E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Tough times for the GOP in Colorado… Today's war supplemental vote expected to pass, despite the WikiLeaks leak… Senate Democrats aren't expected to be able to defeat GOP filibuster against DISCLOSE Act… Obama meets with congressional leaders at 11:00 am ET and delivers a statement to reporters an hour later… NRSC has reserved $1.75 million to help Carly Fiorina (but is that a head fake?)… Kend rick Meek goes on the attack against Jeff Greene… Today's Primary Day in Oklahoma; polls close at 8:00 pm ET… Previewing CA-3… And Andrew Romanoff sells his home to loan his campaign money.
*** Rocky times for the GOP in Colorado: Every day, it seems, brings us another crazy GOP development in Colorado. But it will be hard to top what happened yesterday, when Tom Tancredo (who is now running for governor as an indie) and state Republican Party chair Dick Wadhams squared off on a local radio program. We have three takeaways after listening to the Tancredo-Wadhams debate: 1) It was clear that the GOP has given up on its two gubernatorial candidates in this key state; 2) you had the state party leader and a former congressman saying things -- publicly -- that typically get said in smoke-filled back rooms; and 3) Republicans are getting close to blowing it in a battleground state in which they should make gains come November. Indeed, when is the last time we've talked about Michael Bennet, Andrew Romanoff, or John Hickenlooper? Exactly...
*** A final thought on Tancredo-Wadhams: Folks, we can't stress enough how unusual it is to hear a prominent state party chairman and a former congressman/presidential candidate engage in a screaming match on talk radio about the future of the GOP in Colorado. If you are a political junkie of any stripe, it's compelling radio. Yes, it's a 20- to 30-minute investment of time. But trust us, it's that good. (The clash starts at about the 10-minute mark.)
*** Today's war supplemental vote: Turning to the news in Washington… After the WikiLeaks document dump on Afghanistan, the House today will vote on the war supplemental bill, NBC's Luke Russert reports. The legislation contains the funding for the actual military campaigns that are ongoing in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will require a two-thirds vote to pass because the rules will be suspended, Russert adds, and it is done when lawmakers feel they have enough votes to bypass the usual Rules Committee process of laying out the rules for the debate. House Democratic and GOP leadership aides have told Russert that they feel the legislation will pass. By the way, a House subcommittee is today marking up a Defense appropriations bill that Obama -- with the emphatic support of Defense Secretary Robert Gates -- has threatened to veto over a jet-fighter engine.
*** Disclose this: Over in the other chamber, the Senate today will vote the DISCLOSE Act, the legislation crafted -- after the Citizens United decision -- to require disclosure of corporate spending in efforts to influence races for federal office. It's likely that Democrats don't have the 60 Senate votes needed to invoke cloture when the vote takes place at 2:45 pm ET. The New York Times: "The House has passed the measure... But in the Senate, with a solid wall of Republican opposition, the measure is expected to fall short of the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster." Knowing that the legislation will likely be filibustered, Obama delivered a speech yesterday trying to score political points. "You'd think that reducing corporate and even foreign influence over our elections would not be a partisan issue," Obama said. "But of course, this is Washington in 2010."
*** A poor sales job: Supporters of this legislation who will be disappointed by today's result only have themselves to blame; they've done a horrible job at educating the public on exactly what this legislation will do. And then there are all the special carve-outs -- for the NRA, for AARP, for unions. In short, it looks like a boondoggle. And at a time when Congress' job rating is barely in double-digits, why should they expect the public to believe they are capable of writing rules that would somehow do anything other than help their own re-election prospects? Congress has never succeeded in legislating campaign money. This year's reform becomes next year's loophole (see the history of political action committees).
*** Obama today: At 11:00 am ET, President Obama meets at the White House with bipartisan congressional leaders -- Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Mitch McConnell, and John Boehner. (Roll Call says that extending the Bush tax cuts is on the agenda.) An hour later, Obama will deliver a statement to reporters. At 7:00 pm in DC, Obama attends a fundraiser for the DNC.
*** Aiding Carly: While the situation might not be good for Republicans in Colorado, the National Republican Senatorial Committee has decided that things are looking good enough in California to set aside $1.75 million to help Carly Fiorina defeat Sen. Barbara Boxer in the fall. The AP: "Republicans have reserved $1.75 million for television ads to help Carly Fiorina in the final week of the California Senate race… The Republicans plan to target the Los Angeles market and the money would buy enough air time for viewers to see an ad -- at least in part -- 10 times." Also, the NRSC has tapped California-based GOP communications adviser Brian Jones to help the Republican Senate races in California, Nevada, and Washington state.
*** A head fake? The NRSC's aid is an interesting decision in this one respect: A $1.75 million buy is a drop in the bucket when it comes to California TV, especially when you consider the fact that Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown and their allies will be up with cajillions at the same time. Does the NRSC really think their $1.75M will make a dent? Could this be a head fake by the NRSC to force Barbara Boxer to panic and beg the DSCC for money and also assist Fiorina in raising national money?
*** Meek on the attack: In Florida, meanwhile, Kendrick Meek is punching back against wealthy Jeff Greene in the state's Democratic Senate primary. In his first TV ad, Meek dumps nearly all the oppo on Greene -- he's a former Republican, made his money betting against subprime mortgage loans -- except for Greene's Mike Tyson/Heidi Fleiss links. Of course, this ad raises a key question for Meek: If he's having this difficult a time against a candidate with this much baggage, what does this say about Meek's chances come November? The primary is less than a month from now…
*** Oklahoma! Today, it's Primary Day in Oklahoma, where the marquee contests are the Dem and GOP gubernatorial primaries to succeed term-limited Gov. Brad Henry (D). On the Democratic side, Attorney General Drew Edmondson at Lt. Gov. Jari Askins are battling for the nomination, while Rep. Mary Fallin is the overwhelming favorite to win the GOP nod, and she would be the front-runner in November. Polls close at 8:00 pm ET.
*** 75 House races to watch: CA-3: The GOP nominee is eight-term incumbent Dan Lungren; the Democratic nominee is Ami Bera, a physician who has raised more money than Lungren for five-consecutive quarters, per the Sac Bee. McCain won 49% in this district in '08, and Bush won 58% here in '04. Lungren voted against the stimulus, cap-and-trade, and health care. Both Cook and Rothenberg rate the race as Lean Republican.
*** More midterm news: In Colorado's Democratic Senate primary, Andrew Romanoff has sold his Colorado house to loan his campaign $325,000, per the Denver Post. ("I'm never home anyway," Romanoff said.) … In Pennsylvania, Joe Sestak said Obama "has offered to come to Pennsylvania to campaign, but he would not be Sestak's first choice," the Morning Call writes. "He'd rather have Obama's wife, Michelle, hit the trail with him… And in Tennessee, a Mason-Dixon showed Knoxville Mayor [Bill] Haslam leading [Rep. Zach] Wamp by 36 percent to 25 percent," the Chattanooga Times-Free Press reports.
Countdown to KS and MO primaries: 7 days
Countdown to CO and CT primaries: 14 days
Countdown to Election Day 2010: 98 days
Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter.
Leave a Comment:
BP CEO Tony Hayward to Get Severance Pay:
Severance Pay—Do you know the origin of the term? In England, at a time when kings, queens, and nobility were losing their head, the unfortunate person would pay the axe man some money to make a clean cut. Usually the axe man had a few too drinks and would do a sloppy job, whacking away. But if the axe man received some money for his work, he was expected to do a better job.
The term lasted over 400 years, but like many things, it’s now backwards. The executive who is losing his job gets the severance pay. I’m not sure why Tony should; he screwed up.
The problem for BP is the removal of Tony will not solve their problems. They were negligent and 11 workers lost their lives. They were negligent and have to pay fines for the millions of barrels spilled. They were negligent and have beaches and wet lands to clean up. What BP does not understand is that Americans have long memories and haven’t forgotten the 1989 Exxon tragedy in Alaska.
Like Halliburton, BP is, and will be, synonymous with greed, poor workmanship and all that is wrong with big business.
Ron
What's so bad about the severance pay is it's more than I'll make in my lifetime plus everyone else's who post here.
Great post!
Everyone have a great day.
Good Post Ron,
I also heard that he has a pension portfolio worth over 10 M. The job offer in Siberia is a non executive position?
TRR ~ Agreed. Executive severance pay has gotten way out of control. I know this because I deal with it on a regular basis. Corporations promise too much to, and expect too little from, executives.
Good thoughts.
I have never understood why CEO's or even football (sports) coaches are given these huge severance packages. Yes, I know they had "contracts" but it isn't about time those contracts say, if you screw up, you get no compensation for screwing up. They were hired to do a job, they made a mess of it and they should simply be given their walking papers and pointed to the exit. The average worker is simply fired. Why should anyone be compensated for failure?
To elaborate on your thoughts Jody - what really pi$$es me off is when they throw out the line that they have to pay these bonus's, severance packages, etc, to 'retain' the talent...
WTF is 'talented' about driving the company to the brink of collapse?
It's NOT talent... it's GREED! Pure & simple!
Nothing "pure" about it, Feisty.
Tony Hayward wanted to "get his life back." Maybe he'll find it in Siberia. Although I doubt he'll be searching for it in his yacht.
Good and true thoughts, Ron.
A little something for everyone today. First;
Palin Bingo...
http://gedblog.com/2008/09/
* Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States.
* An estimated 854,000 people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in Washington, D.C., hold top-secret security clearances.
* In Washington and the surrounding area, 33 building complexes for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since September 2001. Together they occupy the equivalent of almost three Pentagons or 22 U.S. Capitol buildings - about 17 million square feet of space.
