Beverly, completely true. Boehner wants to bring the rest of the nation down to his level, so that way he can have somebody to talk to down there.

Mr. Boehner, after months of promising a look at his party's agenda for his plans for America -- their economic agenda -- he made what was billed this morning as a major economic address. And his chief proposal, when you look at it, was apparently that the president should fire his economic team. Very constructive advice, and we thank the leader for that

I know I'm not the ONLY Progressive who is energized by Vice President Biden hitting back at these clowns... and hitting back hard!

We have remained silent for FAR too long and it's invigorating to see we are NO longer sitting back and taking it from the right wing nuts!

Ask yourself America... what is Agent Orange going to do for YOU? Besides play golf - just say NO & drink himself into a daily stupor?

The sad part is Bohenor wants the people of this nation to stay in the dark.

The sad part is Biden and Obama want the people of this nation to think a man that hasn't run for an office since 2004 is the problem.

The people of this nation gave Biden and Obama a trillion dollars to fix the problems and the Nation is in the same ditch, only a trillion dollars deeper in debt.

The funny/sad part about all this is Biden and Obama were in the Senate, who actually make economic policy, the last 2 of those 8 years, when everything fell apart, and it's as if they had no part of the so-called "economic crisis". Only a fool would believe every problem in the whole world in Bush's fault, but that's all you have, besides calling everyone a racist.

In God We Trust

enough of you and bob. You guys must keep your heads in each others behind.

Pretty adult like rouge. Did your mother tell you to say that?

In God We Trust

They (Bush) took a $237 billion operating surplus, inherited from the Clinton administration, and left us with a $1.3 trillion deficit.

So the $600 Billion of increased spending in Obama's first year in office (2009) is somehow Bush's fault? I don't recall Bush asking for a $862 Billion "stimulus" bill, or a $411 Billion "Porkulus" bill in 2009.

This is what First Read calls impartial reporting???????????????? Give me a break.

I really think ol boner must be havin those jack daniels withdraws. He is a knock down drag out drunk, which is good for a gobp canidate it makes them have a short memory. Hell cant wait till they drag out Tom ( titty bar) Delay, Nute the fruit and the hole gang of bucket heads to see which one will run for the Grand Ol Party of inbreeds for 2012. Better to have a short memory around these bucket heads. Maybe they need new blood. Gotta find someone that is white, goes to church at a bar, has sex as his wife watches, go gay fishing in airport crappers. Damn hard to be so moral and tell everyone else they are sinners.

For crying out loud, June, now you are re-printing, as comment, the blog you are commenting on!

Once again-you are supposed to put it into your OWN words.

Try again tomorrow. Remember-do not copy and paste the e-mail. Re-write it into your own words. If you don't learn, quickly, you may not keep the campaign gig.

Today talking points direct from beck

How about explaining why 60% of people disapprove of Obama's handling of the economy? Or the fact that the majority now believe the economy is getting worse-which effects their spending habits, thus worsening a bad situation? Any pithy comments on that?

Instead, we are left with an administration that DID NOT LISTEN when it was explained to them that the economic theory they were going to employ was a proven failure. They employed it anyway, and are now seeking to blame somebody, anybody, else for the failure. They rammed through an HCR plan that no one wanted, ignored those who told them that it would exacerbate existing economic uncertainty, and now seek to blame others for THAT failure.

There's going to be a Housecleaning in November-and right now, it looks like the Senate is within reach.

No matter. Obama will probably blame Bush for it.

no joe, no bo, nj

Fact is, any hope for Obama to take this country completely out of the recession, require a little help from the right, even a little bit, but your party has said NO..... NO...... and....... well...... NO! They haven't helped America, they have helped themselves by creating this air of "Obama and the Dems haven't done anything fast, let's vote them out!" Well the right has really even considered to throw them a bone here and help them, and have hindered as much as possible the improvement of this country, as well as inflame the far right to start the Tea Party.

And you yourself are merely spewing what Glenn and Rush have said, so really, what is the point in calling out June if you yourself can't put it in your own words?

Salt Grass-

huh?

Michigan-those ARE my own words, and if you'd been on this board for any length of time, you'd know that.

As to your larger point: despite the republicans saying 'no', these programs passed. Stimulous, HCR, bailing out GM and Chrysler-all passed by Obama with his democratic 'super' majority.

Think a little bit about why Obama continues to blame the republicans for voting no. If they had supported these failed programs, they would be assigned a measure of the blame for their failure. As it is, it all reflects on the Democrats.

Which is really, really bad for them. Almost as bad as Obama has been for this country.

Are you living in a hole... Common, Obama has had two years to fix 8 years of excess.

We went from having a balanced budger (and yes paying down the debt) from Clinton (not that I approve of his personal character) to 8 years later, two wars costing 10+ Billion a month tax breaks for the wealthy and an economic meltdown.

