Independent Redneck Va.

The first Monday in October has become the traditional day for the third branch of our Government to go back to work. The Framers of the Constitution sat out three equal branches of Government to serve as a balance one to the other. While the Executive was given the task of nominating and the Legislative was given the task of approving the nominees neither was inherently given the control of the Judicial branch.

Great post, keep telling it like it T-I-S, this! the republicans keep referring to constitutionally; yet the Tea/GOP would hate our actual founders.

Who is responsible for the lagging job market? The republicans keep claiming on the campaign trail that President Obama’s policies are the “Job Killers”. In my opinion, where job creation is concerned, it is the Republicans that are the guilty party.

For example, this week the Congress has left Washington for their pre-election recess (actually they are technical still in session). But, not before the Senate Republicans blocked an extension to the Jobs Bill.

This extension was even supported by such staunch republicans as Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi and Kevin Haslett of the American Enterprise Institute (Haslett was the economic advisor to G.W. Bush’s campaigns and John McCain’s) as reported by Ruth Marcus – Washington Post Writers Group.

This extension is part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) – Stimulus Bill. The same Bill that CBO, NYT, Washington Post, most economists (democrats and republicans) etc, acknowledge that it has worked and the republicans are still calling it a failure. With that mind set of course they are going to vote no. To do otherwise would expose them as the hypocrites they are and acknowledge that the Bill in fact has been a successful one.

Remember the Republican/Tea Party has threatened to filibuster, repeal or gut Current Bills, if that did not work they would hold up funding. Well, at least they are true to their word, as repugnant as it may be.

Examples of other Bills that the Republicans have opposed:

A New Small Health Care Tax Credit to lower Health Costs

A new Tax Credit for Hiring Unemployed Workers

Bonus Depreciation Tax Incentives to Support New Investment and Growth

75% Exclusion of Small Business Capital Gains

Expansion of Limits on Small Business Expensing

A Five Year (5) Carryback of Net Operating Losses

A Reduction of the Built In Gains Holding Period for Small Business from 10 Years to 7 Years

A Temporary Small Business Estimated Tax Payment Relief to allow Small Business to keep much needed capital on hand

A Small Business Tax Cut Bill that provide 12 Billion in Tax Cuts and 30 Billion in much needed new capital (just passed)

The above bills have all passed to date but not because of Republican Support, rather in spite of their obstructionism.

This week the Republican/Tea Party also blocked the American Jobs Bill that would stopped the loop holes and special tax breaks to Big Businesses from shipping jobs overseas. It would Pay Americans first for Jobs.

The Republican/Tea Party blocked the National Defense Budget leaving our solders basically fending for themselves. And the Republican Party has the nerve to call themselves patriotic and in support of our troops. I call them repugnant.

Sen. McConnell is still threatens to filibuster the Infrastructure Bill that creates 35,000 new good paying construction jobs for every 1 Billion invested.

The agenda is pretty well spelled out for the Republican/Tea Party as to their plan for creating jobs and tax cuts for Small Businesses. No New Jobs for Americans and No Tax Cuts for Small Businesses. I believe it is their (the Republican/Tea Party’s) hatred of President Obama that is driving this agenda of stopping virtual every Bill he proposes, deliberately trying to make sure we have gridlock (that is what WALL STREET AND BIG BUSINESS wants) and then in 2010 & 2012 claim that President Obama has failed as the 44^th President. What about their “Pledge to America” that they just released. In that pledge two of their cornerstones are “Creating Jobs” and “Tax Cuts for Small Business”. As the record shows, their deeds do not match this rhetoric at all. In fact what they are doing is guaranteeing just the opposite. This is their game of Hypocrisy that they are playing and using American Lives as their chips.

He!!, these people do not even listen to their own constituents. One of the most important concerns was the stopping of farming jobs overseas. Not only is it not addressed in their Pledge, but they just voted against it. That is why it was not in the Pledge. It is called CYA.

Other things the Republican/Tea Party did not listen too?

70% of the people favored repealing DADT and another 75% favored the Dream Act – Republicans vote No

60-65 % of the people wanted more regulations on Wall Street and Big Business – Republicans vote not only No but want to freeze any new regulations and weaken others.

The unemployed want jobs, the Republicans tell them they can’t have them unless they want to move overseas.

President Obama’s policies are not the “Job Killers” that the Republican/Tea Party claim. In my opinion it is the Republican/Tea Party that is responsible for the ‘Mass Annihilation” of jobs in this country.

I will not vote for a Party that tells me they are for creating jobs, they tell me they want to reduce the deficit and give Tax Cuts and much needed capital to Small Businesses and then turn around and vote no on they very Bills that are designed to do just that. This is Hypocrisy and in some cases just an outright lie.

Well said, I.R. The Kings and Queens in the Senate must be held accountable for their actions. No one person should have the right to stop Government simply because they can. It is time citizens demand the Senate change its rules. If a senator wants to put a hold on a nominee or piece of legislation, they should be required to prepare written justification for the hold within five work days; that justification must be distributed to every senator and the hold comes to the floor for a majority up/down vote within 10 work days.

Beverly in Chicago " the Tea/GOP would hate our actual founders."

Actually, I think our actual founders would be shocked and dismayed by the way their Constitution has been 'interpreted' and twisted.

Our Founding Fathers were considered 'Classical Liberals', which actually means that they believed in a very limited central government and as much freedom to the individual as possible. In fact the original term 'liberal' (from liberty) was coined as a description of people who strongly objected to a strong central government. The term 'Liberal' has now been twisted to mean someone that believes in a STRONG, controlling central government.

Go figure.

PS - Look up 'classical liberal'.

The Senate does not answer to the people, it's purpose is to ignore the peoples wishes and enrich the big business entities it is beholden to, an "in your face" example of what greed driven corrupt government looks like, and the system is designed to perpetuate itself, and there is not one damned thing you and I can do about it. The only legal power people have to change the Senate is our vote and that will not get the job done, make another selection.

