and numerous others that have had to trim their work forces. All in all well over 1,000 jobs lost. I have had to regretfully let two of my 30 employees go and may have to trim even further if my clients continue down this path. I am in the service business and aside from a few companies I provide to that are working on federal or state projects, everyone is enduring bad times.

So now to my point... With all of these private sector jobs going by the wayside, who exactly is going to be paying for these government projects? Just from the jobs lost I have personally seen, millions in annual tax dollars collected are gone and those people are all collecting unemployment from the government. With the expansion of federal jobs and contracts, how can this economic model possibly be sustained? The government can't just continue creating money.....

Well said, CA.

Hey Don't Get it.

You get it just fine. You understand because you live it and apply it to real life. Those on this blog live within their theories and ideology. BTW..If your waiting for an answer to your questions you asked, don't bother no one will answer it. Libs don't replying to posts that start where the real world begins and their make believe world ends. I find the best posts are those posted by conservatives that they won't reply to.

Don't Get It:

Agreed that the stimulus projects (government spending) is not the catch all for long term employment. The purpose of the stimulus was to bail out those in the private sector with the hopes they would invest further and therefore create jobs, and secondly to pump some money into federal projects as a temporary relief until the economy via priavte sector growth improved. This 2nd part of the stimulus has worked in that it has kept some working who normally would have been added to the ranks of the unemployed and gave jobs to a few more folks (on these stimuluis projects) to get them by on a short term basis. What has hurt and perhaps failed in this plan is that those who were bailed out are not creating jobs or lending to individuals or small businesses and therefore they are not creating jobs as was hoped. Yet reports have shown that during this econimc crises and following the bailouts the number of millionaires in the U.S. has climbed by 18% that would indicate the wealthy are getting wealthier while the middle class and poor still suffer high unemployment rates. Would this be the result of those bailed out and those with money to invest hording the same rather than investing in order to create jobs. Your guess is as good as mine.

Well thank you Pat. I try. I also try not to spend too much time swatting at non-existent flies.

CA: Excellent post; You hit the target spot-on

CA - your post have definitely been thought provoking and inspiring. You have better things to do - and post- than to waste your time on JoAnna. Ignore JoAnna as she is doing nothing but spewing talking points just to get a rise from people on here. if she wanted to debate for real, she would be gracious in her victories, more gracious in her defeats, and have a modicum of respect for her detractors as well as her supporters.

Agreed Pietro! It's not just the Selfish Redhead that's looking for a 'rise'!

There are plenty more lurking around here that are nothing more than professional/paid instigators!

They throw the most outlandish crap out to see what sticks and then wait for the reaction!

I think we ALL know the ones I'm referring to!

Feisty,

I am learning.

You're a good student Retired! ;0)

Prop C is on the ballot in Missouri August 3, trying to repeal part of the health care bill.

Wording is not clear. A man was on the news from CA saying they were watching this,

because they may try this in CA.

I agree that they were slow to the party and hypocritical. However, if they are now trying to slow spending by looking for offsets then in this instance they are in the right. If they regain power and return to the old ways of spending and borrowing then they are indeed hypocrites. But, remember it was the Democrats who passed Pay-Go so they are the current hypocrites....or should I say party in power.

Hi Jody - personally I think Ms. Palin is laughing all the way to the bank. Possibly may be a lot smarter than we gave her. I think she knows that her policital capital will only run for so long and that is why she is all over the place to be heard and of course gather the money. With another book, a TV show travelogue on Alaska, numerous speaking engagements (for how much!), etc..

I am hoping that November 2010 will see the last of her after most of her TP choices get defeated. However, if not we will see her all the way through 2012 - but unless my assessment is incorrect - she will not run for President. She would rather moan and groan and incite people with the current Democratic President.

And on a final note - I blame Sarah Palin on bringing out the lunatics on the TP side. They were there when she was campaigning - remember "Kill him" regarding then Senator Obama. The signs came out then and the hate calling came out then. It is all Sarah's fault!!!

You really are stretching it to find evidence of the evil liberal media bias. Breaking the filabuster is an accurate description of what I hope happens to day. And of course, you fail to acknowledge that the Republicans never worried about how to pay for emergency unemployment benefits when they were in power -- or anything else, for that matter.

If the current crowd of Republicans comes to power again, they're promises of changing their profligate spending habits are sure to fall by the wayside. They gave that away when they showed that they don't care that Bush's tax cuts are adding 600 billion to the deficit (by the NON partisan CBO esitmate).