And In the last two years we have had one group of people TRYING to make a change to get the economy back on track and improve the quality of life. While the other party votes no to each and every idea because they are not in control and making policy anymore. You can't tell me that they were voting what their respected voters wanted.

I wish people would open their eyes, not act like sheep and start looking at the problems. The problems with the american goverment is that we have too much politics going on and not enough representation for the poeple.

I'm still dreaming and looking for change. One man can't do it alone!!!

So I suppose that because I haven't had a account for that long, automatically makes my point any less true? Or to rephrase, your point any more right?

As someone who lives IN MICHIGAN, there was an actual point to bailing out GM and Chrysler, so that way thousands and thousands of workers can keep their jobs and hope to stimulate Michigan's flat-lineing economy.

Also, they could have at least tried, not their pathetic excuse for trying, to change those bills in a possitive manor, not just saying NO.

WOW NoJo... what's with the bullying bitch act today?

Is this what we have to look forward to between now and November out of you? lol

I know I know... it's difficult to maintain that 'cheery' disposition of yours when things aren't working out quite like you had planned! Not to worry there honey... we'll make sure your crow is cooked to your preference!

There's a HUGE difference with posting something that is FACTUAL as opposed to the BS right wing chain e-mails that have been debunked time & time again...

Wait... what am I thinking - what do you KNOW about facts? Clearly they are something you have a severe allergy to...

Fiesty-I just explained this to Ron on another thread.

Thanks to sending an e-mail to my senator, Bob Menendez, (who of course did not even read what I wrote), I am now on the 'list'. Every day, my in box carries a load of talking points from the DNC.

which June, here, then posts.

Having to read them once a day is often enough for me-and I do read them now that the election is getting closer. "Know They Enemy". Or, at least, recognize the talking points when they come up.

Sorry if I come off as a bully, but for crying out loud, if you are cutting and pasting, at least ADMIT you are cutting and pasting. The old teacher in me has a problem if you don't.

After November's Senate losses, no joe...the DNC won't have anything to do with Menendez.

You might still be on their mailing list...he won't.

No Jo Bozo, i though you were a well educated thoughtful person but i could not be more wrong. as smart as you seem, you forget thing like your stupid assessmentof the president and your love for a lying bunch of dope heads.

unemployment-way up;

Ok No Jo Bozo, please tell me you have the brains to remember that the unemployment rate was already at 8% when the president took office, so your claim that unemployment is way up, you are showing your age and forget fullness that in 06 the rate was at or below 8%. i guess your brain can't go back to the summer and fall of 08 when we were loosing a average of 500k jobs in till march.

deficit-way up;

No Jo Bozo, the deficets are way up but once again your brain is too small to remember that 10 years ago we had a surplus, and the prevoius administration gave it away like a hooker on drugs. then in january of 09 we find out that our defictes are worse than George bush was telling us, as well as the war not being on the books, please tell me that, that MBA you got was not really a Masters Of BullSh*t analogys.

economic activity-way down.

No Jo Bozo, economic activity is down but i guess you forgot that in between bong hits that our economy has been down for almost 3 years. but that OK, being full of the bull you push must have you thinking your on drugs again, you stopped using crack, maybe you should go back to weed.

From Now on everybody No Jo will be called No Jo Bozo, because of her clown like additude toward the president of the United States.

Michigan,

So hows that state of yours going that has been run by democrats for decades. Don't you still have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country even after Obama gave GM and Chrysler to the unions. Yea that was a brilliant idea, give away something that still had a little value left to people that destroyed it in the first place.

Jeff, When Obama said we have to pass the Stimulus immediately, which he didn't sign immediately because he was on vacation, Obama said it would keep UE from going over 8%. Now trillions of dollars later, guess what, the blinded ones are still bowing to Obama's uncanny economic prowess. The spendulous was nothing more than a give away to unions, special interests and pork. But keep those eyes closed, reality can be very scary.

In God We Trust

enoughsenough

Enoughsenough, what is everybody problem with unions, unions build this country, unions make the work place safe for hard working construction workers. and i guess cops, firemen and teachers are a special interest group, well when you get pulled over i dare you to talk that smack to the special interest cop what has your licence in his hands, at that point your loving the guy or when some one robs you and you need that special interest guy to get your Sh*t back.

i will say your right about the stimulas, so there you go.

Back to unions, i must ask you, would allow a non-unuin non skilled worker, work on your house?

In Michigan, the truth is, no, Obama and the Senate haven't needed a lick of help from the Republicans- Snow, Collins & Specter have fallen all over themselves to make sure the Dems hold their super-majority. Problem seems to be what happens when the Dems aren't all on board. You have a 59-41 majority. You have 3 of the 41 who can't wait to jump to your side, this means 62-38. So I'm thinkin' the problem is more that your side of the aisle isn't all on board than the problem is my side of the aisle actually listening to their constituents who WANT them to vote no on the spending fiasco going on in DC these days. If those in charge showed any actual desire toward a cooperative effort in the senate, maybe republicans would vote yes. Cooperation doesn't mean give my side everything it wants while your side gets nothing but a pat on the head and a "good job" for passing it.

enoughsenough

Had to go and check something your said, Obama was not on vacation before he signed the stimulus, you must have him mixed up with former president Bush. also he did say that the stimulus would keep the UE rate at or below 8% but lets remember our economy was in free fall.