In reality there was a tension between those who wished for a strictly limited government such as Thomas Jefferson and those who wished for a strong central government such as Alexander Hamilton from the very beginning of the current republic. Our very system of government came about because the Articles of Confederation were so extraordinarily weak that nothing resembling a workable government was possible. In spite of his taste for limited government Jefferson, once President wasn't at all shy in exercising powers not explicitly given to him in the Constitution, such as the Louisiana Purchase. That's just one illustration of a way in which our nation has been adaptable, changeable in the face of a changing world. That adaptability is the key to our longevity as a great nation, one which can find a way to come together and find solutions for most any common need.

Let's be realistic about who gets sent to Washington.

97% of the time, our members in Congress vote with the leaders of their Party - Why, because if they don't 'go along', they get no committee appointments or support funds when the next election comes. Anybody that claims they are 'independent' of the leaders is just using 'smoke and mirrors'. In the final analysis, they will vote with their leaders on all important issues - just look at HCR and the 'stimulus' if you doubt that this is true.

A vote for a Democrat is a vote for the policies of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

A vote for a Republican is a vote for the policies of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell.

John B, Des Moines, IA

That's just one illustration of a way in which our nation has been adaptable, changeable in the face of a changing world. That adaptability is the key to our longevity as a great nation, one which can find a way to come together and find solutions for most any common need.

That you too for telling it like it T-I-S; is! Republicans have not evolved. Their nonsense will precede them in the midterms.

John B, Des Moines, IA

The wording of the Constitution supports my interpretation of the original intent of the Founding Fathers.

By the way, I think they would have been especially dismayed by the modern interpretation of the 'Commerce Clause', which would have negated the impact of the original "Tea Party" event.

PS - I'm NOT a modern 'Tea Party' member or supporter.

Roy brings up a good point. When we elect members of a particular party, we ostensibly support the policies of that party's leadership. I am loathe to suggest outlawing political parties because the very idea of limiting political expression is anathema to American values, yet at the same time the vagaries worked and leveled by such parties were explicitly warned against by Washington in his farewell address.

Something must be done to curb the repulsive behavior of our elected, so-called 'leadership.' It is equally reprehensible that we allow these people to campaign on promises of doing right by us and right by our system just to see them pull the wool over our eyes time and again.

Case in point: certain issues (education, gay rights, Social Security, etc.) have become 'safe problems,' in the sense that the arguments and stances on these topics are well-known and well-used to the point that they've become a simple way of allowing each party to differentiate itself from the other in an election year. Resolution on any one of those topics is extremely unlikely merely because it's safe to trot them out, dust them off and re-hash the same talking points over and over to drum up support in the party base.

Since we can't ban parties, what else is there to do but cut Congressional pay to the point that only the people who REALLY want to engage in civil service would take the job in tandem with imposing mandatory term limits?

ED -

Would that not lead to only the wealthy running for office? I am absoultely in favor of making the wages reasonable, but not so low that we only get Rockefeller types running.

That's a really good question. I guess I was looking at it from the position of other low-paying but well-meaning professions - I've typically only encountered people who became teachers, for example, because they felt they could do some good. Pay was never an issue.

My gut reaction is to place spending caps on campaign finances and legislate the period when a candidate can campaign - although I don't see much of a problem with anyone of any class (wealthy or otherwise) running, at least that'd level the playing field to prevent anyone from austere origins being drowned in a sea of dollars.

Thoughts? Suggestions?

As much as I don't like the idea maybe we need to go to a completely government financed campaign system. Couple that with term limits of say 5 terms for reps and 2 for senators and maybe that would be helpful.

We truly have dug ourselves a huge hole here. It is the voters fault and only the voters can fix it.

I'll give you four terms for Representatives. Fair compromise?

I think that instead of term limits, we should limit the incumbent's ability to campaign to what he/she has done in office, their votes and bills that they have authored/co-authored along with MANDATORY debates. Let them run on their records, not their rhetoric.

Honest =

That is a nice idea, but they continuously lie about their records and their accomplishments and the American voter has been too lazy to check on them. Term limits wouls actually allow reps and senators to vote according to their conscience instead of continually running for re election.

ED -

4 it is!

"Running on their records" would for the most part eliminate anyone who had not held public office before. They should run on their ideas of creating a better America, plus any accomplishments, or time in office, and then they get a two-term shot to make it happen. The problem is that some of these candidates have been around so long, that's all they do, is "run" for office. They court the money baggers, they court the lobbyists, just so they can keep on running.

I don't want to see any of the T-baggers so far that I have seen. They are not leadership material, but wouldn't you like to see new blood, new ideas, new forward thinking that actually responds to the 21st century and its demands? Where is the innovation, where is the care of our own country, where are the jobs (after all, we're expected to consume so why have they shipped all our jobs overseas - not very long-range thinking there, was there except for those "global" persons, meaning the very rich, who really have no home, the world being their home, so they don't give a darn).

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Those old "don't ask, don't tell" Liberal retiree panties getting a little tight there, Gomer ? You give the US Navy a bad name .

All good points Beverly, factual, accurate. The problem is that is not what the general public hears or sees from the news media, should be but it isn't, instead the public is fed a diet of unspecific sound bites with both sides claiming they are the best thing to come along since sliced bread, and that's from the more unbiased news sources, the biased cable news sources, one in particular that has been accused of being a Republican entity will never under any circumstances mention such facts, my point is nowadays the media spends much more of it's time and effort hiding "facts" than it does disclosing them, actually the media is more interested in tabloid type "gotcha" sound bites of whatever, facts don't make money, and in our greed driven society facts seem unimportant.

w bush

The problem is that is not what the general public hears or sees from the news media, should be but it isn't, instead the public is fed a diet of unspecific sound bites with both sides claiming they are the best thing to come along since sliced bread, and that's from the more unbiased news sources, the biased cable news sources, one in particular that has been accused of being a Republican entity will never under any circumstances mention such facts, my point is nowadays the media spends much more of it's time and effort hiding "facts" than it does disclosing them, actually the media is more interested in tabloid type "gotcha" sound bites of whatever, facts don't make money, and in our greed driven society facts seem unimportant.