* Many security and intelligence agencies do the same work, creating redundancy and waste. For example, 51 federal organizations and military commands, operating in 15 U.S. cities, track the flow of money to and from terrorist networks.
* Analysts who make sense of documents and conversations obtained by foreign and domestic spying share their judgment by publishing 50,000 intelligence reports each year - a volume so large that many are routinely ignored.
______________________________________________________
So we are going to have a lot of conversation and debate back and forth over who did what and why. Some are going to say that the right is trying to discredit the left and the President. Some on the right are going to say this validates their position that the present administration is not handling the effort very well. In this back and forth will the central questions be addressed? I personally don’t think so.
Just as it was wrong for Ms Sherrod to be wrongly accused, tried and convicted on the Net and Cable networks the actions here by WikiSecrects is wrong. This is the wrong way to handle this discussion and it may get some people hurt. For what I would call responsible people this should be the overriding guide post for both sides of the debate.
If 854,000 people know it chances are that it’s not a secret any more even before it hits the Airwaves. Absent in all the debate this Spring about growing Government and Deficit Management and what we are spending our hard earned tax receipts on is this subject. Every time it comes up it gets glossed over and pushed back in the shadows. Simple fact of the matter is for whatever reason by either side of the debate we have allowed things to develop to the point where we are spending a heck of a lot of money to produce very little and apparently most of it is absolutely worthless for the purpose that it was originally intended.
If you have this many people and agencies and private contractors producing 50,000 reports and papers that just add to the confusion and redundancy all you are really doing is increasing the possibility that any one of them are going to be used by someone for something for some purpose. And that purpose may have the highest principle behind it and it may have the lowest. That’s what we need to take a long hard look at.
Great thoughts, I.R.
It seems 9/11 caused a great deal of over reaction by establishing too many redundant groups. Some redundancy in counter-terrorism makes sense but 51 groups tracking the money is simply overkill. Such redundancy most likely contributes to intelligence failures, too many reports and the critical one may be ignored.
I agree, this isn't about whose fault but should be about why we find ourselves with such a massive system that it becomes ineffective.
I'm still digesting how 93,000 pages of classified documents could be leaked and WikiLeaks has more. The Pentagon Papers was one lengthy report. I do think whoever is responsible should be prosecuted. There is dangerous for the country regardless of who is president.
IR,
Right on the money. I have been watching the leaked documents and it appears the same private that did the Apache Helicopter one did this as well.
Many of the documents have reinforced what many of us had previously thought or suspected but now we have more of the details behind it. What I am worried about (in addition to about 1 Million employees with Secret clearance - translation - No secrets are secret now) is how much operational information is contained in those documents, like names, places, times, operational logistics, etc. Not only would this hamper our troops but it runs the risk of placing many people in harms way (killed).
This is not good no matter how it gets spinned today. Pakistan is playing both ends of this and that typically is not a good move. We are sending money to them and they give it to the enemy. What is wrong with that picture?? I often suspected that they were cutting their own deal with them but now it is out in the open. It should be interesting what our government does now.
And worst of all, what will this do for the moral of our soliders. They are the ones that have their lives on the line with low resources while the politicians sit in the air conditioned offices and play politics with their lives. Let's send the Seantors and Congressmen over there on the next planes with slig shots.
We need to put an end to this one way or another and bring our people home. We are not going to re-build that country, we cannot make them want a society like ours etc., etc. Just wrap this up ASAP and get the hell out of there.
Thank you Navy and Jody
First Poll Conducted Since Barack Obama Became President and he is ranked 15th Best President of the United States. (Poll came out in early July but I missed it)
A new poll of leading presidential scholars ranks Barack Obama as the 15th best president of the United States, just below Bill Clinton but ahead of Ronald Reagan. The Siena College poll, which surveyed 238 presidential scholars at U.S. colleges and universities, asked scholars to rate the nation’s 43 chief executives on 20 attributes ranging from legislative accomplishments to integrity and imagination. In the overall ranking, Obama rated two places below Clinton, who was 13th best, and three better than Reagan, who is ranked as the 18th best. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39283.html#ixzz0uszsfpPc
I so enjoyed the series on tv entitled “WWII Behind Closed Doors”. It gave a nonpropaganda look at the War and those who were destined to make decisions affecting the 20th Century.
Winston Churchill is considered by many to be the greatest man of the 20th Century because he alone stood up to Germany; he was determined to beat them for the reckage they were inflicting on the rest of Europe. England was supposed to be next on Hitler’s list. But Germany instead invaded Russia. The program paid a lot of attention to Poland, a country that is usually only skirted by in most WWII programs. But this series made it crystal clear – WWII began because Germany invaded Poland. Yet when the War ended, Poland was not to have the freedom that England and France had. And from this program, it appears Churchill had to make a deal with Stalin. At one point, he was going to give the eastern part of Poland to Russia, but extend Poland’s border on the west.
FDR is considered by many to be one of our greatest Presidents ever. According to this program, FDR was not that interested in what happened to Poland. He wanted to win the war and go home. He felt that Europe has always had these problems and always would. And FDR at the time needed Russia to help defeat the Japanese. So in the end, Poland became part of Eastern Europe, which we all know had to exist behind the Iron Curtain.
My point is – even the greatest of leaders compromise. No one likes it. It's unfair. But what happened to Poland was one of the worst compromises throughout history.
A curiosity of mine – Russia invaded Poland as well, yet England & France didn’t declare war on Russia.
“From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia, all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and, in many cases, increasing measure of control from Moscow.” Winston Churchill, March 1946.
"Enjoy the little things, for one day you may look back and realize they were the big things." ~Robert Brault
I'm certain the unemployed people in the country are just so excited and pleased to hear this news.
Pat:
Posts like that are one of the reasons we @ FR think of you as own very own Doris Kearns Goodwin! :0)
Thanks for the reminder!
Doris Kearns Goodwin? The plagiarist? Do you know what a plagiarist is Deadhead? Here's a hint, it's not a good thing for a writer to be.
"I'm certain the unemployed people in the country are just so excited and pleased to hear this news"
I honestly don't understand the Republican philosophy. They opposed the stimulus, which saved jobs, opposed extending unemployment benefits, opposed healthcare reform as too "socialist" but they expect the Obama administration to pull jobs for Americans out of it's ---. I honestly don't get what Republicans would do differently to generate jobs, especially as their philosophy is small government and an unregulated "free market." What would Republicans do that would generate more jobs than what Obama has done?
The stimulus was supposed to create jobs, not save them. Any moron can borrow trillions of dollars and pay the salaries of government workers that aren't needed, and that's exactly what Obama has done. What is needed are jobs, private sector jobs, that generate the tax revenues needed so the government can at least try to make a dent in the deficit.
Too many liberals grade Obama on a curve. The guy has no clue about what he's doing.
JoAnna:
Why didn't the Bush Tax cuts already create those jobs?
Hmmmmm.
"What is needed are jobs, private sector jobs, that generate the tax revenues"
duh. You never said how Republicans purpose to do that. What would John McCain have done to generate jobs that Obama didn't?
Amy, Portland:
The stimulus was initiated to keep the economy from going from bad to worse which it did. Unemployment remains around 9.5% but without those actions taken by Obama the unemployment rate may have reached even higher levels. Some economists state the unemploment rate could have reached 15 % or higher without the stimulus action. In the interim, the stimulus package did help to create jobs, several thousand new jobs I am aware of personally in Al and MS highway / bridge and road construction jobs. The fact is many of those jobs lost under Bush as well as Obama are not coming back. It is going to take several years for the country to create new technology, new business and worker re-training to meet the demands of the current unemployement rates. This will not happen over night, but at least Obama appears to have kept the economy from falling to the bottom of the barrell. Plus the fact there is work available out there. But it will take time for people to re-educate themselves in order to gain the skills to match what work is available. There is just so many jobs a laid off auto worker can do or apply for until retrained or re-educated so that he/she has obtained the skills necessary to become more marketable.
Pat, as always, an interesting post with some historical tidbits.
"Any moron can borrow trillions of dollars and pay the salaries of government workers that aren't needed, and that's exactly what Obama has done"
In my state, the stimulus saved teachers', police and construction jobs. I don't know what happened in your state.
JoAnna, "Deadhead" refers to republican supporters, who can't get anything right. Including you. We're not interested in what you have to say. But keep posting. It allows the country to see how ignorant you all truly are.
The rest of us will continue picking up the pieces.
When pushing the stimulus bill, Pres Obama and WH surrogates repeatedly stated create and save jobs. Even many republicans have acknowledged that it did.
CA, and Pat--well said replies!
We need to create 150,000 jobs each month (on avg.) to keep up with the population growth. Given this, then under “W” there should have been 14, 000,000 jobs created. But there were only 3,000,000 jobs created. I look at that as a net loss of 11,000,000 jobs.
In other words the tax cuts caused a net loss in jobs and added over $1 trillion to our deficit and debt.
So he!! yes, lets just extend those tax cuts for another 10 years adding an estimated $3.8 trillion to our debt problem given the current revenue projections.
You've made your point JoAnnSmith, over and over and over every day for over six months, you don't like President Obama. Now if you really want to be taken seriously do tell us what you and the teabagging Republicans will do to create jobs? This question has been ask of all you teabagging republicans for over a year and not one of you has come up with an idea, just more of your I hate President Obama crap. Now go back over to Fox so you can find out what you need to say next.