Now lets go back to unions again. i see you did not answer my question, i think its because your a clown like you clown friend No Jo bozo. if a non union worker did work on your house and screwed it up like they are often accused of doing, you would get a union worker in there in a heart beat.

firemen are union workers, i guess you don't need them either, until your house is burning and you can't put it out your self, talk all this sh*t about unions but when it comes down to it you know the qualityty between a union worker and a non skilled non union worker.

I hope the rightwing nutjob lynchmob realize, we have not hit bottom yet from the bushcheney recession. Rethugs pushed this nation to the brink of TOTAL callaspe. Now, as we still suffer directly from rightwing policies, they want to take the reigns again! This my friends is naked INSANITY! We are STILL reeling, feeling, seeing, the destrction of bushcheney. I'm mad at the Dems for not being a strong enough opposition party. They sat back like sissies and watched the criminals ruin our nation.

Jeff,

Unions had there place decades ago, but now are nothing more than a lobbying group hell bent on destroying this country. "Workers of the World Unite." I'm pretty sure that was a Russia slogan a while back. Workers are now protected by government entities, so where does your union dues go? I know, right into democrats pockets who are hell bent on destroying industry. Sounds kind of ironic, biting the hand off that feeds you. Most liberal states and cities are being destroyed by government unions that have promised way more than they are worth and the taxpayers are willing to pay. It's really a vicious circle; unions buy democrats then democrats hire union then taxpayers get screwed. Obamanonics is based on this failed philosophy.

In God We Trust

enoughsenough

Unions had there place decades ago, but now are nothing more than a lobbying group hell bent on destroying this country. "Workers of the World Unite." I'm pretty sure that was a Russia slogan a while back. Workers are now protected by government entities, so where does your union dues go? I know, right into democrats pockets who are hell bent on destroying industry.

Look all i have to do is mention those mine workers that were killed in a mine that was non union. enough said. non union companies don't follow the Osha rules at the work place, this is why those men were killed.

labor unions are still the back bone of america. i will ask you would you trust a non union company to build a 50 story building? i have to explain to dave in flordia that all this backlash against unions is wrong.

Union workers pay for health ins, pension, works comp. the uinions pay for there Osha trainning, mandatory drug testing (non union companies don't screen for drugs) and the apprenticship classes, non union companies don't train there workers all they do is send who ever to a job site. so all this talk about unions is garbage. non union companies charge the same prices for work union companies do, but the union company has to pay the permium wage, while the non union company do not, and while they are not paying scale wages, they get to put the profits right in there pockets. all this union workers get paid too much is bull as well, union plumbers in the chicago markets make 43.00 per hour and 5.oo per hour that goes in to there pension and welfare for other members. it takes 5 years to finish school, while a non union worker does don't go to school.

Now i want you to tell me, who would you trust, a non union company or a union one ?

belive me i have heard story of workers being killed because they lack the trainning union companies and unions provide.

Jeff, my husband works for a non-union HVAC company. He did the heating in one of the union's buildings in town. Why do you suppose that happened? His company provides workers comp insurance for all of their employees and believe me when I tell you, it gets used. Not because of anyone's carelessness, simply because every day they are put in situations where accidents can happen. His company spends a good deal of money every year sending him to continuing education classes for either new equipment or updates on old standards. His company pays at least as good a wage as any union shop in our area. I think the only area we might "lack" in is his 401k and health insurance benefits. Both are provided but we get real world level benefits- meaning our policy is adjusted every year in order for his employer to afford to offer coverage (38% increase in this year's premiums. Pretty sure that has at least SOMETHING to do with Obamacare) and he has to contribute to his 401k before his employer puts anything in. Pretty fair deal if you ask me.

enoughsenough

unions and government never has a problem untill reagan broke the air traffic controlers union back in 1982, all because they wanted desent pay and not have to work 10 hours shifts, they saw that the goernment was going to deregulate the airlines.

Untill this happened union and republican government are happy with each other.

Jeff, you are exactly right, every pres from FDR to Carter believed in collective bargaining and the middle class boomed. Dip @!$%# Ronnie gets in and the middle class begins its down hill slide, how did they do it? It was not to hard, first break the ATC and continue the 10.8 UE and break the trade unions, they came close but did not get the cigar. However it got so bad that the DOD finally said the steel industry was a security issue as well as our ship building and put a stop to the union busting. The dopes of nope are on one agenda, two classes, rich and poor period, thank god for the 2nd amend.