True dat; w bush

Who is the bigger idiot? Those that spew tabloid type "gotcha" sound bites or them who believe?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3432/3994037490_f22e7a478a_o.jpg

Total nonsense, but you do have your slimy Lib buddies on board to tell you how smart you are....life is good.....

I can read your inbecilic posts only by reminding myself how crushed you will be at 7 AM on Nov 3rd....

Great post, Jody. You are right about the Tea Party---not only are they noisy and motivated but they seem to be well-funded and supported by a segment of the media---a dangerous combination that gives them more visibility and a larger platform for their agenda than they might otherwise have. It makes it imperative that the rest of us speak up and do what we can to counteract them---especially at the ballot box.

I don't know if the trend to polarization can be reversed but I think you are right that it won't happen until "we the people" demand that our legislators put our interests first.

Jody:

Taxes. Flip flopper Senator Mitch McConnell three weeks ago stood in the Senate and accused democrats of playing politics because the democrats were discussing voting on the Bush tax cut extension BEFORE the election. Senator McConnell said there was no reason to do so, it could wait until after Nov 2. Now Senator McConnell is accusing democrats of playing politics because they are NOT voting on the tax cuts before the election. Will the real Senator McConnell please stand up.

After the Democrats chickened out and decided to hold the vote after the election, John Boehner attacked them for playing politics, echoing McConnell's attack. I wrote that if the Democrats held the vote before the election, the Boehner would have still attacked them for playing politics. I don't know about Boehner, but what you wrote about McConnell's flip flop demonstrates once again that playing politics -- dirty politics -- is the only thing the Republicans know how to do. If the Democrats are going to be attacked no matter what they do, they should just do the right thing. In the case of the tax cuts, it was voting on it before the election. Too bad they foolishly worried more about the mean things Republicans would say about them.

The extreme political division in the electorate is the worst thing that's happened to the country, hands-down. We can blame the pundits and talk radio and propaganda networks all we want, but at the end of the day I really feel that it's our collective fault for allowing ourselves to be horn-swoogled by mass media and louder voices.

We've gotten to a point where identifying as a Republican, Democrat or what-have-you is a point of pride and an integral element of our identity, rather than merely being reflective of our ideas at that moment. That's another thing, really - our ideas have become our beliefs; rather than remain adaptable and open to the reality of the facts-as-they-are, we sit and remain staunch in the notion that we're right no matter what and everyone else be damned.

On occassion I think the Internet exacerbates the problem. With the anonymity of text and online aliases as we sit safe and secure at a terminal or laptop somewhere out in the great wild yonder, we are protected from the social repercussions associated with making fools of ourselves. Civility breaks down entirely and it becomes much, much easier to ramble off like a bunch of blowhards without respect for the ideas and thoughts of others. Petulance is become its own reward, in a way.

I wonder if our 'leaders' are more reflective of us or we of them these days.

EXO:

On occassion I think the Internet exacerbates the problem. With the anonymity of text and online aliases as we sit safe and secure at a terminal or laptop somewhere out in the great wild yonder, we are protected from the social repercussions associated with making fools of ourselves.

Yes. I don't think I've ever heard anyone talk about blowing bubbles with their spit, except on the Internet.

Ohhhh Houston. The funny thing is I'd say that in person and you'd have the benefit of a visual aid to boot. :)

I make very convincing spit bubbles, let me assure you.

I don't think there is any question about the internet exacerbating the problems. I am sure there are people on both the left and right on these pages who are lovely people on a personal level. They also have no problem at all in slandering, maligning and issulting others that disagree with them politically. If they were face to face they might be more rational, but this is a safe and easy venue.

Conservatives are masters of Projections, accusing the other side of doing exactly what they're doing. So filibustering bills that Republicans could support or putting holds on nominees they could accept are somehow not "playing politics", but trying to fill judicial vacancies or pass small business tax credits is.

EXO:

I make very convincing spit bubbles, let me assure you.

I wish I had a special talent, too. But probably not that one.

I can teach you. It'll be a very zen experience.

But can you do it while riding a bicycle?

Tut, tut! I ride a unicycle. Get it right~

Skateboard for me. Even in my dotage I find it exhilirating to coast down a hill into traffic.

I'm possessed of a deep desire to amuse and confound the local citizenry.

Truly. Maybe that is why I left Los Angeles. You can't amuse or confound anybody there.

The Tea Party is, however, the extreme right of the republican party that has been around for decades; and they polarize the republican party. They demand rigid conformance by GOP legislators or else. So much for ending gridlock and actually getting something done in Washington DC.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Perhaps you can explain what is so "extreme" about wanting smaller government and lower taxes ?? And I hope you continue to believe that's it's only 5% of Americans...you will see on the morning of Nov 3rd how ignorant that statement is....there could be compromise in Washington if we didn't have a president who is a Marxist and continues to surround himself with other Marxists...the American people have caught on...

Thanks. I believe the republicans would do away with everything except the Dept of Defense if given the chance.

The headline in the Portland Press Herald today was " Anti-government views unite Maine tea partiers"

To my way of thinking, if you live in a democracy, and you are "anti-government," that's one step away from treason. The government in the USA is Of the People, For the People and By the People. You'd think, for all their talk of defending the constituiton, the Tea Partiers would know that.

Full disclosure: my brother identifies with that Party. He's always been a Libertarian. I respect his views, but I don't think his party would do a good job of governing the state. They do have a lot of fun, though:

http://www.pressherald.com/news/anti-government-views-unite-maine-tea-partiers_2010-10-04.html

TRR Barboursville, WV

Great post IR, Beverly and Jody!!!

Plus the Republicans would like to do away with Dept. of Education.

Thanks TRR, if it meant regaining the WhiteHouse the "FreeDumb" Works.com Tea/GOP Party would eliminate the entire US government.

When facism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.

Sinclair Lewis quote

Is it just me or does it seem odd behavior bordering on psychotic that the TeaParty/GOP candidates run on everything anti-government yet they are willing to sell their souls to join the ultimate "government" entity known as the Congress of the United States.