Did you notice in beautiful California, the great liberal state of the country, Oakland to be exact, the police have stopped responding to calls they include grand theft, burglary, embezzlement, car wrecks, identity theft and vandalism? It appears the Oakland police have run out of money. Think that might happen in your state too Amy? Or will Obama just go borrow more money from the Chinese to fill the budget gap.
Pat -- here's another powerful Churchill quote I've always liked:
"we shall not flag or fail.
We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France,
we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."
My grandmother was born in Poland and the neighborhood she lived in here had many Polich immigrants. When I was growing up I can remember her telling stories about how devastated the community was when the news came that Hitler had invaded Poland. It happened on September 1, 1939 and that date has always stayed in my mind.
JoAnna:
So what is Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's role? Or is he not responsible for anything that happens in the state that he is allegedly leading?
And what is your grand plan to help restore police service to Oakland?
Thanks Jody. History is what has taught me just how destructive hate is. Everything is not so simple for President Obama. But it could get easier if we elected more Democrats this year and in 2012.
That's just not true. The stimulus was designed to create 4 million jobs. It was promised to keep unemployment below 8%. It was supposed to create 600,000 jobs in the summer of 2009. The 2010 summer has been designated "Recovery Summer". If the stimulus had worked as expected, unemployment would have been under 8%, tax revenue increases would have been closing the deficit to something south of a trillion dollars, and all these tens of billions of dollars for unemployment extensions would not have been needed. The topper of course was Obama could then let the Bush tax cuts expire and get an even bigger tax revenue kick. At least that was the plan. Now the Democrats are in a bind. The stimulus failed, and they are poised to raise taxes with the very real possibility of that action causing another recession.
Lets not mis-characterize or spin what the stimulus was supposed to do. It clearly hasn't met the goals that Obama administration and Democrats promised it would.
Bill, thank you for that. I have visited there twice myself (no, I am not Polish), but their sad history during WWII has captivated since I first heard Zbigniew Brzezinski talk about it many many years ago in the 1970's. Until then, I had really no idea of Poland's exact history during the War, but I have made it one of my favorite subjects to talk about to people for many years. If you have not been there, I strongly suggest you do. Krakow and Warsaw I loved very much. I thought the older people looked like they had grown up behind the Curtain. It looked from their faces that they had had a hard life. But the teenagers?!
I was thrilled to see them dressed beautifully. They looked happy too. What a difference in generations.
I have met a few people along the way who had parents from Poland and it has not been easy for them to talk to me about it. Thanks again for sharing your story.
One of my tour guides in Warsaw - his father was a prisoner of War held by the Germans for most of the war. A very interesting man. He ended up writing a book. What I found kind of funny listening to them was how everybody still hated each other. The Polish hate the Russians. The Russians hate the Germans, etc.
Life goes on.
Dennis, you're smarter then that. You know there is more to creating a good economy then just the tax policy. And besides, it's not up to the Republicans to extend these tax cuts, it's up to the Democrats. Just one man has to say no to the tax cut extension, and that's Obama. It's not going anywhere if he says no. Of course, he'll need to live with the consequences of his actions, as many of his fellow Democrats are finding out as they run for re-election this year.
JoAnna:
Thank you for confirming my suspicion that you do not care whether what you type is true or not.
Sorry I've wasted so much time trying to share the truth with you.
JoAnnaSmith:
Did you notice the reason for the ongoing budget crisis in California is that the Republicans in the state legislature are blocking all tax increases? Didn't think so. Even though the Repubs are in the minority, they got away with this because California has a crazy law for something like the filibuster in the US Senate. The Republicans in Congress are doing to the entire nation what the Republicans in California have done to that state.
Republicans pretend that taxes can never be raised no matter what. And no matter how low they are, they must be lowered some more, even though federal tax rates are the lowest they've been in 50 years. Their real goal is obvious: continue the economic suffering for the maximum number of Americans for as long as possible and blame it on Obama, so they can regain total control of the federal government.
And once back in power, the Republicans will return to business as usual: busting the budget with give-aways to their corporate clients and returning to the Bush-style regulatory environment with federal regulators partying and snorting coke with lobbyists of the industries they're supposed to regulate. Ah, the good old days. How they DO miss Dubyah.
Yeah! Tax cuts in Washington don't have to have any offsets, while spending has to have offsets! More voodoo doo-doo!!
JoAnna,
What the Democrats want is these tax cuts to expire as scheduled and replaced with another tax cut bill that would be a copy of the Bush tax cuts except for those making more than $250k but the 41 Republican Senators will filibuster any bill that does not include the richest Americans – the so called job creators that created job losses since 2004.
It is more than tax code but it is a starting point like all those tax incentives to companies that create jobs off shore. Then we could discuss the unfair portions of our trade agreements. Both parties are to blame for our jobs moving to other countries. So when will the Congress get the balls to fix these job killing policies?
"Think that might happen in your state too Amy? Or will Obama just go borrow more money from the Chinese to fill the budget gap."
My state used stimulus money to expand research and development into off shore Wind Technology. We are expanding our boatbuilding tradition to the production of wind turbines! This is what Democrats do: innovate our way out economic recessions. PS We also put money into solar power projects. Maine will be a leader in alternative energy technology!
JoAnna S never really has anything to say, she only cut and paste's sections of an argument and then tries to make up an excuse as to why it is wrong. No point in trying to show her the truth because she will not believe it or lie to try to make it go away. The fact that she posts here so often is because she is another political agent saboteur like Breitbart who does not care about truth, just her slanted version of things and will cut and paste sections out of context in an effort to misdirect or lie about them.
She needs to just be put on IGNORE and let go. Trying to show her the truth is an exercise in futility much like IR's trying to teach a pig to sing. However, this pig is wearing lipstick to start with and could not carry a tune in a bucket if her life depended on it, just the same old monotone 'Obama Bad, tax cuts good' squealing and grunting from the extreme right.
Do you have any numbers, they can even been static and not dynamic, about how much less money the government will collect by continuing most of the Bush tax cuts? The Democrats have been ranting for years now that the Bush tax cuts created a huge deficit, but now they are talking about extending those very same tax breaks, except for the ones used by the Democrats for revenge on the so called rich. So the message by the Democrats will be "The Bush tax cuts created the deficit, well, expect for the ones that went to the middle and lower classes". My bet is that any taxes raised on the "rich" will bring in far less tax revenue then the Democrats project, in addition to killing off more jobs.
So B, don't you libs have a little site of you own you can go to so you can wallow in your love for everything Obama? One that doesn't challenge your tiny brains too much and where every one agrees with you? Maybe you should go there and enjoy yourself. And you wouldn't know anything about the truth even if it slapped you in your face.
Amy B.
Less we forget that the UI Bill had 24 Billion in state aid that the republicans trashed. They just keep on with the crap. It is getting so bad that when some of their names come up on my screen I have to go get the air freshener.
In 2009 - California was the leading state in tax increases: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0326/California-the-tax-increase-leader-for-2009
Doesn't look to me that the Republicans are having much success in blocking those tax increases.
AmyB.
Ignore JoAnneS - there simply are no jobs in the State of Confusion where she resides - trying to point out the tank that a McCain presidency would have resulted in would only further antagonize the hungry beast. Best to just ignore and move on,...
JoAnna,
The CBO under both Bush and Obama has shown the Tax cuts of 01 and 03 as a deficit. FY2010 they account for 450 billion (32%) of the deficit.
Democrats are only talking about extending the tax cuts because of the current economic situation – and you know that.
I don’t see it as revenge on the rich. Ever since we created the income tax it has been a progressive tax system where the more you make the more you pay. I don’t think it is a fair system but it is what we have. I prefer either a flat tax or a federal sales tax (or combination of both).
No – All the tax cuts on all brackets created the deficit and so will any form of an extension. There is no evidence (just opinions) that there will be less tax revenue or a loss of jobs. Of course if jobs are lost revenues will decrease.
JoAnnaSmith:
As far as I can tell, there was a sales tax increase was passed late in 2008 or early in 2009 at the height of the Bush Recession. There haven't been any tax increases since, and sales taxes are the most regressive type of taxes there are.
Good morning Clara! How are you? Good to see you. Hope all is well with you and yours.
Dennis,
Maybe we could roll back the taxes to where they were in the 1960's, ya know, where the top bracket paid 90% of their income and there were TONS of jobs for anyone. All that the tax breaks and reductions have done is to move the money to the top of the chart, the richest 5% of the populace own over 60% of the money in this nation, leaving the rest of us broke or near to it, working payday to payday and hoping that nothing happens to their jobs or health.
Of course, the Repubs would scream and wail to no end over that and predict all sorts of job losses etc. but if the rich and Corporations actually put their 'profits' back into the companies, taking less of a profit doing so, they would lower their own tax rates and actually be contributing to the AMERICAN economy again, instead of enriching China, India and Bangladesh. Now, wouldn't that be nice??
B. Honest,
Thanks, I thought of the 90% bracket after I posted so I’m happy you got it said.
Actually, I think it is the top 2% now account for 90% of the wealth.
Companies are now setting on $1.8 trillion in cash and holding back on expansion. The Republicans will say it is because of the unknown future tax burden but the reality is that they are waiting for demand to increase. When Americans start spending companies will start hiring and expanding.
Thanks for picking up the slack while I take a day off from answering JoAnna, everyone. At different times I've posted links to refute or answer every single thing she's said, as have most of you. It's like being Bill Murray in late winter Pennsylvania.
Hey Houston,
What you don't realise is that California already has some of the highest taxes in the country.
WE DONT NEED HIGHER TAXES IN CALIFORNIA!!!