Suzy-2005071

His company pays at least as good a wage as any union shop in our area. I think the only area we might "lack" in is his 401k and health insurance benefits.

Suzy, you just made my point. union construction workers pays for there own health ins as well as there pension. they pay in to a pool and they have the cadalic policy, at no cost to the government, no matter what any body says.

what about safety tranning ?

Drug screening ?

last but not least, if and when your husband gets layed off who helpes him find a new job, does he have to pound the pavement or does his non union union help his get back to work. that the biggie Suzy. the union puts them on the bench and in the order they got layed off, they get called by the union to return to work.

at retiremnent time your husband will collect his SS and the 401k he paid in to, but a union worker has a pension from the local that in many cases is twice as much as a 401k is. but in the long run they earned it. construction is a dangerous job, and to have the union protecting you against a workers comp that a non union will try there best to not pay out, at least he has a union to back him.

accidents, union construction is measured by what called a MOD factor, its accident to numbers of workers. union companies work hard to keep this number down because of the insurance the company has to maintain. a union company ins is about 30%. so every time i bid a job, i have to factor in 30% extra in cost to cover that. this is why your husband ins permuims went up, nothen to do with Obama, it has to do with the companys insurance rating. more accident, more for health, accident ins.

I dont have a problem with unions protecting their workers. what I have a problem with is when I see unions willing to layoff new people rather than renegotiate a temporary contract and take a pay cut, to keep their fellow union workers employed.

I have a problem when auto worker unions would rather their industry bankrupt than for a moment give ground on their retirement funds or compensation. Forcing auto companies to close plants and halt production.

I have issues when fire fighters make $100,000+ a year and only work 10 days a month. I have a problem with state and city UNION workers only paying into their pensions for the first 5 years.

You ask a simple question would I allow a non union worker to work on my house.

The answer is also simple, YES! So long as they hold the appropriate licenses and certifications, after I've checked them out on Better Business Beureau. If they checked out and had no complaints or issues, I would certainly hire them. Union does not equal quality, union equals contract protected results, whatever they may be.

Jeff, I work in the Safety and regulatory industry. And you are citing things specific to my knowledge so I will comment on them.

Safety Training: Due the contract requirements all non union employees must undergo the same training as any union worker. This must be done by the non union workers employer in order to compete with unions. It costs the NU employer more because he doesn't get a break, but it pays off in the end.

The MOD rate you cite is also shared accross the board. The company I work for has an Insurace MOD rate, all this does is tell Workers COMP providers how much they should be charging the employer based on the injury statistics and safety performance.

Drug screening is something else that is mandated through contracts and the OSHA Title 8 General Duty Clause (Employees Right to A Safe Work Enviornment) So nice try, but that doesn't was either.

What no reply?

Eh, doesn't matter I should really be going home anyway.

enoughsenough

Would you mind responding to my post, not attacking my state to try to get a one-up on me?

Suzy 4.14

I'd prefer a bill to pass not by a 62-38 but by a 71-29 with bi-partisan support. I think it'd be better for everybody if we'd be willing to work together to get out of this mess.

In MI-90, I agree, bi-partisan support for bill passage would be wonderful. I'm not quite sure how that's going to happen when one side is continually shut out of the process, though. I almost think a 50-50 split in the house would be the best situation right now. Either both sides block everything and no spending gets done or they are forced to work together and reach reasonable compromises everyone can live with. Either way I think the American people win.

Jeff, I think when you've spent your entire career in a union and I've spent my entire career doing just fine without a union, we're likely to not see eye to eye. It is interesting reading your comments though. You seem to hold a mistrust of management that I don't see in the non-union sector. I sense this often from the pro-union folks. Most arguments are based on the assumption that management is out to get them at every turn. I've worked for large, non-union corporations and a couple of small businesses and I've just never had that experience. I've always trusted that providing a good day's effort will be rewarded with continued employment.

I was raised in a union family. I know how corrupt they are and how entitled they feel. Cement finishers show up and work for two hours and get paid for eight in Illinois. My cement finisher uncle moved to Arizona, hooked up with a construction company there and was shocked when he worked for two hours he only got paid for two hours. Appalled by this arrangement, he quit finishing and is doing something non-union now (where, ironically, if he works 8 hours, he gets paid for 8 hours).

My brother in law operates heavy equipment (earth movers, etc)- which is not a laborer level skill. He couldn't get work as non-union. To get into the union, he had to know someone who (for a little cash) would get him a union card. He was denied introduction because he learned his skills in a non-union shop. So much for brotherhood in general.

My union grandfather was very fortunate to get his very good health insurance for $9 a month. That was great. I was happy for him. Though I never understood how that could be when the rest of us were paying over $400 a month for less benefits.

Another family member (Steelworker's union) got laid off. Because he no longer had the hours, he lost insurance for his family. All the union dues he'd paid the prior 20 or so years didn't help his family during his lay off. His family is now applying to the state for insurance benefits at least for the kids (welfare, basically).