If it is so bad then why on earth do you want to join? Do you really think as a freshman Representative or a junior Senator that you can just walk in and "change" anything? Not going to happen. No not never.

Just asking???

Sheila, this lot wants to be part of the very establishment they rail against. You're absolutely correct in your observation, but akin to every reform-minded candidate who's actions did not live up to the flowery speech their tongues professed, any of the Tea Party-backed candidates is simply riding the current wave of anger to build up their base and push themselves into a position of power and prestige.

The oppressed will always become the oppressor, in other words.

Pat, Boston, MA

O'Keefe mentor Andrew Breitbart has (finally) stepped up to the plate and said that O'Keefe "owes his supporters an explanation."

I wonder how long it will Breibart's renunciation take to morph into a teapublican TEAPOT "ISN’T" HISSING SHIZZLE...ssssssss?

Rightwing James O'Keefe (Acorn's fake pimp) is just a darling to the right wing. He'll just make another video attempt. Oh, that’s right; he can't he get fired again (supposedly), I think, for a "botched" attempt to "punk” another person or organization just to ruin another reputation of the left.

BTW: that attempted CNN investigation of trying to sexually seduce journalist Abbie Boudreau put the "crept" in another compromising situation. That is a violation of MD law. Haaahahaa.

Well said, Pat. Benjamin Franklin's quote pretty much sums it up.

Anybody wondering how O'Keefe can afford that spiffy-looking boat that he was going to use for his dumb stunt? Either there's big money to be made selling bogus videos to gullible right wingers, or he's got a rich daddy who can afford to buy expensive toys for his spoiled brat kid.

Houston!

Anybody wondering how O'Keefe can afford that spiffy-looking boat that he was going to use for his dumb stunt? Either there's big money to be made selling bogus videos to gullible right wingers, or he's got a rich daddy who can afford to buy expensive toys for his spoiled brat kid.

I'll bet the b(rat) gets a lot of help from the crime family, Koch brothers, Coal miner owner, Dan Blankenship; who btw murdered innocent coal mine workers, and of course FOX News.

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/hash/f3/f0/f3f0707f5a8b3371067747add521e8e3_0.jpg

"Trickery and treachery are the practices of fools that have not the wits enough to be honest. Benjamin Franklin"

Unfortunately with an uninformed populace those practices continue to yield outstanding results.

Pat, Boston, MA:

I watched the CNN Report yesterday (also, too :o).

It was riveting TV!

O'Keefe is going to get hurt if he keeps this up and the blood will be on the hands of his mentors (Breitbart, Rove, Armey, Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc.). This young man does not have a clue about how juvenile and frat boy yet poisonous his actions are.

It's clear that the ends justify the means with this bunch. The follow up question is the most important one in my mind. If there's no ethical barrier to what you'll do in order to gain power, will their be an ethical barrier once you're elected?

Da Noid

Speaking of debates, wrestling mogul Linda McMahon and state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal square off tonight in their first Senate debate.

Is a "chair-shot" legal in this debate?

Not sure, but illegal steroids just may come up in the debate! hahha

Help, help, please help me, I'm so confused.

Isn't Jerry Brown the current Attorney General of California? If indeed he is the one who caught the adorably innocent Meg Whitman engaging in illegal activity, isn't he doing his job? If so, shouldn't the well-informed Meg Whitman be commending the Attorney General for his stellar work in rooting out illegal aliens, wherever they may be lurking?

Is occasional voter Meg Whitman telling us that a successful government official is one who does NOT do his job?

Anyone who is planning to vote for the best friend a campaign consultant ever had - Meg Whitman - please help me out.

Nice try NJNB... but no cigar!

Rahm has voted via absentee ballot while in DC and it's been determined that there are NO residency issues...

Please post your proof otherwise... I sure wish I knew as much about EVERYTHING as you do!

It's not even noon on Monday yet... and you're already spinning your tales... lol

Politico:

President Obama’s job approval rating inched up from 44 percent to 45 percent in September, according to the Gallup poll.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/1010/slight_rise_e8fcab1b-8a05-47ce-9fff-09e0336d988f.html

Gallup:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/143354/Obama-Approval-Averages-September.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Politics

Seems you tried this same storyline Friday NJNB and and Feisty Redhead answered you then, too. The answer is still true and the wishful thinking storyline is not.

Contrary to what the right wants to believe, President Obama's poll numbers are higher than Clinton's this time in 1994 and Bush's in 2006; they are also higher than Reagan's were.

BTW... NJNB where did you come up with the 5 year lease nonsense?

The rental of his house is a ONE year lease and the current tenants signed a NEW one just days before Mayor Daley announced he would not be running!

It is true that the new tenants refused to leave and Rahm has since rented an apartment on the North Side...

Why don't you worry about the 'bully' Governor of your's and quit worrying about things of which you know NOTHING!

Dennis/Jody - I saw those poll numbers over the weekend and they are very encouraging!

Dennis, do you actually read articles, or do you just scan the headlines?

Obama's ratings with every group BUT African Americans and self-described liberal Democrats has declined. The decline is most noticed among young voters and Hispanic voters, but steepest with elderly voters.

Moreover, Gallup is the last major polling firm to poll likely, versus registered, voters, That starts this week. It won't be pretty, if you are an Obama supporter.

Feisty

Nice try NJNB... but no cigar!

How about a shout out for being the # 1 FR Pole Dance Champion?

------------------------------------------------------

no joe, no bo, nj

On another topic-I see that Gallup has Obama at his lowest monthly rating to date. Seems that his campaigning is not having the desired effect. Perhaps it is reminding people of how easily they were sucked in by Obama's empty rhetoric. . .

Dance about this No No Jo; President Barack Obama wins 55 percent favorability and 38 percent rate him unfavorably.

http://www.wickedlocal.com/easton/news/x995830908/Poll-shows-plurality-trust-Governor-on-economy-majority-pick-Patrick-to-win

LOL Bev!

This morning she could be crowned Queen of 'Twister' as well!

Fasten your seat belts... as these races tighten we'll all be subjected to more of the school yard taunts by the righties...