We need to cut social programs, and make it harder for illegal immigrants to enroll in the Govt. programs and recieve aid. And we need to fight the unions and control the pensions for govt. employees. That is how we in California will fix our budgetary problems, not through raising taxes.
It was liberal spending programs, and union contracts that got our state to where it is and yet when our conservative politicians try to protect the citizens by keeping a steady tax rate rather than raising taxes, you liberals all cry foul.
Hey you want to pay higher taxes, more power to you, make donations whatever. But I'm paying enough as it is.
Just for fun, lets look at the fuel purchase in CA. First they tax your income, before you ever see it, then when you go to buy gas, the tax you per gallon of fuel you pay for, then they charge you sales tax on the total sale sale.
And you want more taxes, seriously WTF is wrong is with you?
Hey Brutus. If you don't like the taxes in California, you could always move to some conservative paradise like Mississippi.
Paul Krugman's view is that some taxes may indeed be too high, but it's because overall California taxes have been inequitable since the passage of Prop. 13:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/25/opinion/25krugman.html?_r=3
But what does Krugman know? He's only that librul economist who happened to win a Nobel Prize and also wrote this prescient piece warning of the kind of manipulation the to which the California energy market was prone PRIOR to the scandal those free entrepreneurs at Enron got caught in. I still recall how the cons were ridiculing people who said the power brownouts were the cause of some sort of corporate conspiracy. Turns out, some conspiracy theories are true and some of the Enron conspiracists are still in the slammer.
This is the link to Krugman's Y2K article on how the California energy market was probably being manipulated by power companies:
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/121000.html
One good thing about JoAnna's posts - the reply's posted in response are full of great facts and cites! Thanks everyone for being so informative in responding.
Yeah the war spending suplemental will pass, but without the $1.25 billion for paying the fair court settlement to black farmers discriminated against by the USDA over the many decades. Saw the head of the National Black Farmers Association talking with Chris Haynes last night on Rachel's show and he had a good idea, put that $1.25 billion to pay the settlement in a stand alone bill and publicly force the racist dopes of nope to whine against it in the backdrop of the latest racist attacks from the Fox Noose channel, the offical White Supremacist John Bircher Birther KKK propaganda channel.
Obama and the Democrats should make this small settlement a big issue but they won't because they're cowards afraid to make waves.
So Congress should attach something COMPLETELY not related to the war to the war bill?
Just like the Republicans did for 8 years under Bush, all that pork to help them get reelected at the expense of the tax payer. And you want to call yourselves fiscal conservatives, what a joke.
So because the repubs did it that makes it okay? Seriously, that's you're argument? How childish can you get?
Until we all learn from our mistakes rather than making them over and over again, and finding a way to justify it, than things will never get better, it will just continue in this awful, ridiculous cycle that we are on.
Seriously, grow up.
So they're still holding out over the alternate engine for the F-35 Lightning II? I thought we'd been over this already.
If the Commander-In-Chief doesn't want it, AND the Defense Secretary doesn't want it, shouldn't someone be listening?
You'd think so, but not in a world where we treat Defense as a jobs program. Might I ad just about the least efficient jobs program imaginable.
It's true. He's only doing it for the GE plant in Lynn, MA (which produces jet engines). I bet he wants the jobs there to make sure he gets a more favorable view in the eye of the electorate come November.
I, however, am not impressed.
Being ranked 15th is pretty darn good at this point especially as Obama is just half way through his first term, was left with all kinds of problems by Bush and the Republicans including two wars, has had to deal with a sour economy because the folks at Wall Street got greedy, all the whiners on the right thinking a Presdient really has the power to create millions of jobs, and constant snarky criticisms from those trying their best to justify their backwards logic thinking personal dislike for Obama.
Yes we get it...it was all Bush's fault and we should bow in honor to our immaculate "Savior" Barack Obama....and offer up gracious words of "thankfulness" for all he has "done" to make this country "better"..... We should all bow down and worship the very ground he walks on....We get it.
Thanks but no thanks. Ill thank Dictator Obama in 2012 my own way when I vote for anyone other than him. That is if the "chosen one" hasnt taken that right away from me as well and installed himself as dictator for life.
Larry, Minot:
The difference between many here and you Larry is that myself as well as others are willing to say it is not all Bush's fault and that Obama has made (or not made) some decisions we are willing to criticize. But you Larry, and folks like you, won't even admit one iota that Bush had a hand in creating some of the messes we find ourselves in today. Not one single iota. Not one single admittance that perhaps Bush was not the champion you all on the right think he was. C'mon Larry, admit that Bush screwed up a few things. Hell, admit one, just one. If you can't then shut up.
Larry, get over it. The GOP lost because they failed to govern and royally ruined the economy. That's just fact. We democrats will continue to blame Bush because he is responsible, just as Reagan blamed Carter but even Carter created more jobs than Bush and a whole lot less added to the deficit.
Larry if you want to waste your vote by voting for anyone but President Obama then be my guest, it'll just be wasted like it was in 2008. But that's what you teabagging republicans do best, is waste things like tax dollars.
Hey, I like the guy but this is as premature as Republicans describing his administration as a failure. I like what I've seen so far, though.
CA Go back and actually READ some of my posts.... on numerous occasions I have refered to Bush as a progressive light. Yes he pushed for the original stimulus....no one doubts that....he even said he was going against everything he was EVER taught about free market economics.
But lets not let what I have ACTUALLY said get in the way of bashing me because Im not a progressive....
And yes I understand that no matter what I write Im a racist in your guys minds....
Mo.... wanna hear a funny little secret about me?
I VOTED FOR THE IDIOT WE HAVE IN OFFICE.
Also wanna hear another little itty bitty secret about me?
IM NOT A REPUBLICAN! IM AN INDEPENDENT. Remember? Those people that Barry NEEDED to get into office? The ones he LIED to about how much of a center of the aisle leader he would be?
I dont vote along party lines..... I vote for CONSERVATIVES.......
YOU didn't really just say you voted for President Obama in one breath Larry... then turn around and say YOU vote for conservatives in the next did you Larry?
You are either awfully confused or you're a liar...
Hmmm... I think I know which category you fall in....
So you don't vote along party lines, but you always vote for the conservative party. Do explain further. BTW: true independents don't watch Fox and use all their talking points like you do. So quit trying to be something your not.
That one always amuses me, Mo--Conservatives who find it some sort of badge of honor to call themselves independent, but always vote Republican. Somehow that makes them free thinkers, though if they were honest with themselves they'd just declare Republican and be done with it. There are also voters who declare independent but nearly always vote Democratic, of course. For some reason those folks aren't nearly as vocal.
"Knowing that the legislation will likely be filibustered, Obama delivered a speech yesterday trying to score political points. “You’d think that reducing corporate and even foreign influence over our elections would not be a partisan issue,” Obama said. “But of course, this is Washington in 2010.” - First Read
=======================================================================
lol
Seriously First Read? Trying to score political points? I mean, I know you folks are cynical, but puh-leeeeze.
What the President said is 100% true and the real question should be why in the world would anyone be opposed to disclosing who is funding their campaign?
But instead, you wanna talk about "political points"?
This is why folks need to get out of "the beltway" from time to time and breath some fresh air.
Politifact says;
We thought it would be worthwhile to check the transcripts and see whether it's correct that Sherrod "actually resigned before or was forced to retire before anybody on Fox said a word about this."
The earliest on-air comment we could find came the toward the end of the 8 p.m. hour, during an airing of The O'Reilly Factor, a talk show hosted by pugnaciously conservative host Bill O'Reilly.
O'Reilly told viewers that "speaking at an NAACP event in March, Department of Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod was caught on tape saying something very disturbing. Seems a white farmer in Georgia had requested government assistance from Ms. Sherrod." He then showed a clip of Sherrod saying, "I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farmland. And here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So I didn't give him the full force of what I could do."
When the clip ended, O'Reilly said, "Wow. Well, that is simply unacceptable. And Ms. Sherrod must resign immediately. The federal government cannot have skin color deciding any assistance. We are requesting an explanation from the agriculture secretary, Tom Vilsack, and will keep you posted. By the way, the full transcript of Ms. Sherrod's remarks is posted on BigGovernment.com."
While it's safe to assume that O'Reilly was unaware of Sherrod's ouster at the time he aired those comments -- why would he call for her ouster if it had already happened? -- his producers apparently found out as the segment was underway, because as O'Reilly was speaking, Fox aired an on-screen notice that said, "Sec. Vilsack has accepted Sherrod's resignation." A few minutes later, during the 9 p.m. hour of Fox, O'Reilly's fellow conservative host, Sean Hannity, began his show with an alert that Sherrod had resigned.
So, based on the Fox transcripts as well as Sherrod's own account in the CNN interview, Hayes appears to be correct that Sherrod "was forced to resign before anybody on Fox said a word about this." Indeed, Howard Kurtz, the Washington Post's media critic, reported that "after a news meeting Monday afternoon (July 19), an e-mail directive was sent to the news staff in which Fox Senior Vice President Michael Clemente said, 'Let's take our time and get the facts straight on this story. Can we get confirmation and comments from Sherrod before going on-air. Let's make sure we do this right.'"
But we think it's worth mentioning two additional points.
First, it's clear from O'Reilly's on-air comment that at least one Fox commentator was preparing to make hay over the Sherrod controversy before she resigned -- it's just that the Agriculture Department beat Fox to the punch by ousting her first. If officials above Sherrod had spent more time reviewing her case instead of forcing her to the side of the road, O'Reilly at least, and possibly other Fox hosts, were ready to take up the call for her to be ousted.