A friend of mine lost his union job, hung out at the union hall, asked the union to help him find work. No job. No insurance. No help from the union. He lost his house and moved out of state with hopes he'll find non-union work somewhere else.

Union dues go to the Democrat party or to those giant inflatable rat balloons they set up around here to protest non union shops. They even have portable shelters so they can sit in the shade while they protest or strike. All that money may have been better spent providing benefits to the union members that paid the dues.

I've not seen any benefit in unions. Not in my experience. Unions were a good idea when working conditions were poor and children were working in factories. Now the unions are politically powerful; they spoil some members and overpay them when they're working, but when it counts, they don't take care of their own.

Now, even the ultimate Democrat, Mayor Daley, has realized and admitted the unions have driven business from Chicago. McCormick place is finally booking conventions again since the Teamsters were finally told to back off on their ridiculous fees.

Union work is not safer, more regulated, nor higher quality. It is simply more expensive, more arrogant, and is not as appealing as it may have been in the past.

The problem was that Bush spent like a democrat. If you actually look at the trends in government revenue and the deficit, revenue increased and the deficit decreased from 2002 until 2006. That is with Katrina, 9-11 and 2 wars. If there was just an inkling of spending cuts and if the Dems would have listened to Bush and McCain regarding F&F, we would probably be on this vine complaining about something else. Of course Hillary would probably be president and Obama would be hanging out with his other thugs in Chicago.

In God We Trust

shhh- dangerfield-you're not supposed to comment on that.

It's supposed to be ignored.

"Recovery Summer"...

Really?

Still chuckling at the audacity...

All spin...no substance.

So cheap oil is a problem?

Perhaps the economists like Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman were right. The stimulus was not big enough and it put too much of an importance on Tax cuts.

As pointed out in other news articles 2/3 of the stimulus funds will have gone out by the end of the summer but there hasn't been a dramatic increase in employment. Take the construction field since everyone uses the words 'shovel ready jobs" - in the construction/architectural field a shovel ready job only does something temporarily. In this field you are only working as long as the next job is being lined up. For example Architects/engineers are not going to benefit from shovel ready jobs as a primary amount of their fees come through the design phases. The government put out the stimulus with some "shovel ready jobs" in it but it was up to the private sector to provide the capital and demand for the 2nd, 3rd job etc.

I think we can all agree that government can't do it alone. The idea was for the stimulus to kick start things and business were supposed to hire with all that money that they were supposed to get from the Banks under TARP. Private firms were supposed to use those tax cuts to invest and hire. What happened was banks took the TARP money and hoarded it. People feeling the squeeze saved and bought less and lessened product demand. Companies trying to make a profit continued to cut jobs and not hire.

By the way if nearly 2/3 of the stimulus amounted to tax cuts why didn't the tax cuts magically produce jobs? Going a step further if nearly 2/3 of the stimulus were tax cuts, according to Mitch McConnell then that portion of money shouldn't be counted as increasing the deficit. McConnell believes that extending the Bush Tax cuts won't add to the deficit because, Paraphasing here he said - Tax cuts don't have to be paid for.

http://www.propublica.org/special/stimulus-plan-taxcut-list

Dangerfield - Haven't seen you posting for a while.

There are those who would say that if only Obama and government left business alone and stopped placing regulations on companies everything would be better.

As Johanna Smith, NO JO and their followers have constantly said the market/business can and will regulate themselves. How did that work out with the shoddy regulation in any number of mining disasters and the oil explosion in the gulf? Did market forces help regulate which companies will succeed or fail. Seems to me that even after BP's lack of regulation killed 15 in Texas city and killed 11 in the Gulf they are still going strong and making profits.

Taking a more recent occurrence, how is that self regulation working in regards to egg producers in the recall of all of that produce?

Wright County Egg Conducts Nationwide Voluntary Recalls of Shell Eggs Because of Possible Health Risk

http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm222501.htm

Voluntary recalls, what a joke? As the righties would say, Well the market will self regulate this problem, after a few dozen consumers die from salmonella then that company will fail and another egg producing company will fill its shoes. Unregulated capitalism - Isn't it perfect.

Yellow,

The regulations were there for the Horizon oil rig explosion, it's just that the regulators were too busy watching porn and rubber stamping all permits. Must be union.

In God We Trust

Yellowdog-Mark D

There are those who would say that if only Obama and government left business alone and stopped placing regulations on companies everything would be better.

As Johanna Smith, NO JO and their followers have constantly said the market/business can and will regulate themselves.

When did I ever say that? A major role of government is to regulate businesses. We may disagree on the amount of regulation, but it is important that businesses represent themselves honestly and comply with the law. If you find where I posted otherwise, please point it out.

How did that work out with the shoddy regulation in any number of mining disasters and the oil explosion in the gulf?

There were regulations in place that required the government to inspect both those mines and those oil rigs. Instead those regulations were not enforced. Why? And your answer is to have more regulations, more regulations that won't be enforced?