Can't tell you how happy the new Chicago Tribune poll made me... now that Alexi's in the lead over Kirk!

I'm waiting for the ad's linking Kirk to the Chinese in the coming weeks... should be the final nail in that jerks coffin!

no joe, no bo, nj

Lets forget all the in between talk, if Rahm is able to run for mayor of Chicago, it still will not change the price of tea in china, it will not create jobs, its a smoke screen that No Jo, you falling in to and as much as we agree to disagree, I'm very disappointed in the facts you are side stepping a major question. i asked you as well as JoannaSmith1 2 weeks ago and i have not had a answer, neither has the American people had a answer for this simple question. before i ask for the second time, i will throw it out again,

Given the challenges before us, when president Obama took office. the economy was completely tanked. there was no economic activity, banks were on the brink of collapse, we were loosing jobs at a crazy rate, and not one Private sector of our economy was hiring.

What was the republicans plan to get us out of this near depression we had ?

Bohner, cantor, Paul, McConnel, all have said there dislike for the stimulus. they would have done it different, but how different, how much better would they have done, i guess we will never know i belive they don't know, i believe they are not telling us because we may or may not like it, i honestly believe they just don't know. its much easier to talk crap, then let people know that their just as lost in this as they say the president is. they don't have ideas because they don't have a clue.

Republican governers were suing the government over the HRC, blasting the stimulus, but at the same time collecting there share for there state. if they were really stood behind there words and rhetoric they woulds have not taken any stimulus money, but they did, because i guess they have to answer to there voters, but at the same time trashing everything that Washington tried to do.

Not one has given one idea of what they would have done, including you No Jo. i asked you if Obama should have done what Hoover Did after Depression hit, but you DID NOT answer, i asked you if it would have been ok to do nothing like he did, and i got NO ANSWER, Just like the republican leadership including sarah palin, glenn Beck, Rush, cantor and Bohnor, Americans have not gotten a straight answer from any of them. all i have heard is give the rich tax breaks, and cut spending, but that crap takes years to see results if any.

Americans wanted a quick fix, and a quick fix was to have the government put money in to the economy to try and reverse the trends of job losses and bank failures.

all you people talk about are the MISTAKES President Obama made, but not one dam time has any body including you No Jo given one got D*M Idea. all you do is Bit*h and complain. so i will ask one more time, and i want a answer to show you are true to your words and rhetoric. please don't give Fox news talking points, or republicans talking points, this answer is from you Mrs. President.

what would President No Jo have done when she took office jan 09. and No Jo i don't want to here about what former president Bush did wrong, that should not be apart of your answer, i don't want to here presidents Obama named mentioned,

this question is for president No Jo of jersey.

Feisty

Can't tell you how happy the new Chicago Tribune poll made me... now that Alexi's in the lead over Kirk!

I'm waiting for the ad's linking Kirk to the Chinese in the coming weeks... should be the final nail in that jerks coffin!

Yes ma'ma; I can't wait either! But wait until that coo coo pole watcher, Sarah Palin, comes to rescue him. That's when the "LIAR" will come out the closet and put another nail in his coffin.

I told you long ago about that "FreeDumb" Works bus; they just don't get it. Chicago is not into nut jobs and liars like Kirk and Brady. Btw: Brady numbers are going down too.

Hey, whazz up? No commie accusations today from the usual suspects. Guess they know better by know.

Jeff, I've said it before, and will say it again: nothing would have been better than anything.

Reagan had a similar crash to deal with in1987, for similar reasons. It was junk bonds that caused thAt crash, and threat Ed the banking system. The housing market also crashed after thAt debacle.

Yes, there were new regulations enacted after a time spent in deliberation and investigation. There were prosecutions, as well, since existing laws were broken.

By the time all of this was done, the economy had recovered on it's own. Had GM and Chrysler been allowed to go through a structured bankruptcy, existing contracts that pay people not to work would have been negated, but the pension funds that were the preferred bondholders would have been protected. The companies would have been stronger-not reduced to playing the old shell game to pretend that they are paying back the taxpayer funds that represe t sixty per cent ownership of those companies. For those who don't believe that they could do it on their own, I recommend you pay attention to Ford-which wanted to get bailed out, until they had a look at the strings attached to the money.

I have posted on this before, Jeff. By the way, you are one of the few I do respond to, because you are one of the few who actually cares about the response.

Didn't we establish last week (or the week before) that relying on polls to draw tenable conclusions is inherently flawed and faulty?

Anyhow, I have to agree with Joe about the auto bailouts. If Ford was able to restructure itself and survive without relying on a government bail-out, what exactly was preventing GM and Chrysler from doing the same? If the latter two companies would've been able to avoid the mess dealing with pay-outs to the unions (which, IMHO, is the thing that's killed so much of American industry) while preventing pension funds from being touched, what's the big deal? Does anyone have a figure on actual jobs that would've been lost at GM and Chrysler had they filed for bankruptcy?

No Jo so i guess you answer my question, Hoover did nothing, and you would have followed what he did right. you said that nothing was better than anything, No Jo is you know i grew up in my grandma house and we got first hand story's about how the inaction of the government lead to 25% unemployment, lead to tent city's, soup kitchens, bread lines. People living on the streets, crime was rampant, cops were on the take.

OK in todays times your policy Mrs. President

By the time all of this was done, the economy had recovered on it's own

i must ask how if there would be no banks, no manufacturing, no housing, no government spending how would the economy recovered. your way things would have been so much worse before it got better, in the mean time what do you tell a father trying to feed his kids.

Would have lead to 30% unemployment based upon the fact there are twice as many people in the US than in 1929. if like you said nothing is better than any thing.

With no banks at all, chase and citi would have goan under, where is the lending going to come from No Jo with out the major banks. these big business man would have no way of getting capital for investment that your say will bring out economy back.

the market would have collapsed, everybody 401 k plans would have been goan. enough said

the world markets would have reacted, Europe, japan, china, England's economy's would have collapsed. see president No Jo its would have not just been us that went down the toilet, the rest of the industrial world would have went with us. but as you say doing Nothing is Better than anything.