Bill:

Perhaps the Dems are casting the Republicans as bad guys because although they are adamant about not adding to the deficit by voting to pass the unemployment compensation extension they are more than willing to add to the deficit by maintaining those Bush tax breaks, the majority of which are enjoyed by the top 1% wage earners in this country. So no to extending unemployment benefits and putting a couple hundred dollars each week in the pockets of those whose pockets are empty and yes to allowing millionaires to keep their tax breaks and to stuff their pockets further if they can find any more room.

Bill - well, MAYBE the GOPers have picked the WRONG ITEM to have a budget debate. I mean, come on - we are talking about people's lives here - people who literally depend on this money to feed their families and put food on the table. Common Sense would dictate that you would not pick a fight with something that is THIS incidiary - this emotional - and this close to people's experience. Who DOESN'T know someone who is out of work right now? Who WOULDN'T have some sort of compassion for the person out of work and is going broke?

The fact of this fight is that it is UNNECESSARY, mostly because UI benefits are in the category of 'emergency spending'. You DON'T fight for idealogical principles on the backs of people who are hurting. That goes against everything that is American. Americans don't mind a fight, as long as it is a fair fight.

Now that the GOP has taken it upon themselves to 'push' this issue as budgetary issue, denying benefits is seen as 'callous', 'mean-spirited', 'selfish', 'uncaring'. The GOP have no one to blame but themselves for this blunder because now they are being seen as the ones who are taking food off of the tables of Americans that have children that depend on it. The Democrats had NOTHING to do with that characterization, and are capitalising on it.

As they should.

Oh the pain, CA. The pain of repeatedly trying to explain why "tax cuts for the rich" are not nearly as evil as the leftist narrative would have us believe.

The engine of capitalism runs on.....well, it runs on capital. It runs on the financing that is necessary to invest in plants and equipment that ultimately creates jobs. Pools of capital that are provided by the savers in our society. Savers such as middle class folks who put a few dollars into the bank whenever they can. And savers like rich folks who have an abundance of excess funds available after they pay their bills.

What do you think rich folks do with all the money they have left over after paying their bills? One thing they don't do is stick it under a matress. No, they invest it. Investing might mean putting their dollars in a bank or buying stock or bonds in a company or buying municipal bonds or even getting together with other rich folks to pool their cash to maybe build a manufacturing plant somewhere.

Whatever, what they effectively do is provide a source of capital that is ultimately used by some entrepreneur somewhere to fund an idea that eventually provides jobs for people. So Mary Jones goes to the plant in the morning, bends some metal and is compensated every two weeks for her efforts. But her opportunity to bend that metal and get paid for doing so was enabled by the folks who built the plant in the first place, a plant that was financed in no small part by the excess funds invested by evil rich folks.

But when you raise taxes on the rich, you reduce the excess funds these folks have to invest. With smaller pools of capital available for investment, maybe the next plant doesn't get built and then Mary's buds have a harder time finding work. So economic activity is dampened and we experience below trend growth. And that's not a good thing.

When the left fixates on the alleged inequity of reducing taxes for the rich, they tend to ignore the impact of tax policy on the broader economy. Over time our economy has proven to be quite resilient and in the past we have experienced robust growth even in the face of onerous tax rates. We could probably do so again, but the question is is this the right time to raise taxes on the rich? The economy is already in a fragile state with the recovery going painfully slow and raising taxes on the rich at this time would only make a bad situation worse. That's why if the Democrats in charge of the government insist on raising taxes on the rich, they should wait until our economic recovery is on a firmer footing.

But Bill without these taxes how can we employ more federal workers with good pay and excellent benefits to replace our manufacturing base?

Morning Bill.

Writing more "capitalist fairy tales" I see?

Can't you think of a real world example with all these fine upstanding corporations and well to do Americans to choose from?

Strange that we always get these fictionalized accounts.

Oh Nash, that was quite unfair of you. How does an expression of supply side economics equate to a capitalist fairy tale? And a rather clear and lucid expression at that, if I must say :)

BTW, you no doubt recall that one of the first supply side tax cutters was that venerable Democrat John F. Kennedy. He not only got us to the moon, but he got our country moving again (you may not be old enough to remember that line, but alas I do).

BTW2, where do you think the financing for Mary's plant came from? Just askin'.