Did market forces help regulate which companies will succeed or fail. Seems to me that even after BP's lack of regulation killed 15 in Texas city and killed 11 in the Gulf they are still going strong and making profits.

What your doing YD is trying (feably I might add) to set up a straw man argument. It's not working YD.

Taking a more recent occurrence, how is that self regulation working in regards to egg producers in the recall of all of that produce?

So, just where was the FDA on their inspections of those egg plants? Why didn't they catch the problem?

There are thousands of pages of regulations on every industry in the county, but yet the government seems powerless to enforce them. The government can't manage to keep the food supply safe, keep mines and oil rigs safe, can't keep illegals out of the country, and can't see that banks and insurance companies are following the rules. And they can't do any of that while they spend a $4.5 trillion dollar budget every year. So what exactly can the government do? And do you feel safe YD, knowing your govenment is not only powerless, but is expensive too.

what progress would that be, now, In Michigan? Unemployment? Nope. The only drop in the percentage was due to moving more than a million people into the discouraged worker pool. Economic activity? Nope. That's slowed-and is probably negative as we speak. We call that a 'double dip'. Guess what? It didn't have to happen. It was government meddling in the economy that caused it. That, and policies that scare both businesses and consumers.

The only 'idiot' that should be fired is the one who spends most of his presidency playing golf, hoops, or on vacation, when he is not twisting arms, threatening, or outright bribing members of his own party to pass legislation that no one wants.

Well, they'll all be fired in November on the House side. Guess what? It looks like the Senate is up for grabs, too.

What got us into this mess was all the deregulation of the economy. And what about those Bush Tax cuts? Do you honestly believe for a second that will help our economy? It certainly didn't help when this thing started!

They do not, however, add employees UNTIL THE DEMAND FOR THEIR PRODUCTS DICTATES.

NoJo, you just proved the point that no amount of tax cuts will increase jobs, just demand will. And I like you are concerned about the deficits we leave behind to our children and the continued loan from China. So would you agree that letting the tax cuts expire would be fiscally prudent to reduce our continued deficit?

Still waiting for answer there NoJo. I also thought you would enjoy my cut and paste. You know kinda of like the "cut and paste" the oil industry used on every one of their companies safety plans. I would also like to remind NoJo that the health care plan would of had a 70% approval rate if a public option were made apart of his plan. Not that the majority disapproved of any medical plan.

Obama sure got a lot of money from BP.....in the end I think BP got there monies worth from their investment in the joke that is Obozo the Clown

Art deco, maybe you would like to answer my first question too.

Also , I'd like to add that the Pres. got BP to commit to at least 20b instead of only the 75 million the previous republican administrations were allowing them to be liable for. HMMM! there monies worth?

Only in Michigan would you think this is progress. By the way, how's Rodriquez doing for you?

In God We Trust

Enough, maybe I can get you to answer my first question as well.

Or perhaps you don't think this was a major spendulous program? Just asking.

Nash, you were right in the definition of "argument" on your previous post. I have asked three rep. on this thread questions and I get nothing but constant "hit and run" and run and run and run. Nothing but crickets. You'd feel that if they had something important to offer they would just answer the question instead of throwing Frank Putz's continual talking points. Please feel free to try to persuade me with your arguments. Hell, I must be crazy to think anyone on the right would want to engage in trying to persuade anyone.

Apologize, I meant Frank Lutz's

So, American Joe, when the marginal tax rates return to the Clinton-era levels as of January and my very much middle class household income is taxed to the tune of an additional $2100-ish dollars per year, how exactly do you think demand is going to increase? As far as I can see, $175 a month less in our budget is going to mean less discretionary spending. Luckily we're able to afford discretionary spending at all. There are many who are not and their marginal rates look to increase as well. When you already can't make ends meet, less in your pocket and more in Uncle Sam's sure doesn't seem like a plan to stimulate consumer spending to me.

And seriously, how did anyone ever allow themselves to be convinced that tax cuts COST anyone anything? Isn't this a lot like saying my boss COULD pay me $50000 to work for him but since he's only paying me $40000, it COSTS me $10k a year to work for him? The government should function like any household or business- you look at what you have coming in and you budget for what you have to put out based on that number. Yes, there are reasons a country needs to finance some spending but these should be the exceptions, not the rule like they'be been for the last 10 years and beyond.

Given the numbers you gave me Suzy, if you are in the say 35% tax bracket. That additional taxation would only amount to $61.25 per month, not the full $175/$2100.00. And your numbers also means that you probably are'nt making over $250,000 a year. Also your are saying that $61.25mo. you are receiving that it is worth borrowing 3.2t dollars from China that only 2% of Americans will see the true benefit of. Thus with interest on that debt would only add to your kids and grand kids liability. Is that really worth it? Especially when most economist agree that the only way to increase employment is through demand. Those tax cuts enacted, by law, meant they were only allowed to be extended if they did't add to the deficit. Bush chose the max of 10 years if through budget reconcilliation. Which also meant they would have to expire if they were going to add to deficit which it clearly doing. I would only be receiving $400 so I'm saying they can keep mine as well since I don't make over $250,000 because it is'nt worth the increased liability of this nation. Plus, my government would be less likely feel inclined to sell our ports or any other American holding to China. Thanks for responding and I do so enjoy the debate.

