E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
President Obama today defended his administration's economic policies and said Republicans did not have a clear plan that would spur growth and help the middle class.
He made the remarks in an interview with Philadelphia-based Michael Smerconish, a radio host who endorsed him in the 2008 election. Smerconish described himself to MSNBC host Chris Jansing -- ahead of the airing of the interview on the cable channel -- as a registered independent who was not "here to carry the president's water," but not to denigrate him either.
Acknowledging that the economy still has a long way to go, the president argued that his party had a better plan for reducing unemployment and getting the nation's fiscal house in order than the opposition. "The key question for folks who are looking forward is: What is the agenda to bring about growth and expand our middle class over the next two years? And the fact of the matter is it's very hard to figure out from the Republicans what exactly that agenda would be."
The president also accused Republicans of proposing to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy in part by cutting education spending, a step he said would be bad for the nation's long-term economic health and competitiveness. "Nobody thinks, by the way, that Republicans actually have a very good track record when it comes to dealing with debt and deficits," he said. "The last time we had a balanced budget and surpluses was under a Democratic president, and they ran up the tab so that I inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit."
Obama said he expects the opposition to "take more responsibility" for governing should Republicans win additional seats in Congress. Most analysts expect Republicans to win enough seats to take control of the House of Representatives, but for Democrats to hold on to the Senate.
Today's chat with Smerconish was the latest in a blitz of radio and television interviews, as the president seeks to rev up his Democratic base and reach voters who might be on the fence.
Obama's interview with Univision's popular Spanish-language radio show Piolin por la Manana aired on Monday; he spoke with Rev. Al Sharpton on his radio show on Tuesday; and later today, he will tape an interview with Jon Stewart for "The Daily Show."
While the other radio interviews targeted voting groups that helped him win the presidency -- Hispanics, blacks, and young people -- Obama's discussion today with Smerconish seemed aimed at convincing swing voters, independents, and disaffected Democrats to continue to support members of Congress who will help Obama carry out his agenda, which will include "responsible" spending cuts.
"Part of what we have to recognize is, that over the last two years, we've had a brutal recession and a critical crisis that had to be addressed, and that did increase the deficit," he said, adding that help for states saved the jobs of hundreds of thousands of teachers, firefighters, and police officers.
When pressed on why America doesn't follow Britain's lead in making deep budget cuts to reduce the deficit, the president noted that the Brits had first instituted a stimulus package, while going on to say that everyone agreed it would be necessary to get control of the deficit. Obama said his proposal to freeze non-defense discretionary spending would lower the country's debt as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product to the lowest level in 50 years.
"What people are absolutely right about is that we've gotta make sure that moving forward we're doing so in a responsible way," he continued. "And the best way for us to do it is to do it with a scalpel -- not a machete -- and to make sure that the cuts we're making are not eliminating those things to help us grow."
Leave a Comment:
But they[republicans] have a plan to shut down the government and outsource jobs. After all, Mitch McConnell said so essentially.
They are pessimistic doom and gloom read the right wingers fear President Obama is destroying America who post here.
Mitch 'the turtle' McConnell couldn't find a clue with both hands & a flashlight!
Slash education spending to give the the wealthiest Americans a tax break!
VOTERS!!! I hope you're paying attention as to how IMPORTANT it is that we don't allow the party of pale male & stale to regain control!
Let's Remember, this same October month two years ago, the bailouts were passed after a near crash of our entire financial and economic system:
http://seattlepi.com/national/381680_bailout04.html
THE TEABAGGERS IN ANGER OVER THE BAILOUT PROMPTLY RETURNED BOEHNER BACK TO POWER IN TWO YEARS IN REWARD FOR THE VOTE AND FOR THE ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSAL OF IT.
Beverly,
OK. No doom and gloom. Positive stuff.
Obama did a great job today!
Our C i C (Commander in Condescension) didn't tell Americans they were hard-wired to be stupid because they're scared today. He hasn't reinterated hard-pressed citizens clinging to their guns and religion, on and on. Good job.
Our bipartisan, centrist, no red states/blue states, change Washington, work together President didn't tell the Repubs they could come along on the ride, they just have to sit in the back today. He didn't mention punishing his "enemies". Real Martha Stewart good things.
He didn't deny any responsibility by mockingly stating he wasn't king.
Good job Obama.
I love how he keeps repeating how we need to pay for tax cuts. In this upside-down world that probably makes sense. I suspect all those who agree with this sentiment are not taxpayers and find this logic wholly reasonable. It's the makers versus the takers this year. Hopefully, the makers succeed and bring sound economics to the policy arena.
the party of pale male and stale
no no no. That's "Pall Mall and stall."
Pall Mall - that's the brand of cigarettes we smoke
Stall - that's what's going to happen to Obama's agenda.
Not quite it, but you were close.
OK Norm, I'm listening. What would you like the government to stop doing in order to pay down the deficit while reducing taxes?
He needs to keep doing the one rational, realistic, and honest thing:
KEEP remiding people Bush DID have a hand in it, and it will not go away over night, just some want it to!
Yep,
When the country hates your centerpiece legislation, when your finref fails to address the institutions that precipitated the collapse, when unemployment doesn't budge from 9.6% after a year and a trillion, .........