Pietro -- I see you're still working with leftist computer equipment. Are you sure I can't interest you in the RIGHT equipment for the job?

Every word in your post could just as easily apply to the posture of the Democrats in this matter. You say we're talking about people's lives, well have the Democrats gotten that message? If so, they sure have a peculiar way of showing their concern for the plight of the unemployed because the extension could have been wrapped up and tied with a pretty ribbon weeks ago if not for the intransigence of the Democrats.

And I'm going to take this a step further. I will assert (without proof, since I'm just expressing an opinion) that the Democrats deliberately dragged this process out to make political points vis a vis the Republicans. Sure the Dems could have chosen to fund the extension with surplus stimulus funds, but where's the political payoff for them in that? Why accede to the reasonable demands of the Republicans to pay for the extension when they can keep the story alive for weeks and beat Republicans about the head and shoulders the whole time?

Sorry my friend, it's been the Democrats whio have been playing politics with the misfortunes of the unemployed, not the Republicans. And the sad thing from my perspective is that the Democrats have been successful in spinning the narrative their way.

Hey Bill - while I will agree that my last post could be about ANYONE in the political spectrum, in this case it is the GOPers that are doing the 'dirty work'. I still contend that the GOP could have used ANY other issue to make their point(s), but by using this issue, they have castigated themselves.

As far as PAYGO and the stimulus is concerned, that was already passed, so UI Benefits are falling under 'emergency' spending - you know - kinda like the 'supplemental' bills passed by the Bush Administration to continue funding the war before it was put on the books by President Obama.

You already know that to divert stimulus funds to UI Benefits it would take an act of Congress to do so, so why are we talking about that here? We also know that THIS Congress will never amend the ARRA, so it would be a waste of time to bring that up legislatively.

Now, I may have agreed with you that the Democrats were playing politics, but the GOPers have made themselves look bad without any input from the Democrats. Besides - the Democrats are not as sneaky and underhanded as the GOPers are. Now we are seeing that the GOPers are heartless too.

I feel sorry for you, Bill to always have to defend these guys. However, I am throwing you a lifeline here - since you have continued to buy all of my left-handed mice and keyboards from my company - replace the GOPers that are in Congress now with ones that have some ideas that all of us can at least think about, and we can revisit this argument.

For this round, it the LEFT 1, the RIGHT 0.

Alan, NJ

But Bill without these taxes how can we employ more federal workers with good pay and excellent benefits to replace our manufacturing base?

Nice, simple, concise explanation of Obama's America.

But Alan, you don't really expect to get an answer to your question, do you? Other then personal attacks that is.

Bill, supply side economics works quite well as a bedtime story. Unfortunately it didn't work during the Reagan era http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/business/worldbusiness/24iht-supply.4.11379364.html . It didn't work during the Bush era http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2003/12/2004_a_test_of_.html . It saddles our children with massive debt http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hale-stewart/supply-side-economics-and_b_169054.html . It's been killed repeatedly http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1168/supply-side-economics-rip , but lives on as a zombie theory because it so appeals to our desire to get something for nothing http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/virus.html .

John B, Des Moines, IA

Bill, supply side economics works quite well as a bedtime story. Unfortunately it didn't work

It didn't work during the Bush era. It saddles our children with massive debt

. It's been killed repeatedly but lives on as a zombie theory because it so appeals to our desire to get something for nothing

How simplistic. "It didn't work". That's the best you can come up with? How are things working now John? Better?

But it worked quite well during Reagan's time, 20 million new jobs. http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/prosper/prosper.htm It worked quite well during Clintons time with the dot.com, Internet, and technology era in full swing. It worked well during Bush II when jobs were created, and later lost to the government botching the housing industry.

And supply side is not "something for nothing". It's something for the hard work and effort made by many people, the people that produced the Internet you type your bilge on, the cell phone you call your stock broker from, and all those inexpensive and efficent computers in your office and your home. It's something for the people that made the effort, came up with the ideas and developed products and services people wanted, and got to keep most of what they earned for their efforts rather then having a government calling them "greedy" and taking most of it from them.

And now we have demand side economics, where money, borrowed money, is pumped into the economy with the idea that if it creates demand that supply and jobs will follow. How's that working out? Not so hot, is it?

John, we have massive debt because the government spends too much on things that are not needed. We have massive debt because we have three entitlement programs that were nothing but a Ponzi schemes for the government to get more money from the People and spend on things that are not needed. We have massive debt because the people we send to Washington DC are a bunch of crooks.