Apologize Suzy if that wasnt persuading you to see thing differently. Maybe I can explain it better this way. If business were more inclined to increase your wages in line with inflation of other products that continue to burden us instead of trying to burden this nation with efforts to increase tax cuts that continue to spiral our debt out of control and have to be repaid with even more debt because of the interest on that debt just so you can afford to spend more, would'nt that make more sense?. Wages have remained flat for some 20 years or so while CEO"s and upper management has nearly risen 800%. Would'nt have been more prudent for business to extend some of the wealth to very persons that help them acheive that wealth instead of once again burdening this nation with more debt then it can possibly try to keep up with?

Also, would'nt just hiring a few more with that wealth instead of shipping jobs overseas help with improving the demand for products? Hello, Suzy, are you out there?

I think your math might be off. Based on the marginal tax rates for my income bracket this year to next year, assuming $100,000 which is vaguely close.

I'm taxed at 10% on the first $17000 we bring in or $1700 , that would increase to 15% or $2550

I'm taxed at 15% on the next $40700 we bring in or $6105. This rate should remain the same

I'm taxed at 25% on the remaining $42300 or $10575. This rate would increase to 28% or $11844.

So currently we pay $18380. If the tax cuts expire we pay $20499. Difference of $2119.00 or $176.58 per month. No kids so luckily the 50% reduction in the Child Tax Credit doesn't take a bite out of me but that's a $1500-$2000 swing for a few of my friends. So again I ask, how does that stimulate spending?

I am by no means advocating tax credits for corporations but the marginal tax rates have a very real impact on individual tax payers and on small business owners who file as s-Corps and therefore have to claim corporate profits as personal income. The firm I work for falls into this category. The challenge is the "profit" they claim as income is money they never see in their pockets- they are paying taxes on, essentially, imaginary income. Again, more money out of the pockets of the people who have the ability to create demand doesn't seem to me like a good way to get them to spend.

Oh, Suzy. Glen Beck must be off the wagon today. Are you trying to convince us that tax cuts cost the government nothing? Wow. The sad thing is, I was almost buying your story in the first paragraph and then you discredited the whole thing. Nice try. Were you kicking and screaming when your middle-class taxes were reduced last year? I doubt you even offered a thank you.

American Joe...I know I'm not the only one here that appreciates that you called the fools on their crap. They really do get boring, don't they. They offer up all of these little talking points but have yet to respond to your very good points. In fact...has any one of them even given us one good reason to think the Boehner gives a crap about anything other than his bad tanning cream and wet bar? No.

I stand corrected, thanks for your post, however, Im no accountant, but i find your explanation of S corps quite suspect, since our gov't is taxing them on imaginary income. I'll check your response with my accountant if there is any validity to your claim for S corps. But, please explain why these tax cuts have'nt worked then in stimulating this economy when the previous tax rates had worked just fine? And is'nt receiving tax cuts on borrowed money mean more taxes down the road or higher rates on borrowed money small businesses borrow to expand to service that debt that allowed your company and you those additional funds?

Again, enoughsenough

Respond to what I have to say, not what State I live in. Or do you not have an arguement against what I have to say, that isn't a rehash of Beck and Rush? Or any arguement at all?

Shocked, I expect you'll chose not to believe me which is no skin off my nose but I can honestly say I've never listened to Beck. Won't say I haven't tuned in to Limbaugh from time to time but lately, I go from the local morning show to my iPod and thats about it. Nice try though. And I stand by my statement. Tax cuts are a reduction in income, not an expense. If my household income is reduced because of a pay cut, I have to adjust my spending accordingly. Why shouldn't we hold our government to the same expectation?

American, I do the books for the firm. My experience is this- certain business "expenses" are considered assets according to the government, in my example it's accounts receivable. In my firm, we lay out anywhere between $400-500k per year in costs that are considered accounts receivable because we anticipate receiving them back. The payback date can be anywhere 1-4 or more years later. In a perfect world we would recover the same amount as we pay out each year but this almost never happens. So lets say we spend $500k but only recover $400k, this means we came out of pocket $100k in cash but because it's an asset, not an expense, this doesn't reflect on our P&L. At the end of the year we use any available cash to bring our profit to as close to zero as possible because any profit shown by the business is passed on to the partners on their K1 forms. In this case, we've got $100k on the P&L as profit with no cash to spend it down because the cash was tied up in the costs we paid. So each of my partners has to show $25000 in income and pay taxes on it even though the profit is on paper only. Uncle Sam expects actual cash to cover the tax liability even though no actual cash was received by the partners.