So in the end, i hate to say this and please don't take this the wrong way but i don't think you have a clue of what you would have done. that OK, because the republicans leadership is in the same boat as you, and the president, but atleast he tired something over Nothing is better than any thing.

you have never seen such a mess since the great depression and you nothing is better than any thing is the same things Hoover did, Nothing.

Sorry No Jo its because of the depression story's i heard is why government can help, see some help is better, your policy of nothing is better than anything.

If you were president and installed your policy of nothing is better than any thing, girl your approval rating would be where Hoovers were when he left office for ovious reasons. Americans what something No Jo. they would have impeached you for inaction!!!!!

Exodite Dragon, I do NOT agree with No Jo about the bailouts (nor anything else for tha matter because she obfuscates). The mere fact that Ford was there with GM and Chrysler asking for Government handouts gives me pause. Yes, it seems that Ford was able to restructure and become profitable again. So WHY was Ford there initially to get a Government handout?

It is pretty obvious that GM and Chrysler were in a DEFINITELY worse position financially that they agreed with the term of the Government bailout even though it was not as advantageous to them as they would have liked.

So why was Ford there initally to get a Government handout?

The bottom line is this - Ford was ALWAYS in a better financial position that GM or Chrysler, or else Foed would have gone along with the deal for the Government handout. Ford figured that the handout would have strengthened its bottom line, but was not willing to pay the price that GM and Chrysler did.

So why was Ford there initally to get a Government Handout?

Ford didn't really NEED the money; it was a HEDGE to get FREE MONEY from the Government. I am glad that President Obama saw through that and set the terms as he did.

GM and Chrysler are a lot stronger companies now because the rot - at the top - was removed. Ford is stronger because it went an alternate route.

The takeaway - I guess that even if you don't NEED the money, it doesn't hurt to ask for money from the Government.

You just might get it.

Ford is in a better position now primarily because 2 years before the crash they were in a worse position and realized it. They moved aggressively to contain costs, restructure, and do a lot of things that weren't possible for GM and Chrysler once the storm hit. Heck, GM management was so incompetent they didn't realize how bad it was even as they were going to the government with hat in hand. That's why they had to be fired.

Fair enough, on all fronts.

John B,

GM management was so incompetent they didn't realize how bad it was even as they were going to the government with hat in hand...as they arrived in their own personal jets to boot!!

I agree with you Amy. I haven't been thrilled with the performance of Tim Kaine but Gibbs isn't the person who I'd see taking over either. Not sure who would be a good candidate for the job but it seems to me it should be someone who could be a more visible and effective spokesperson in the media.

What I find odd is this whole storyline which the media started pushing Friday; it is based on most likely a lot of conjecture and maybe leaks about conversations that are just conversations.

Steeler Fan,

What is sad is that kagen is sitting out over half the Cases that will be Brought before this Session of the Court. what a waste of Tax payer money to not have a Full Supreme court hearing all Cases.

Steve---this kind of transitional issue is something the Court is used to dealing with and won't end up costing the taxpayers anything.

Its a total waste of Tax Payer Dollars. We have a Supreme court Justice that is Getting paid for a Job she is not doing, she is having to Recuse herself from almost 50 percent of the Cases because of her Ties to the Administration, Is she going to give back half her pay? the answer is No..

Yes Steve, ethics requirements cause Justice Kagan to recuse herself from a significant number of cases this year. Next year that number will drop to near zero because she won't have participated in those cases as an attorney. Perhaps you'd rather she just adjudicate cases that she had participated in as an attorney?

I guess that's probably what a Conservative would do.

John what is unethical is this woman taking money for a job she isn't doing. if she was infact Ethical she would give Half the money back Until such time as she can hear all the Cases.

Steve, as usual you're trying to create a controversy out of nothing. This isn't just common, it's required by ethical rules.

We understand that the Conservative strategy is to create a steady stream of these phony controversies, we just aren't going to sit silently and watch it happen any more. Deal with it.

JOhn. this is the usual Liberal junk. Pay someone for only doing part of their job... I would be outraged if it was a Conservative. but the only time you democrats are ever outraged at anything is when soemone does'nt agree with you.

Why should someone get Paid full Salary for only Doing HALF their Job. in your mind thats right but most Fair minded people its not..

Steve, as usual, you are full of BS. As John said you are making or trying to make a controversy of a simple ethical procedure that has been done before. For obvious reasons she cannot adjudicate any case that she worked on as Solicitor General, surely that is not hard for you to understand?

I bet if she were to sit in on any of those cases your right wing buddies would scream bloody blue murder. Stop being such a hypocrite, it is tiresome reading the nonsense you write.

Good post, Pat. And thanks to your Red Sox for beating the Yankees and costing them the division---small comfort to you for sure but something!

I've been thinking for a while that part of the Democrats' problem has been that they have spent the past two years rolling up their sleeves and working while the Republicans have spent the last two years on TV, spinning their agenda and leaving the hard work to the Democrats. I don't think the Dems have countered the message effectively and have allowed the vacuum to be filled by the Republican spin. Are the Dems too nice? Too hard-working? Would be interested in your thoughts.

Wow

Think Progress:

Tennessee County’s Subscription-Based Firefighters Watch As Family Home Burns Down

As ThinkProgress has noted, there are currently two competing visions of governance in the United States. One, the conservative vision, believes in the on-your-own society, and informs a policy agenda that primarily serves the well off and privileged sectors of the country. The other vision, the progressive one, believes in an American Dream that works for all people, regardless of their racial, religious, or economic background.

The conservative vision was on full display last week in Obion County, Tennessee. In this rural section of Tennessee, Gene Cranick’s home caught on fire. As the Cranicks fled their home, their neighbors alerted the county’s firefighters, who soon arrived at the scene. Yet when the firefighters arrived, they refused to put out the fire, saying that the family failed to pay the annual subscription fee to the fire department. Because the county’s fire services for rural residences is based on household subscription fees, the firefighters, fully equipped to help the Cranicks, stood by and watched as the home burned to the ground -

A local newspaper further pressed Mayor Crocker about the city’s policy, which has been in place since 1990. Crocker, a Republican who was elected in 2008 and serves with a county commission where every seat is also filled by a Republican, likened the policy to buying auto insurance. The paper said he told them that, after all, “if an auto owner allowed their vehicle insurance to lapse, they would not expect an insurance company to pay for an unprotected vehicle after it was wrecked.”