But the likes of you and other liberals want to have these crooks spend even more of our money. Why is that?

No, Bill.

The issue is exactly the same as it has been for the last 19 months. Breaking the filibuster.

Bill,

If capitalism works so great, then where are all of the jobs that the tax breaks allowd them, in fact, gave them incentive to, create? Those super wealthy are clinging to their money and REFUSING to invest it realistically in jobs and wages here in America. They continue to pad their bottom line by hiring sweatshop employees overseas at slave labor wages. If those tax breaks worked so well then WHERE ARE THE BENEFITS?? So far all we have seen is the massive redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top, and as we all know, that just does not work. There are millions of very qualified workers out there, a business would be able to start up even with top grade employees IF the banks, corporations and the Uber Rich would just get off their obscene mountains of money and start hiring. They will not do that because that would make Pres. Obama and the Dems look too good, they want us to return to the dark days of the Bush Regime where they got unfunded tax breaks, deregulation and extremely lax enforcement of what regulations were left.

The Tax Breaks for Jobs has been totally debunked. If they want to prove it works then the rich need to start hiring and get our economy going, otherwise nobody is going to listen to a bunch of rich folks whining about their taxes when THEY do not have to worry about being tossed out on the street or how to feed their family today!

I thought I heard JoAnna talking, but it was just an echo. I'd know it was actually JoAnna if she refuted anything that was in my argument and in my links, but she just repeated what she said earlier today. And every day.

Bill,Alan, would that plant perhaps been in China, Mexico that they invested in?

No one in America bemoans some one who is wealthy. Just that some wealthy refuse to reinvest in jobs and plants in the US, in the very people (their own countrymen) who have helped in providing and securing that wealth that the US infrastructure and it's citizens were able to provide them over the years (they never would have been able to amass that wealth in Somalia or Darfur for example). Now, some wealthy, in their greed, saw opportiunities to maximize profits (when they had been already able to make a good profit) by eliminating manufacturing in the US, outsourcing jobs to India, China, Mexico, and even outsourcing jobs to illegal immigrants here in the US.

Now when the American citizens call them out on this behavior, it appears some wealthy are insensed and even have acted like children, thus refusing to admit they are selling out the very country that have helped them amass this wealth and refusing to correct the inequities perpetrated on their own citizens. Hell, Halliburton is based in Dubai, Trans Ocean in Denmark,trying to sell our ports to China, businesses based in Bahamas, offsore accounts to eliminate any responsibility to the very country that helped provide them their wealth. All the while claiming that anyone who disagrees with them are some how unamerican when appears to me and other Americans, they are the ones who are unamerican. To those companies and individuals who continue this behavior, I and I believe most Americans would say "Go F*&% yourselves! We know who the real patriots are!

Eric - you are on to something here because it is our FOOD that is causing us to be heavier. Although I agree that a lack of exercise is also a major contributor, High Fructose Corn Cyrup (HCFS) is a sweetener that is in almost everything we eat. HCFS cannot be metastisized by the body, so the body stores this as fule (aka - FAT). The more HCFS we ingest, the more we store it in our bodies.

This is one of the reasons why you are seeing Juvenile Diabetes in teenagers. Teens tend to overidulge in a lot of things, and high-fat, HCFS laden foods is one of those indulgences. Not to mention that us older people are also heavier because we are less active (as a part of aging, that does happen). We also don't change our eating habits, as we think we are still that svelte 20-year old that can eat anything and not gain weight.

I have a challenge for all who are reading this post. For 1 month, cut out all foods that have HFCS in them. You will be SURPRISED at what foods HFCS is in. You will also be surprised at how expensive your food bill will be for the month.

The flipside to this challenge would be to really assess your health. You will see that a reduction of HFCS will manifest itself in a loss of weight, more energy in the sack with your loved one(s), and a general feeling of wellness that you may not have felt in a while.

Finally, I did have a chance to see the movie 'Supersize Me', where a fit guy went on a diet of McDonald's food for 30 days and supersized the meal if asked. Needless to say, going to Toxic Hell, er, I mean Taco Bell is not one of the places I want to go after seeing that movie. I personally don't eat much fast food (even though I am on the road 300 days of the year), and I get really sick eating McDonalds hamburgers (Big Macs make me throw up - literally).

As someone who is trying to not be a "fatso" as you so "eloquently" stated I would like to respond to this..