As for why tax cuts haven't appeared to stimulate the economy, well, my short answers are spending continued to increase at an obscene rate under Bush and an an even more obscene rate under Obama (I blame Congress more than the president, by the way) and there have been many many MANY other forces at work in the economy to cause spending effectively to grind to a halt. I realize tax cuts are not the only answer to economic recovery but I am pretty sure that tax increases, even in the form of a return to previous rates, are not going to improve the situation.

Amos. Did you fall down and bump your little head? What country have you been living in for the past year and a half? Most of us, in the real world, that is, grew impatient with the President for trying to include Republicans when everyone knew they would vote down everything they could - even bills they wrote or co-sponsored THEMSELVES - to make conrgress and the President look bad.

Please tell me. What, exactly, qualifies Boehner to be Speaker of the House?

Art Deco - does it fulfill you life to be a Rush wannabe? Hannity used to call name-callers such as yourself traitors when Bush was in power. And God forbid anyone should criticize a "sitting President during a time of war." What is different now, Deco? By definition written by all of the Fox pundits, you have made youself out to be a traitor to your country. Why do you hate America, Deco?

That would be the problem with the tea-baggers spouting off here. They expect the country to abide by the rules that they are incapable of following themselves...and that would be the problem with the current leadership of the Republican party. If that is all that can be offered by the right-wing, then you have proven that this leadership will flush this country down the toilet like they did the last time they were in power. Get rid of Boehner/Cantor and McConnel/Kyl, come up with concrete ideas that make sense (like...um...the revolutionary idea of including NUMBERS in your budget proposal!!) and maybe, just maybe the rational, moderate majority that loves this country will listen to you.

Screach your nonsense without ANY facts to back it up? Well, you'll just be sent to bed without any supper.

WalkInMyShoes

thanks for beginning a someting new on first read, lets call out these clowns like No Jo Bozo for doing there best to completely HOW WE GOT HERE IN THER FIRST PLACE!!!

also my quote about unemployment should have been 5% back in 06 not 8%

truth,

I pretty much agree that if Republicans, McCain, had taken control of our country we would not have done much better than Obama has done. He's a progressive just like Obama, but not a Marxist. What this country needs are conservatives, libertarians and constitutionalists running this country. Take us far away from the nanny state we are now in.

In God We Trust

Prove that Obama is a Marxist, "enough". I want actual quotes from the writings of Karl Marx compared with the actions of the elected President of the United States of America. Quotes, enough, give us quotes...and THEN make your arguement.

Nanny state? What "nanny" state? Are you whining about unemployment INSURANCE that we all pay in to? Are you whining about the welfare system? Well...why don't you come up with some actual IDEAS on how to fix them? I pity your existence if you feel that our elected REPRESENTATIVE government is your "nanny" (most of the folks I know who did have a nanny most certainly did not have a vote in the matter).

Teabagger whining. No substance....and Boehner is your Leader.

Oh, yeah. The "In God we Trust" thing? Do you, really? You call our President a Marxist and know it to not be true. Isn't "bearing false witness" considered a relatively bad thing by your God? How do you justify trusting in your God and at the same time write untrue and undocumented propaganda?

Maybe you should go ask your nanny about that one. His name is Daddy Boehner.

Here's a good place to start for what it will take to turn this country around. It isn't a 5 minute read, so pop a beer and learn:

http://www.heritage.org/research/projects/solutions-for-america

In God We Trust

Ok enoughsenough, I printed out the introduction of that report and read it. Where are the outside sources and facts? The author, Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D.President The Heritage Foundation only quotes inside sources. How is someone who actually has heard alarming comments concerning The Heritage Foundation, going to believe a word of this report. Which Americas were poled? Who did the poling? And I'm supposed to just take him at his word? You would require a lot of facts and ability to check them if someone asked you to read a report from a Democratic source. Anyways, I will print the rest out and read it. I will highlight, check facts and compare them with other sources. I will take notes.

PS: You are a little rude with "and learn:" That doesn't make others want to read a suggestion from you. But I will finish this report. Hope everyone is around!

Redsky: Blaming Bush again? When will Obama take responsibility for the fact that he has driven the nation into a financial abyss of no return if the Dems stay in power. And since the Republicans are so exceedingly unpopular, as you claim, and with no plans for the nation, why is it that the Democrats are just about to lose the House and maybe even the Senate? Beats me! People are not stupid, you know, and that's why the Republicans will win in November and beyond. Sorry to bring you the good news! Boehner is sighting in on Pelosi's gavel and it's coming his way.

DanoSanDiego: I guess you are a true, died-in-the wool socialist. Steal from the rich, through excessive taxation or outright confiscation, and give to the "deserving" proletariat, a.k.a. freeloaders. All Obamamites seem to like that formula.