Ironically, in the county commission’s latest report on its fire services, which outlines which parts of the municipal area will receive fire services only through subscriptions, the commissioners and fire service officials brag that the county is “very progressive.”

http://thinkprogress.org/

"And thanks to your Red Sox for beating the Yankees and costing them the division---small comfort to you for sure but something!"

Lol. There is a sports bar across the street from my home and the way they were cheering and celebrating in there, you would have thought WE were in the playoffs.

It is hard to believe that such a thing could happen; it is crazy to have such a system for fire, police, etc. This kind of incident should make the national news not just a topic on cable or the internet.

One might also say that two competing visions of government come from the following two positions:

1) There but for the grace of God go I !

or

2) That will never happen to me!

People in the second category may come from the early Puritan streak in our country -- the belief that if one is good and does the right things, one will be rewarded and shielded from any harm, and the corollary is that if something bad happens to someone they must "deserve" it somehow, through their own fault or lack of planning. People in the first category are more reminiscent of the Biblical story of Job -- bad things happen to good people, and as a society, one should not demonize them, but rather be ready to help. I am not sure how one reconciles these two positions.

The family whose home burned down was seen by the fire department as "deserving" what they got because they didn't plan (pay the subscription), and seen by others as an instance of good people having something bad happen to them, something that could happen to anyone.

Subscription arson investigators have narrowed the cause of the blaze to a burning cross, Koran or Beatle records.

Thanks for the story, Pat. Absolutely mind-boggling that this subscription-based model would be used ANYWHERE in the United States, though I'm not surprised Republican Conservatives would try. Just one more example of the Conservative model for government of the people, by the rich, for the rich.

The Tea Partiers I know would never stand by and watch a neighbor's house burn down. In fact, in rural Maine, where the Tea Party is strong, folks are always helping each other out. Money is tight, and a strong community is a true security net.

There should be a study done on how political ideology serves as compensation for one's actual lifestyle. Tea Partiers are as reliant on ayone on the structures of government - public roads, the healthcare system, public education, fire and police services, etc. but they espouse an ideology of independence and rugged individualism. Meanwhile, the actual business entrepenuers, the go it alone folks, I know, are all stalwart Democrats. Go figure.

Wow Pat . . . thanks for posting this . . . I had not heard about it . . . sometimes a little common sense goes a long way.

*sigh*

Why are Democrats so Dirty,, Why is it everytime they get together they leave Trash all over the place, They claim to be the party of Clean Earth but are always the ones that leave Trash behind for someone else to clean up.. Perhaps this is what Defines the Democrat party as a whole, They Expect other people to clean up after their Messes..

Not all trash is visible on the ground. http://wysinger.homestead.com/Beck-Obama-Racist.jpg

John B,

we understand your position. you support this kind of person

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APZ3-Lcbwmc

No I don't. But thanks for pretending you know what I think, and you've done a nice job of incorporating the Conservative technique of spreading fear of scary brown people.

No John . That was you. All i did was State FACT about how the Democrats Liberals and Communist left Garbage all over the Capital, then you Posted A comic of Glenn Beck on the Foot of the Lincoln Memorial Saying that Obama Was a Racist. That never happened but we understand you Liberals will lie About everything. and claim that is what happened you See the Difference is . Glenn Beck Claimed he was Wrong when he went on TV and said he was wrong for his statement about Obama.. ..

Democrats are the ones that left the Capital Full of Garbage.. but we understand that doesn't Outrage you.. As a matter of fact my Guess is you were one of the people there that left Garbage all over the grounds

And just so you know .. YOU RACIST.. I AM A BROWN PERSON

If it never happened why did Glenn say he was wrong?

Anyone who's curious can just judge for themselves. http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0709/Foxs_Beck_Obama_is_a_racist.html In fact there's no sense in judging whether Beck is a racist based on one incident. He has ample history to make that judgment. http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/08/beck-slavery-slavery-everywhere

Is there some reason why I should care if you're a brown person?

It is hard to admit when you are wrong but I think a sign of character to be able to do it gracefully. Sadly, our politics doesn't value that kind of honesty. I had that thought when I saw that the President apologized to the people of Guatemala for the US using their citizens for experiments decades ago---I wondered how long it will be until someone on the right adds that to the litany of ways that President Obama has supposedly weakened us by being an "apologist." No one stood up and said---that was the right thing to do.

And why couldn't Meg Whitman simply have said--- "I made a mistake but will do everything I can to rectify it and will use what I've learned from this situation to do a better job in the future." It seems to me it might have disarmed Jerry Brown and would have been more effective than calling him a politician.

Great point about the horrific situation in Guatemala Steel Fan . . . that entire situation really boggles the mind . . . perhaps one day humans will stop believing that only folks who look and believe like they do deserve to be treated with respect.

Jerry Brown made an excellent point--Whitman has blamed him, his surrogates, his campaign staff, the attorney, but not once has Whitman taken responsibility for the fact that she employed this maid for nine years until doing so became inconvenient because she decided to run for election. Whitman has even blamed her husband--it was his writing on the form. What? Two intelligent people do not talk to each other about such matters?

Nash, you've touched on a very pertinent topic. Like you, I haven't the slightest idea when acknowledging and apologizing for mistakes made became taboo. I have infinitely more respect and appreciation for any man or woman living that can admit to wrong-doing and genuinely demonstrate a tangible desire to make amends.

I do not agree with the President on a bevy of issues, but I respect him far, far more than most any other politico out there primarily because he is guided by his own set of principles and because he can apologize. Where Meg Whitman is concerned, she's done little but show herself to be another mass-production model of the same type as the Sanfords, Rangels, Jackson Lees and Blagojevichs of the world.