This is something that those of us who do NOT want the government running our lives like to call personal choice.

Do I want to be the weight I am today? No Id like to lose some more weight and get to a healthier weight. But guess what that is MY choice. Not the government's. When I was in the AF I didnt work out as much as I should have....why? Because I dont like being told that I have to do something. Guess what I knew there were consequences for my actions and I dealt with them.

The same is true with every American. If a person chooses to live a life where they eat nothing but McDonalds 3 times a day and never do any sort of exercise that is THEIR CHOICE. There are consequences to this choice but it is still their choice to make. Not the government's

Get over this thought process that we live in a nanny state. We are Americans and its time the true proud Americans stand up and fight back against this ever oppressive government.

No Pietro.... the biggest issue facing children is the fact that parents are no longer parents and they let their kids sit around all day and play video games watch tv or play on the computer all day instead of going outside and actually playing.

Again this all goes back to.... you guessed it ..... personal responsibility..... If parents would quit trying to be their kids friends you wouldnt have cases like the lady in Florida that had to call 911 to get her teenage son off the playstation....

According to the laws you liberals want I would have gone to jail for what I would have done to that kid if I was his father.

See the awesome thing is my son already knows when it is nice outside his little rear end is outside all day. He doesnt come inside for anything except to use the rest room and to eat.....

But then again Im not his friend... Im his parent..... most liberals dont know the difference in the two

Larry - you mean that parents are letting their children do what you and I are doing - sitting around the computer all day arguing a really silly point... like right NOW???

Look, Larry, my point was NOT that the parents are not getting their kids out ofthe house. I figured that it was up to the parents to do that, and it was not my place to dictate what the parents are doing to raise their children.

My point is that the FOODS we eat are laden with 'additives' that are not good for us in the long run, and why it is exceedingly difficult to lose weight in American society. Have we ever wondered why so many people have food allergies? Isn't food the 'stuff' that we eat so that it will sustain us throughout our lives?

My point was not about personal responsibility. I see you are for that. I get it. It was about how the poisoning of our food is not good for us.

C'mon Larry, DO keep up...

Larry: you are in the habit of making sweeping generalizations. I don't think EVERY parent lets their kid sit in front of a computer, mine certainly didn't, they were out on horses and involved in sports. So please support your statement with what laws liberals want that would that would ban you from behaving in an appropriate way as a father? Still waiting for the Jefferson citation too.

I used to be overweight - it occurred during the last two years of my son being in high school. Then I had a health scare that turned out to be ok. That is when I decided to get my weight down.

May I suggest the Southbeach Diet - buy the book and really read it. It can change your life eating habits and you do not feel like you are on a diet. I lost 40lbs - that was over 8 years ago. I do not weigh myself, am not big on excersing but make other choices (like parking on top floors and having to walk up the steps to get back to my car or parking further away so that you have to walk). I do kayak but it is easy to do and not much is being on spent on losing calories.

And I agree about parent responsiblity on what they are serving and how much excerise your child really gets. But geez BILL in VA you always have to put a political slant on everything about liberals -don't know the difference between being a friend or a parent to your child. You sir, frankly, are a PUTZ.

And Bill is also a LIAR.

Actually, the poster was Larry from Minot, ND, NOT Bill, from Fairfax, VA.

I'll leave the PUTZ part alone.

OOPS - I was responding to Larry's post not Bill VA - sorry that I called you a PUTZ. However Larry you are the PUTZ!

Have a nice day.

Larry: Don't we have food labelling? Would you like to do away with that? Would you like to have descriptions on your medications or the warning labels on those taken away? Would you like to have the dating and stock numbers taken off foods and medications so that poisonous or contaminated foods could not be traced? How far off would you like to go without the government meddling? I agree with you, if you want to be fat and unhealthy be my guest. I don't think the government is going to do anything but give you a choice of whether you want a food that is labeled as containing High Fructose Corn Syrup or simple sugar, or sugar free, or whatever, and leave the choice to you. You seem to react to anything any poster says as proof positive that the 'gubment' is coming to get you. Nope, it was only Eric airing his thoughts! But, maybe I'm wrong - remember that terrible communist plot about fluoride to help strengthen our teeth? Maybe it did actually produce the tinfoil hat set.