Second, Fox's television network may not have discussed Sherrod before she was ousted, but there's evidence that two of its web affiliates did mention the story."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/26/stephen-hayes/stephen-hayes-defends-fox-handling-sherrod-story/
Never let the facts get in the way of a good rant...
dangerfield,
I will assume you intended this for someone else. Thanks for the info though.
The real problem wasn't with Fox News; it was with the "serious" media that snapped this story up immediately. I first learned about Sherrod being a "racist" from an AP story, since deleted, that was posted on the MSNBC front page.
I got "snookered" too because I still had some trust in the non-Fox media. Silly me. But that's why I'm willing to cut the Obama administration some slack for over-reacting and firing Sherrod. I don't think they made their decision based on reading Breitbart's hateful web site; I think they, like me, learned about it from reading "responsible" media sources who are, of course, desperate to shift the blame from where it belongs to President Obama.
The deplorable Cokie Roberts said on that ABC program that the White House "bears the most culpability" because the administration did the firing. That's an unbelievably disgusting thing to say. The culpability lies with the perpetrators and the PROMOTERS of this hoax, and the corporate media, including MSNBC were the hoax promoters.
Well, you can always rely on Cokie Roberts to parrot whatever conventional wisdom is in effect at any given time...even if it contradicts what she said yesterday.
President Obama is correct, "But of course, this is Washington 2010". Logic seems in short supply. I'm a democrat and I do not agree with any of the exemptions--there should be none.
Logically, republicans should embrace reducing the deficit by allowing the Bush tax cuts for the 3-5% of the wealthiest people. The GOP has been quite noisy about the debt now that a democrat is in the White House. That tax cut for the wealthiest 3-5% of the population is what helped create such massive deficits in the first place--particularly while fighting two wars. Logic is in short supply.
Census and Redistricting. Every ten years lawmakers in too many states contort themselves and their districts by politicizing redistricting in an effort to keep voter bases supporting incumbents and often diminishing the voting power of democrats or republicans in a given area. The result is gerrymandered districts that make their state maps look like the meandering scribbles of a young child given a crayon and plain paper.
Iowa, which is often the butt of jokes about hayseeds, rural, backwards, does none of this. Iowa knows how to redistrict the right way, the fair way for all its voters and it does so with no regard for incumbents.
Iowa's law charges the state's Legislative Services Agency with crunching new census numbers, then coming up with state and federal districts that follow existing geographic boundaries. The agency number crunchers are prohibited by law from considering the political makeup of the districts, the effect on incumbent lawmakers or gerrymandering across city boundaries.
Compare Iowa's legislative district map to those of Texas or Illinois and it is obvious that Iowa gets it right. Iowa's map is neatly drawn into sensible districts that do not meander in every direction. Iowa's way makes the assumption that voters will adapt to change and has often resulted in the defeat of incumbent legislators, even popular ones simply because the geography of the new district changed the voting demographics.
Some states use legislatures, commissions to redistrict but Iowa's approach is unlike any other state. In most states the process gets mired in partisan bickering as the party in power attempts to gerrymander districts to help maintain control of the state government and to protect incumbents at the federal level. Iowa leaves the map drawing to the nonpartisan Legislative Services Agency made up of experts who normally draft bills. Staffers can only use population data--not data about voter registration or voter preference or incumbent lawmaker addresses--to prepare the new legislative map.
The kicker is that the Legislature cannot make any changes to the map produced by the agency. It can only vote the map up or down. Only after rejecting two maps can legislators make any changes but it rarely gets beyond one let alone two maps.
The best part of Iowa's method is that it gives challengers of either party a better chance of winning and sending incumbents home. Maybe if voters in states paid attention to what takes place every ten years, they would demand a nonpartisan procedure similar to Iowa's.
I'm sharing this off topic information because it is something that receives little, if any attention by the media or by the population. Perhaps our politics could be changed in a good way by changing how the census is used to create new state legislative districts--get the procedure out of politics.
I would love it if my home state adopted this methodology for apportioning districts.
However, seeing as we invented gerrymandering, I doubt such a reasonable thing to do would ever arise here in Massachusetts.
Thanks Feisty. Sometimes we need to put things into perspective. All leaders have had their moments of compromise. All of them.
JoAnna, President Obama has created more jobs in his 1 1/2 term in office than the entire 8 years of President Bush's two terms. I hope for everybody, things improve as the year moves on, whether it be blue states or red states. Democrats or Republicans. I hate to see anyone out of work.
Apparently you're counting the ones he has "created" and not counting the ones that have been lost. In truth, there are 4 million less jobs today then when Obama took office.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
JoAnna Smith....When Bush left office we were losing 750,000 jobs a month. The economy is now adding jobs and expanding.
If you ask me, this sounds like just about every day nowadays.
And that scares me a bit, at least.
What happened to the days when politics were discussed with civility, and people backed up their claims with well-thought reasoning, as opposed to today's incendiary soundbites, good for the media but ultimately meaningless in terms of policy? I long for the day when THAT brand of politics returns.
Sean D.
When an individual has nothing of substance to say, ideas to convey, or facts to present they resort to name calling, cutting and posting talking points (often many times from previous posts - nothing new) and personal attacks. You will see a fair amount of that here, especially as the day progresses. They think this rhetoric is the same as intelligent and civil discussion. I am glad that you are not falling for that garbage. Keep up the thoughtful conversations and ignore the idiots.
Your posts are above that so don't stoop down to their level.
Civility in general has been in decline for a couple decades. Look at what passes for manners these days. There's always been a certain amount of incivility in campaigns but it was left outside the Congressional doors.
US Navy,
C'mon man, I guess now you're the Ole' Great Civilized one. You are no better than anyone else on here.
WTF do you expect Republicans to do? Are we suppose to just sit back and let you and all of your ilk disrespect us with all of the name-calling? That sh!t gets old and played out. You got ignorant azz people like Mo, B Honest, Paul, etc. that kick sh!t off but when you go into attack mode they shrivel up like a little b.....h.
I can hold my own against anyone and it is not all about how intellectual you are. It is about frikken common sense. Some of the smartest people in the world are really the stupidest when it comes to common sense.
ITM,
You do NOT hold your own, you rant and just name call without producing facts so people ignore you, there is a big difference between winning an argument and getting ignored, and you plain get ignored!
My goodness B, you've been attacking all the right leaning folks with ad hominem attacks for days now. We're going to start to get the idea that you don't like us.
ITM,
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOU JUST PROVED MY POINT. HAVE A GREAT DAY -
*sigh* It's unfortunate that this mini-thread ended in such a way.
True, but oh, so predictable.
MY point, exactly.
I can't beleve anybody takes Tancredo seriously -- he gets even crazier as time goes by, and perhaps that's entertaining, but it's not something that'll get him elected to a statewide office. Hickenlooper will win the governorship.he's the only sane person running (not to mention he's been a great mayor of Denver).
Just goes to show what all that fresh air will do to you. Maybe it's no accident that liberals are found mostly in the polluted states. (p.s. I'm kidding.)
Independent,
This will drive the rebublicans crazy. In effect this will split up their ticket and from there who knows.
Nor can I. Tancredo was a disaster during the 2008 GOP primary debates. I find it hard to understand how his fringe views migrated into more mainstream republican politics.
PMSNBC’s feisty redhead, Ed Shultz, really delivered on the laughs last night!!
He was interviewing billionaire Mort Zuckerman about the economy and the jobs situation when he got himself all worked up and went on a GREAT rant. There’s nothing more Hillaryous than an angry liberal on a rant. His best laugh line was “Businesses are not hiring because they want to see this President fail and to destroy the progressive movement!!” I just about fell off my couch I was laughing so hard. It is AMAZING to me that someone could be that stupid.
Businesses hire new workers for two reasons: A negative one and a positive one. The negative reason is when they are forced to do so to meet govt. rules and regulations. It’s negative because it is generally only a cost, with no increases in sales, and a reduction in the business owner’s (Fair warning, liberals, I’m going to use that dirty six letter curse word here) profit. Another negative factor is when govt. drives up the cost of existing employees, as well as new hires. A perfect example of this is the new costs that will be imposed as a result of Barry’s ClunkerCare HCR plan. The positive reason is when the business is confident that they can increase sales enough to offset the costs of the new hiring and increase the owner’s (Again, you liberals are warned) profits.
In today’s economy, businesses don’t see any reasons for confidence in their ability to increase sales and, therefore, have no inclination to hire for the positive reason. Further, with the pro-regulation Dems in charge, they fear they will suffer under the negative reason. The end result : little or no new hiring.
BTW, if you promise me you won’t tell Mr. Ed and Hillary, I’ll let you all in on a dirty little secret: There REALLY is a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!! The Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, the National Federation of Independent Business, and the Satan channel, Fox News, are ALL in on it. How do I know this? I know several people who are card carrying members of the conspiracy. They each showed me their special business cards with the VRWC logo in the lower right hand corner (It’s a picture of a jackass with a red circle and line superimposed over it). These special business cards are reserved for “friends of theirs”. They also have secret handshakes and secret signs so they can identify each other while rushing through airports or at business conventions. Just remember, keep it quiet, ssssshhhhhhhhhh.
Dear Joe:
No one is buying what you are selling anymore. Thanks for playing though.
Thanks Nash!
The right wing morons are out in full force this morning... baiting...