It is too much to ask for honesty in the leadership and we all suffer for it.

I have to admit that's pretty damning of the people who made the argument; I don't see how anyone with a grain of common sense could legitimately blame the President for the drop in the stock market when the economy was still in the throes of a recession that'd largely gone on for three years by that point.

Can we blame the President and his economic advisors for short-changing us on their promises about how ARRA would affect the recovery? Sure, two years hence, I think that's fair. But pegging Obama for the steep decline a mere 60 days in? That's lunacy, hands down.

EXO:

But pegging Obama for the steep decline a mere 60 days in? That's lunacy, hands down.

And this article wasn't just some exception. As the web page links the author included, just about all the right wing pundits were piling on.

As for the recovery act, the stimulus should have been larger. Christine Romer, who was the economist who made the 8% maximum unemployment estimate that the Republicans distorted into a "promise," had recommended a larger stimulus bill. But if Obama had taken an all-or-nothing approach, he would have gotten nothing. There would have been no stimulus at all (and therefore an much slower recovery) if the Democrats hadn't made it small enough to get the handful of Republican votes in the Senate needed to avoid a filibuster.

Strange, I heard tell the actual figure from another poster last week (or was it the week before...?) was actually 8.8% - that the 8% itself was always a myth, given that the stimulus wasn't enacted until after unemployment had already reached 8.1%. Nuance, nuance...

I am wary of the Republican blockade of any financial legislation on their oft-stated claim that it's irresponsible and overreaching; what of the Republicans' desire to remain obstinate in the hope of securing the White House come 2012? Of course, that's not to say the Democrats are doing what they're doing because their intentions are noble. All their actions have been geared towards making the Republicans look like fools, but we're all caught in the middle of it.

Morning, Frank. You certainly have an interesting FL senatorial race. If he wins, I'm not sure Crist would caucus with democrats, just do not see that happening but I do think he will not march lock step with the GOP, he will not stand with republicans on filibustering everything. I think Crist might be the voice republicans like Snowe, Collins, Luger, and others need to stop playing the blockade game.

As for Grayson, he is a progressive and passionate about health care, the middle class, etc. but he can be abrasive.

Jody...

Yeah...I agree that it's good to see someone being passionate. No question about it. But I get annoyed with over the top comparisons. Comparisons of opposing politicians to Hitler, Mao, Stalin, the Taliban, etc, are patently ridiculous.

OUCH is right Grimey!

Dontcha know it’s not nice to kick a girl when she’s down? ;0)))

The only ONE in more PAIN than Cutler last night was ME watching that debacle!

That one hurt!

Good to see you – we are so missing your voice of reason!

Sorry Feisty...didn't mean to hit you while you were down. Seriously, I started getting sore ribs and a headache watching that. Maybe Cutler didn't buy his offensive line a Christmas gift last year. OUCH!!

Still plenty of football to be played, and if nothing else, you beat the Packers!!

Grimey--good to see you posting. Do you remember the show "Wide World of Sports"--they used the line "thrill of victory, agony of defeat". Well, that was the Steelers v. Ravens yesterday for me---I didn't expect them to win before the game....then it seemed like they would.....then they lost it in the last 2 minutes. Sigh.......a good rivalry, though.

I don't know if Crist will pull it out in Florida and I don't know a lot about him but he strikes me as a common sense kind of guy who would at least try to vote his convictions. He clearly isn't afraid to challenge his own party, which I think is a good trait for any politician.

Frank "Grimey" Grimes, Springfield, USA

Yeah...I agree that it's good to see someone being passionate. No question about it. But I get annoyed with over the top comparisons. Comparisons of opposing politicians to Hitler, Mao, Stalin, the Taliban, etc, are patently ridiculous.

I agree. That's why I was really disappointed in Congressman Grayson's campaign commercial that took a comment by his opponent, Republican Dan Webster out of context. The ad repeats over and over Webster ominously saying "submit to me," as an indication that "Taliban" Dan Webster would be an oppressor of women if elected. But Webster had just been joking that his wife said she'd rather hear him read Bible passages other than the ones that say "submit to me". Webster may well believe that women must submit to their husbands, but it was dishonest of Grayson to take a quote out of context.

I kind of liked Grayson's fire-breathing rhetoric, which seemed a refreshing change from the usual mealy-mouthed Democratic hemming and hawing, but he really crossed the line with that one. Taking audio quotes out of context is one of the things that infuriates me the most about Fox News, and it's no less wrong when a Democrat does it.

Good post and good question. Society right now seems to have been hijacked by the extremes while most of us are center left or right. If we do not start listening to each other and start compromising again, we will likely regress.

Pietro--it occurred to me when I read the article that the Fire Department could have put out the fire and billed the insurance company---surely it would rather pay their fee or even their costs for the "services" rendered than pay to repair/rebuild/replace the house that was burned down. Not only do these kinds of plans not make sense, they seem mean-spirited in how they deny services to people. Surely not a goal of government.

I would also add that if someone spends over $100 million of their OWN money for the Governorship, that would make me want to know WHY she wants it so badly.

So why DOES Meg want this Governorship so badly?

Inquiring minds want to know.

I got as far as the 200 number and knew it was pointless reading anymore of your post. If you lie about the obvious, you will lie about anything.

Glad you had a good time CU Farley. It's all about dialogue, isn't it? We talk, we argue, we come up with a better solution together than we would separately. That's why a free society is a successful society. It's the American Way.

Don't feed the troll, kids.

The Beckathon wasn't a political rally. It was a gathering for all sorts of people to come together in common support of the nation. Beck said so.

Or he's a liar.

This is why the November election os so important. You have eloquently posed the question that all AMERICANS will need to answer. Do we want to go FORWARD and FIX America or go BACKWARD and do NOTHING?

We have seen this picture before. The Hoover Administration is the model of our politics where we did NOTHING to help Americans. What was the result? Starvation. Famine. Joblessness. Hoovervilles.

Is this REALLY what we want for AMERICANS in America?

Vote November 2nd.