Eric, the problem that the left has as a general rule is that they conveniently take personal responsibility out of EVERY equation and cast blame elsewhere. I, for one, think that people are smart enough to make their own choices regarding food and exercise. Nobody is stuffing that second Whopper down another person's throat. Nobody is preventing anyone from getting out and walking or running or any other activity they want to do. Every morning before work, I make the choice to get out and run (or not). No evil corporation is telling me I can't do that. I eat very little fast food, usually limited to a breakfast burrito after my Saturday morning run. Guess what? I'm not at all overweight; somehow, I'm able to fight off the agenda of those evil corporations who are doing everything in their power to make me fat. Go figure.

Pietro, while I can agree with you that high fructose corn syrup is not the healthiest product in the world, you have to accept the fact that our food supply is what it is. I'm not saying it can't be changed, but it's not going to undergo some rapid transformation, and that means that we have to learn to make better choices. The truth of the matter is that some people have to eat foods that are laden with such additives, because those foods are cheaper, and in my opinion, I'd rather have someone eat something that is perhaps not as healthy as opposed to allowing that person to starve. However, that doesn't foreclose the possibility of eating well. For instance, while fresh produce may be expensive (and it is!), frozen veggies are very affordable and offer much of the same nutritional value. Beans are wonderful sources of protein and very cheap and easy to prepare. Chicken is an inexpensive and healthy meat source. People have to actually have an interest in making better food choices, though, in order for anything to be different (food supply, obesity rates, etc.). Oh, and I think you meant "metabolize", not "metastisized" (they mean very different things!)....our bodies can metabolize HFCS, it just metabolizes it differently than other sugars. Also, any excess calories that you consume are stored as fuel, aka, fat.

Jill - actually, NO, I do NOT have to ACCEPT the fact that our food supply is what it is. That's the whole problem. Although you go on in your post about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, I am merely stating that HCFS - one item in a list of MANY items - is NOT good for you and we shouldn't HAVE to 'just accept' it because it is a cheap substitute for sugar. Why not just use sugar? Why do we have to take corn and manufacture it to make it 'just like sugar'?

Why is this type of 'food poisioning' acceptable?

The fact of the matter is that we WASTE enough food in the country every day to feed a small nation. The fact of the matter is that we have more 'fast food' choices that are laden with fat and calories and little or no nutrition. Now, I am not saying that we should not have any fat in our diet; that would not be correct. What I am saying is that our foods are not providing the nutrition that our bodies need (hence the supplement marketplace), and HCFS is NOT helping.

I'll end this post with this thought - although we have an obesity problem in America (and some other western countries that have high fat/sugar diets), it is exacerbated by the food choices we have. As I have stated before, HFCS is in almost EVERYTHING we eat (including Garlic bread - imagine that). A lot of our foodstuffs that are SUPPOSED to be lean and nutritious are not always what they seem (you would think that chicken is a good, lean meat, but many chickens are pumped with antibiotics that you and I ingest). Eating 'free range' beef is definitely better than the 'regular' steroid laden beef that is being peddled in many suprmarkets. As a side note, those growth steroids that are pumped into beef - to make the cows bigger - are ingested in LARGE quantities by Americans, so do we wonder why we are getting so big?

It looks like our love affair with chemistry is flourishing. Steroids, anyone?

You caught my play on words I see. Yes, you are correct that the term should be 'metabolise', but I wrote 'metastisize' instead. Since HCFS is not a 'real' foodproduct, am I too far off the mark with my word choice?

Newdaydawning,

This should be interesting. I agree that Bachmann may have opened a can of worms. Who will join the Tea Party Caucus? Boehner has already said no way. This is now a problem that the republicans are going to have to deal with. The radical and sometimes inappropriate speech and ideas will be attached to the Republicans because the caucus implies some degree of acceptance by some.

And Iowa's own nutcase, Steve King will be first to join!

Actually, I do not mind that the Used Teabaggers are out there and so loud and visible, they have shown America what the Repubs really are and are dividing the Repub/Conservative vote, like Ralph Nader did to the Dems years back. I find this a good thing, none of them will be able to stand against the Dems come November as we have seen the rabid radicalism that they represent and the just plain stupid ideas that they have about governing.

I predicted back in 2001 that the Repubs would be just like thieves when they actually have gold in their hands and started backstabbing each other because of their greed, and now that is playing out in spades!

I guess your daughter and son-in-law live in Georgia for jobs and to escape the crappy taxes, crime, and conditions in California but want to bring those to Georgia. No Thanks!