Too bad for them I'm not biting! ;0)
That sums up the lack of mentality of the Left. Everyone is out to get them, at least that what Mr. Ed seems to be saying. Businesses aren't hiring because there is so much uncertainty about what kind of a dent the government is going to put in their pocketbooks. Obama is openly hostile to businesses, always looking for a azz to kick, and businesses are nervous that they'll be targeted next with Obama calling them evil. Not the greatest environment for these businesses to have the confidence to expand.
-Plays world's tiniest violin for the poor mistreated businesses.-
Nash, you are right about "no one is buying". Too bad what American's are not buying is the Obama economic recovery BS:
U.S. consumer confidence eroded further in July
WASHINGTON — A monthly consumer survey shows that Americans' confidence in the economy eroded further in July amid job worries. The reading raises concern about the economic recovery and the back-to-school shopping season.
The Conference Board, a private research group, says its Consumer Confidence Index slipped to 50.4 in July, down from the revised 54.3 in June. The decline follows a drop of nearly 10 points in June. Economists surveyed by Thomson Reuters expected 51.0. The two straight monthly declines follow three months of increases.
Economists watch the number closely because consumer spending accounts for about 70 percent of U.S. economic activity and is critical to a strong recovery. A reading above 90 indicates an economy on solid footing.
-Plays world's smallest violin for the drop in consumer confidence, signifying nothing.-
Holy *bleep*.
That rating has to cover 40(!) points before we're back on "solid footing"? I doubt this will be fixable even after 8 years.
Where have you been Joe, everybody else in America has know this for a year and a half. Oh I forgot your teabaggers are really slow, that's why we give you so much slack.
So the jobs created by private insurance companies who now have an additional 30 million people who will buy their product will be negative hiring and not increase their dirty, 6-letter word--profit.
Keep hawking your version of reality but no sale.
Jody, why must you be so negative? One of the BIGGEST ironies of Barry's ClunkerCare plan is that the vile, evil, hated insurance compaies are WINNERS, although that is likely to be short-lived. Hiring by the insurance companies and the big pharma companies (don't forget them) as a result of the increased sales and profits is a POSITVE hiring reason for them. It's just the rest of the businesses in the country that are getting screwed.
Nash -- you might want to put your little violin in mothballs for a while, because whether you want to accept it or not uncertainty is an issue in business these days that seems to be impeding the recovery.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/27/news/economy/fear_economy/index.htm?section=money_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fmoney_topstories+%28Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo
Consumer confidence is also meaningful. The consumer accounts for roughtly 70% of GDP and if they aren't confident then they don't spend as much and the recovery drags.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/27/news/economy/consumer_confidence/index.htm?section=money_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fmoney_topstories+%28Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo
BTW, Capitalist Fairy Tale III is coming soon to a board near you. And I gotta tell ya, the buzz is it's Oscar material. You're gonna be a star Nash, truly.
Bill,
So sorry you don't like my violin . . .
Can you tell me when have businesses ever had certainty? I asked you last week, but alas I must have missed your response.
P.S. You know how I love your mythical tales of selfless companies making lots of jobs for all of us little people when they are absolutely CERTAIN that EVERYTHING will go THEIR WAY! Again, I am humbled that you have chosen me as your muse! ;o)
Bill, Fairfax Va:
Too bad the huge uncertainty inherent in the subprime loans racket that led to the economic disaster wasn't enough to make corporations cool their jets. The "uncertainty" argument is mostly bogus. Large corporations want to keep the economy depressed, just like the Republicans do and for the same reason: so they can blame it on the Democrats, which is the (barely) ruling party.
Joe,
My brother called me yesterday and told me to turn the channel on MSNBC, I thought Lock-up was on, then I saw it was that fat dude.....
He was smoking from the ears and Zuck was eating his azz alive. He really didn't know what he was talking about and he looked like a fool on his own program. That was way out of his league. I bet he wont bring Zuckerman on there again. He thought that man was going to agree with him.
I guarantee he is going to be on his radio show or T.V. show today attempting to redeem himself. He will say Zuckerman is an idiot and the usual drivel.
Nash -- no one is saying there is ever complete certainty in business. The issue we face today is that uncertainty is higher than usual. Heck, even Bernanke testified there was "unusual uncertainty" about our economic outlook. That's the macro perspective from his vantage point.
From the more micro perspective of individual businesses, when confronted with stagnating incomes and continued unemployment in the population as well as the potential for financial destabilization due to the debt problems in Europe and a slowdown in the Chinese economy (which is the engine of global growth these days), that all adds up to a reluctance to invest in the future until we get more clarity. Add to that the uncertainty associated with potential tax increases and increases in burdensome regulation of the economy and you have a more or less perfect storm of impediments to hiring or investing in the future at this time.
Nobody wants that, but it's a reality that can't be ignored.
Bill, who are you trying to kid??
Nash, like all good lefty liberals, KNOWS that businesses don't create jobs and growth in the economy.
It's BIG govt. spending programs that create jobs and growth in the economy. She KNOWS the problem with Barry's Porkulus bill is that it just wasn't BIG enough!!!
You're wasting your time trying to convince her otherwise.
Bill,
Your post reminded me of another question that I asked that I don't recall you answering:
Since you are opposed to "burdensome regulations", how do you propose corporate corruption be handled? Or are you even able to acknowledge that such a thing exists? :o)
P.S. Seriously, can you not find a case study featuring a real company to trumpet? Why is it always on a theoretical level when we have been trying these policies for decades? Shouldn't it have worked by now?
Joe:
So nice to know that you are a mindreader . . . apparently an unemployed one since you spend so much time here spinning fairy tales about benevolent corporate behemoths under siege.
Nash -- corporate corruption should be prosecuted, no one is condoning the behavior of the Enrons and Worldcoms of the world. But addressing the problem of a handful of bad economic actors by imposing crushing regulation on all economic actors is a recipe for stifling growth in the economy.
As for case studies, take some time to read the business section of your local newspaper. Check out stories about IPOs or coprorate bond offerings, that's the capital markets at work financing new economic activity, it's really basic stuff. And I'll repeat a question you never answered: where does the money come from that buys the company stock offered in IPOs or that buys the bonds offered by corporations? Hint: it doesn't come from the government, and it doesn't grow on trees.
Bill:
When "a few bad actors" is the entire financial sector, then what?
The money to by stocks and bonds comes from we the people of course.
Your attempts to create a "government" versus "private sector" dichotomy is a false choice Bill.
We need both.
I assert that waiting until BP fills the Gulf with oil because they don't want to spend the money to take the appropriate safety precautions is the wrong approach.
Even if we can "prosecute" the crime after the fact.
That is too late Bill.
One other point about your meant-to-be-condescending response about reading the business section in a paper Bill . . . I have a degree in Business Administration and my husband and I are in the process of starting a business.
Just because I don't believe that the sweet little corporate Santa Clause is gonna give us all jobs if he can be "certain" that we won't force him to take good care of his reindeer does not mean I am ignorant about how business works.
Just the opposite Bill . . . I know how business works . . . which is why I am calling bullsh!t on all these benevolent fictional accounts that seem to require us to forget our most recent realities.
Bill,
The problem with all of those IPOs and buyouts is that it is the Corporations taking over thriving businesses so that the profits will go to the Corps rather than being used within the business itself. We have seen this time and time again where a perfectly good business gets taken over by Corporations and the quality of the product falls, fewer jobs available and lower wages while the Corporate CEO's take home millions. IPOs only help those that started the business and after that it hurts the workers and the economy in general, especially if the product manufacturing or service gets sent overseas where the labor is cheaper. IPOs and Corporate Bonds do NOT start new businesses, they only suck up what independent businesses that are there and turn them into cash cows for the already too rich. Corporatism is NOT good for our economy, we were in MUCH better shape before the laws regulating the spread of Corporations and buyouts were relaxed under Nixon and Reagan and Small and Medium Businesses were the powerhouses of the economy. We need to step back from the Corporatization of our economy and make individual businesses stand on thier own instead of being part of a pyramid style ponzi scheme where all of the profits from thousands of businesses get sucked into the Corporations and given to their top board members and CEOs and shareholders, which are usually the very board members to begin with. Corporations used to be quite useful while they were properly regulated but now have become the biggest parasites on our economy that there are and have nearly sucked all of the lifeblood out of it. SOMETHING Needs to be done to reign in the Rampant Corporatization before it totally destroys not only us but the entire world economy making the whole world's workers slaves to the Corporate Overlords!
"spinning fairy tales about benevolent corporate behemoths under siege."
Nash, where do you get that I'm talking about "corporate behemoths" when I refer to "businesses"?? I think you are either hearing/seeing something that is not there or you a projecting your own beliefs. The simple fact is that the vast majority of "businesses" are small, and owned by a single stockholder or a small numebr of stockholders. I don't know where you live, but if you live in a well-to-do, upscale neighborhood, these are your next door neighbors.
Joe,
It is not the "mom and pop" shops that are pillaging our economy for their own gain. It is corporate giants who do whatever they want, with you cheering in the background.
If you want to pretend that you are fighting for "mom and pop", you go right ahead. The person in the post I was responding to was "billionaire Mort Zuckerman".
So save your shell game for someone else.
So, Nash, you're starting a business. Good Luck. Something tells me you're gonna need it.
I too have a degree in Business Administration and the first thing I learned after graduation is that the real world of business is not like how it's portrayed in the books.
"I too have a degree in Business Administration and the first thing I learned is that the real world of business is not like how it's portrayed in the books." - Joe in Albany
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funny Joe . . . I think we finally agree on something. Thanks for the luck . . . I'll take all the help I can get.
Wow Nash, I really don't understand you, my intent was not to be condescending but to be informative. Your hostility towards the business conmmunity is misplaced. The business community employs 110 million workers. Companies and their workers pay most of the taxes in the country. When Santa Claus' reindeer (to use your condescending imagery) catch a cold, Santa gets out of sorts and the job creation machine slows down. This is not BS, this is the way the world works.
Here's a few more factoids. In the two decades of the 1980s and 1990s, the United States created 73 million new private sector jobs—while simultaneously losing some 44 million jobs in the process of adjusting its economy to international competition. That was a net gain of some 29 million jobs. 55 percent of the total workforce at the end of these two decades was in a new job, some two-thirds of them in industries that paid more than the average wage. By contrast, continental Europe, with a larger economy and workforce, created an estimated 4 million jobs in the same period, most of which were in the public sector (and the cost of which they are beginning to regret). So the issue of the government vs the private sector as the engine of economic growth IS relevant and is most certainly not a false choice.
The U.S. as a job creating machine has been the envy of the world for decades. And we can (and likely will) be a job creating machine again. The issue is how best to create the conditions that nurture that machine and enable it to swing into full gear. Overt hostility to the free entrprise system is most assuredly not the way to do that.
If you don't want to read your local newspaper, then check out these stories. Written by leading businessmen who probably know more about this stuff than you and I put together.
http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/mzuckerman/articles/2010/07/16/obamas-anti-business-policies-are-our-economic-katrina.html
http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/21/fact-and-comment-opinions-steve-forbes.html?boxes=opinionschanneleditors
BTW, the money doesn't come from "the people" it comes from a special subset of the people: the savers in our society.
Professor Bill:
Thanks for all the business articles written by business people . . . very diversified perspective you have there.
You wrote:
"Companies and their workers pay most of the taxes in the country."
That is not quite true Bill.
I will leave you with the one fact that you like to ignore . . . the majority of corporations do not pay one thin dime in income tax. Not one dime.
You would think that Exxon had some income in 2009 . . . but according to them they did not. How convenient.
Read it for yourself Bill . . . I look forward to seeing you use your creativity to write a story that will 'splain it all away.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How can it be that you pay more to the IRS than General Electric?
http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-exxon-walmart-business-washington-corporate-taxes.html
ExxonMobile and GE paid ZERO taxes for 2009
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/06/exxon-tax/
Study says most U.S. corporations pay no U.S. income tax
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1249465620080812
P.S. I am not hostile to the business community at all. I am hostile to folks spreading misinformation, taking advantage of folks, and playing the victim when in fact they are doing very well indeed.
It's funny, I was telling my friend just yesterday the exact same thing.
I was also expressing my disbelief at ANY success that Tom Tancredo has had in public service... but then I realized that Pat Buchanon and Daivd Duke did also. They are all cut from the same cloth. While I understand that Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck are entertainers and basically actors that some people like, Tom Tancredo has the potential to adversely affect MY life. I don't have to listen to Rush and Glen, Tom on the other hand is running for govenor of my state, and in doing so has provided the motivation for me to do everythinig in my power as a citizen of this country and a resident of this state to thwart him.
Great post.
Top of the morning to all including the paid trolls
Pat, I wanted to post that poll yesterday; but didn't have time to google the source. What's interesting is that Georgie boy was last; desveringly so.
　
The Dirty Little Secret of Republicans being against Disclouser is that it benefits the Republicans and blue dog democratics who are subservient to Wall Street and global corporations.
Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch has partnered with Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. The Saudi prince is known for his financial ties to the Bush family and the defense industry-oriented Carlyle Group and for owning a fair-sized stake in Disney and in Citigroup. Just think of these sorts of discloures that should make Americans wonder. Simply because it has FOX NOISE in bed with them it doesn’t necessarily mean it espouses Western interests. But, it's their money which allows FOX NOISE to launch a new 24-hour news session of employee who are off their rockers; with the exception of Shep Smith and doesn't drink the hater-aide. For example, there the monkey girls on Fox & Freaks who hold their jobs down by showing theieir tales to propagate lies, distortions and foment racial divide.
　　The Tax cutsTo allow tax cuts to 98% of Americans will benefit not only the republicans or democratics but all of America. Since they represent the biggest crooks in the socalist corporations. You know they want to cut taxes for a mere 2% of US, threaten the planent with ecological and economic policies, and foment racial divide.
For the four-day exercise of the USS George Washington
Most of the firepower for the four-day exercises — which North Korea condemns — has been flying off the decks of the USS George Washington, a U.S. supercarrier We're not expecting to see them out here," he said. "I would not think they would be willing or wanting to come all the way out here."
In regards to the Gulf oil spill the President has taken leadership just like Bobby Jindahl. The difference is the President's leadership is leadership; Bobby Jindahl's opportunistic the same as it was for his parading around with huge checks of stimulus money. Previously, he was against the stimulus; yet, once he got it he wanted all the credit; a non existent fact he didn't give the citzens.
California
The Politician leaders there are doing anything different than others across the country. The anti-cumbent angst is justifiable; but putting up nutjobs from the Tea Party Circus doesn't help either since they represent the biggest crooks in the socalist corporations. You know that want to cut taxes for a mere 2% of US, threaten the planent with ecological and economic policies, and foment racial divide.
　
Enjoyed your post. One would think that republican Americans would balk at such obvious ties to Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern countries but instead the GOP politicians, Murdock, etc. avoid any negatives by accusing Pres Obama of what they themselves do--loudly, daily and with high-pitched fear mongering.
Funny - if one has a different opinion than the lefty libs on this site, then not only is the person pounced on but they are also "paid trolls"!
May I remind you that the country is 50-50 when it comes to Repub-Demo. Of course, this site is 99.9% lefty liberal loons!
It's also been pointed out that Hugo Chavez, the Republican's Boogie Man of Socialism, can now influence US elections thanks to our radical right Supreme Court legislating from the bench. The Venezuelan government owns Citgo, which is incorporated in the United States and therefore can run campaign ads. And I'm not even sure if lack of incorporation in this country is enough to bar a state-owned corporation from advertising.
Who knows? Maybe Ahmadenijad will decide to influence elections here in the Land o' the Great Satan with a few ads paid for by some Iranian corporation, which wouldn't even have to disclose the source of the ad money, thanks to the Republican obstructionists.
Barack Obama is so afraid of being perceived as an angry black man that he has forgotten how to be a man! Everytime the racist Fox Noose Channel comes out with some false expose of ACORN, Van Jones, the New Black Panthers or Shirley Sherrod and the NAACP Obama and the Democrats make like a bunch of cowards, circle the wagons and play duck and cover rather than standing tall and fighting back. Hey Barack whatever happened to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? A damned constitutional lawyer who can't even remember that simple tenant of our law.
I refuse to ever put "President" before "Obama" because I have no respect for a coward who lacks the courage to respect himself enough to defend himself. Obama has forgotten that he has the bully pulpit, he has been nothing but a craven weak leader and his enemies on the right sense it and like sharks in bloody water they are moving in for the kill. Barack needs to stop Talking Softly and he needs to break out his Big Stick and he needs to beat the corrupt conservative christian lunatic fringe senseless with his Big Stick until they stop bashing him unopposed. He needs to show the cowardly Democrats some leadership so that they too break out their Big Majority Sticks and beat the Insolent Minority senseless on issue after issue.
Obama just doesn't understand his enemy, the corrupt conservative christian fanatics will stop at nothing to regain political power and there's only one way to stop them from bashing him constantly. Barack needs to remember that the best defense is a good offense, he needs to get on his bully pulpit and out bully the racist dopes of nope. As long as he and the Democrats plays the cowardly duck and cover defense he and the Democrats will lose.
Just look at what the agenda of Bachmann Moron Overdrive will be if they regain control of the House this November, nothing but subpoenas whining about nothing. Once again the corrupt conservative christians are going to waste more taxpayer money for their petty partisan mud slinging. They wasted $66 million against President Clinton, how much will they want to waste in the future against Obama even while they whine falsely about fiscal conservatism and not adding to the debt?
Obama and the Democrats had better grow a pair and stop cringing everytime the Fox Noose channel comes up with some new lying rightwing propaganda and start coming out swinging hard against any new attacks. I hope Dennis Kucinich runs in 2012 in the primaries because I will vote for him. If I do vote for Obama it will only be as the least of two evils. I have lost my respect for Obama because he has shown he doesn't respect himself enough to stand tall and fight back with everything he has. The Democratic Party needs a strong leader and Barack is not the leader we're looking for.
Eric,
Too much caffein this morning?
lol
I agree that Democrats need to be more vocal and stop letting Republican "narratives" be accepted as "truth" .
But that old tired rant about President Obama not being "tough" enough has been proven false time and time again.
President Obama gets results. Period.
Folks do not have to do things your way for it to be effective.
This modern day debate is very reminiscent of the debates during the civil rights movement about methods - many were opposed to Dr. King's "non-violent" approach. It was counter-intuitive and for the folks involved, often personally degrading.
But it worked.
Don't hate the player, hate the game Eric.
You know its bad times for the progressives / liberals when Eric turns on them......
Good to see that all that hope and change has worked.....
LOL
Im lovin it.....
Conservatives will be back in power and taking our country back starting in November and we can finally get back to being the greatest country in the world again.....
Strange Larry . . . seems like conservatives were in charge when our country was run in the ditch.
But whatever you say works for me.
Precisely, Nash, Larry has an odd view of what the right wing has done to this country. I am still waiting for him to come forward with a quote from Jefferson that he claims about Jefferson saying this is a Christian nation.
Larry's just a teabagger down on his knees praying that our great country fails, so him and his republicans teabaggers can finish destroying it. BTW Larry, I have seen anything about how you and the teabaggers will create jobs yet, still waiting.
Larry,
The only thing you state that is true is that if Republicans gain control - the country will indeed go BACK. Your hope and change or not too inspiring - can we get it once more with FEELING?
Larry....Consevatives had nothing to do with making this country great.
Nothing spells racist like the RNC - the Racist National Committee. Steppin' Fetchit Uncle Tom Steele is so desperate to ingratiate himself with the facist racist whities that he now is going to embrace Racist Breitbart as a speaker at an Racist National Committe event. Where the heck are the Democrats at crying foul that the racist dopes of nope willingly embrace a known lying racist whose only agenda is destroying the Liberal faction of our party? Once again will the craven cowardly Democrats going to throw us Liberals under the bus in order to mollify the moderates and conseravtives? You Betcha!
If the Democratic Party is too cowardly to stand up against the rightwing lunatic fringe and defend us Liberals then we Liberals aren't going to do anything to protect the party either. We'll just sit back and watch the bloodbath and watch with dismay as our party loses in November and then maybe we'll be able to rebuild our party with stronger better politicians who value us Liberals and won't throw everything we want under the bus if the false hopes of bipartisanship that will never happen.
A poor sales job: Supporters of this legislation who will be disappointed by today's result only have themselves to blame; they've done a horrible job at educating the public on exactly what this legislation will do. And then there are all the special carve-outs -- for the NRA, for AARP, for unions. In short, it looks like a boondoggle. And at a time when Congress' job rating is barely in double-digits, why should they expect the public to believe they are capable of writing rules that would somehow do anything other than help their own re-election prospects? Congress has never succeeded in legislating campaign money. This year's reform becomes next year's loophole (see the history of political action committees).
______________________________________________________________
C'mon, First Read, what is this crap???
This is just like when you were blaming everyone for the Shirley Sherrod thing.
The only bad actors here are the party of "no" and the Satan channel, Fox News.
Let's get with the program!!!!
The repugnant ones are going to waste $1.75 million in the false hopes that Gnarly Carly Phony Fiorina can beat Senator Barbara Boxer. Not going to happen as Boxer has done far more for our state than the overpriced petty receptionist who almost destroyed Hewlett Packard herself and then spied on the board of directors when she knew the heat was coming to fire her. Sorry Gnarly Carly but you're not a California Gurl!
I'm finished with the Daily Rundown and Chuck Todd, he's gone to being yet another disappointing David Gregory now that he has his own show. After watching him bring on Darrel Idiot Issa yesterday I just switched the channel because I knew that Chuck would not challenge any of Idiot Issa's obvious lies.
Chuck Todd is a number cruncher that has been promoted out of his depth. He and David "Gotcha" Gregory have no idea how to interview anyone. They always let the republicans say whatever lies they want and NEVER challenge them. Yet, when they are interviewing democrats you can see the saliva dripping out of their mouths when they try to call them out using useless misinformation they most probably obtained from their republican "sources". Meet the Press used to be the program to watch but it's now it's a joke. I watch "Face the Nation" now. MSNBC -- You should really take a serious look at the rating s for MTP. At least CNN were smart enough to get rid of John King and replace him with Candy Crowley when they realized their mistake.
Thousands and thousands of people doing the same thing and basically producing NOTHING. It's a hell of a way to run a railroad. No normal company (and our government is in fact a huge company) could survive a year, let alone 300 years, if they ran their business like our government does. Let's get back to a common sense budget and quit worring about all the greedy egotistical politicians. I believe strongly that President Obama is the man to do this job. Vote Democrat this November. Support your President.
Well said California Tom . . . couldn't agree more.
Were you saying the same thing during Bush's years in office? Just making sure were playing fair here
Life ain't fair, Larry.
But the answer is yes.
Thanks California Tom. We need more and more people saying exactly what you said.
Well, said.
And now comes Brit Hume of Fox "News" to claim victimhood for Fox. According to Brit, the nasty media has called Fox "News" names, like (gasp!) racist. He posits that Ms. Sherrord really wasn't harmed all that much, after all, the corrections by responsible media (which excludes Fox "News") were published in 24 hours. Therefore, I guess, Fox did Ms. Sherrod a favor by attempting to humiliate a private citizen, bringing the full weight of media spotlight on her. On the other hand, poor Fox, who is mystified that ANYONE would call them on their egregious conduct, has hurt feelings that they were called what they indeed are. When you behave like a pack of wild dogs hounding an innocent victim, Brit, you may want to expect to be called that which you are. Racists.
The fact is that Fox didn't run with the Sherrod story until after she resigned. An additional fact is that numerous MSM did run with a fragmentary story that painted Sherrod as a racist. But the biggest fact is that the key mistake in this whole episode is that no one did the gunshoe work to validate the video. Fox didn't do it, other MSM playets didn't do and most especially the Obama administration didn't do it. Which is the most damning? I vote for the Obama administration who saw fit to fire someone before they had all the facts. So please spare us your misguided whining.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/22/AR2010072201265.html
Bill your right they didn't run the story till after she resigned, but they did show pictures of her and talk about it all day and making insinuation of racism without mentioning her name. All the facts man not just you and Fox facts.
Bill, once again, the story was on FoxNews.com, and they took responsibility for Sherrod's resignation.
newday, interesting isn't it that the macho Conservative Movement needs so badly to always play the victim. That's been their identity since the McCarthy days.
Morning all, I posted some thoughts over on Libs R Us. I hope they're in the right place, if not the proprieter can just let me know. No big deal, but some things I just thought I had to share somewhere and I just didn't feel like getting into a big "Oh, you Socialists are just so..." fight over here today. Most days I relish those things, not today.
John B, message received perfectly! You're a QUICK study! thanks!
Jody, Iowa
Great post; unfortunately Repubs can't think logically because they are bought and paid for by Big Corporate and global conglomerates.
....................................................................................................
Eric, Salinas, CA
The President is an angry Black Man; he just doesn't carry a gun on his hip. Didn't you see him pound his fist yesterday when he went toe to toe about the Disclouse Act. How about the time the President went to the Republicans retreat and went through their boys as if they weren't even there?
I REALLY do wish people would stop tying to alter President Barack Hussein Obama's personality. He IS the sharpest knife in the drawer. When you make those assertions you're not taking into account what the President has accomplished. Don't you know the scariest thing to a rabid, wacked, right winger is an educated Black man? The American people don't want a gangsta in the WH; otherwise we would have voted for the same crooks and liars who wanted to continue Georgie boy's atrocites .
I agree completely. The media and everyone else keeps trying to mold Pres Obama into some other president. I like him just as he is--his attributes others whine about are the reasons I supported him in the caucus, voted for him and continue to support him.
Jody
I agree completely. The media and everyone else keeps trying to mold Pres Obama into some other president. I like him just as he is--his attributes others whine about are the reasons I supported him in the caucus, voted for him and continue to support him.
Me too. I support the President because he is sharpest knive in the drawer. It's only been less than 2 years and despite his opposition he has managed to pursue and fulfiil most of promises. I hardly pay attention to those who seem to be souring because in the end, somehow I know they are frustrated and know not what they are are doing. I'm sure these people don't want another Bush or reagan in the WH. The best I can do is point out the fallacies and innuendos that part of left has fallen prey to ad encourage them.
As Axelrod stated this president has reached time and time again to them. Soon, as it know stands it will be come self- evident obstruction is of little value. Some republicans are waking up now.
Greg Sargent gives a good account of what I find most troubling about the Sherrod hoax. Both left and right tend to select news stories that fit their ideological predispositions. But the far-right wingers just makes stuff up and the corporate media falsely and dishonestly accuses both sides of doing it.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/
... it's true that "both sides," to one degree or another, let their ideological and political preferences dictate some editorial decisions, such as what stories to pursue, how to approach them, who to interview, etc. But what's underappreciated is the degree to which the Breitbart-Fox axis goes far beyond this, openly employing techniques of political opposition researchers and operatives to drive the media narrative.
This simply has no equivalent on the left. The leading lefty media organizations have teams of reporters who -- even if they are to some degree ideologically motivated -- work to determine whether their material is accurate, fair, and generally based in reality before sharing it with readers and viewers. They just don't push info -- with no regard to whether it's true or not -- for the sole purpose of having maximum political impact. Period.
This is an important difference that's critical to understanding the rapidly shifting landscape in the new-media age. If I ran the universe more media figures would come right out and say what the Times hinted at today: No, both sides don't do it.
This is a very good point Houston. . . .which is why our corporately owned and operted news media will completely ignore it.
Houston,
Great post, we need to have the Fairness Doctrine back to put some balance back into the news and to reign in the extremist influences from the right with factual content from the left. Sadly, the FCC is one of the bureaus that got filled with Repub stooges during the Bush Years and has yet to be healed due to the term limits of the board members. There are too many agencies that have Repubs burrowed into them and they continue to push the Repub agenda even though their new bosses dictate otherwise. It is too bad that the President is not able to Legally remove these people when found, it would certainly help to clean up the messes and stop them from obfuscating what is actually happening within those agencies.
Got double posted somehow, sorry about that
I need to point out that everything below the URL in my post was written by Greg Sargent, not by me. I fogot to hit the Quote button.
Great point. I've said before I have no problem with conservatives or liberals having a voice in the media. The right wing media, however, does not use its voice to discuss issues but rather to create irrational thinking in its viewers through false stories, false facts.