Yep, the one rational, realistic thing for a politician out of his depth to do is blame the guy from a few years ago.
Of course the Repubs want to cut education spending.....gotta' keep the top 2% happy...but what about the kids and education....nevermind!
Repubs only care about the "unborn", not the "born"!
Can't have too many educated folks around that might figure out what they stand for.
Let the rich keep on getting richer on the backs of the middle class!
Chilled: Couldn't say it better myself. Have a good day.
You too Ron.
We spend more on education in this country than ever before. Yet the level of education goes down. Education in this country is not a problem because of the money.
The tax benefits to the rich pale in comparison to the tax cuts to the middle class by a factor of ~4. If you're really concerned about tax cuts we should look at where most of the money is actually going. BTW, I fall into the group that makes well under $250K per year.
Good one, Chilled, and so true.
If you libs worried half as much about your own life as you do that "2%" you're always screaming about, your lives would be much more productive.
It's unfair to give tax cuts to 98% of the citizens and exclude the other 2% just because you're jealous they have more than you.
"Wahhh! That person has more than me! I want what they have even though I didn't work for it and did nothing to deserve it."
Grow up. The temper tantrums are getting old.
Why is that unfair, slimsignet? Nearly all the new wealth created within the last 30 years has gone to that segment of the population, so it isn't like they can't afford it. Even the Wall Street Journal says so. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116849172911973577.html All the tax cut plans for the last 30 years have been heavily biased toward the already wealthy. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_07/024743.php
Isn't it time the average citizen gets a fair shake?
Obama said he expects the opposition to "take more responsibility" for governing should Republicans win additional seats in Congress.
See, the president has found a way to make the republicans more responsible...Probably not the way he imagined...and here's my rant du jour...
Watching the Obama administration and the MSNBC-type sycophants help turn a democratic landslide and mandate in 2008 into a debacle in two lousy years fills me with horror and disgust. Listening to idiots who held super-majority in both houses and the executive branch blame the minority for their bad luck when they actually PASSED the major legislation they WANTED instead of focusing solely on "the greatest economic crisis since the GREAT DEPRESSION" make me angry at my own party.
This administration has done more to resurrect the republican party in TWO SHORT YEARS than Sarah Palin, the Koch Bros. and the tea party combined...
But don't overlook that unlike the US, the Brits (and a conservative government at that) had the b_lls to cut defense spending - substantially. Unfortunately, in the US that is also a third rail.
If Obama is true to his word (I fear not) then he needs to veto anything that comes out of the lame duck that is more than an extension of just the middle class tax cuts. He should at least wait until the Deficit Commission Report and hopefully use it as a club.
As an aside, I saw that a recent Esquire article selected Russ Feingold as one of the top 10 legislators. And there were Repubs on the list too. Who does Wisc think is going to vote against the next imprudent war if not Feingold? Who is going to vote against TARP if it just benefits the banks, if not Feingold? And who is going to author campaign finance reforms like McCain-Feingold, if not Feingold? It's not going to be McCain (he's forgotten he ever did this). Wisconsin has to wake up to realize that Feingold represents much more than just the state of Wisconsin, and stands for much more than just "go along, to get along."
dangerfield
See, the president has found a way to make the republicans more responsible...Probably not the way he imagined...
Looking at it doesn't make the problem go away.
He wasn't comfortable with inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit, so he had go out and get another one on his own.
All of this damn complaining.
He asked for the job, now suck it up.
He thought he was going to walk into the U.S. government and everyone was going to roll over.
Obama is only going to get what certain powers that be in this country will let him.
Another what? $1.3 trillion? The deficit this year is back down to $1.3 trillion. I see a lot of anger and looseness in postings, sometimes it appears folk make stuff up to justify misdirecting it to the available target.
Of course the deficit rose in 2009 to $1.5 trillion but then that was off reduced revenues from lost jobs and lost corporate revenues (less tax in for government), a $700billion bailout passed by th eprevious admin(http://seattlepi.com/national/381680_bailout04.html), and the 2009 budget which was also passed by the previous admin (you do know that budgets when passed take effect the next fiscal year, right?)
If history is not enough of a lesson, Democratic admins do actually ALWAYS reduce the rate of growth of the deficit (or actually reduce it) than Republican ones.
http://i55.tinypic.com/e84ll1.png
ITM the complaints are coming from the right fringe...
But it only translates into NO, NO, Socialist, Marxist, blah, blah, "show us your papers", blah, NO, NO, NO, "spreading the wealth"...."take back our country", blah, whine, NO, NO, NO,..and finally NO!
Real complaints from the low-informed!
The training wheels never came off for Obama. He never grew into the job. He's still the same local-yokel Liberal Chicago pol that got to where he is by reading nice speeches that someone else wrote for him.
The Republicans haven't earned the huge wins they'll receive next Tuesday. How could they, they are the super-minority party. The only thing they could do is look at the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda, see it would be a complete failure, and vote against it. Guess what? They were right!
The Democrats said they had all the answers, they trashed Bush, and put the good looking guy, Obama, in front of the cameras and had him read the pretty speeches. That was good enough to get them elected, but they never transitioned to doing any thing useful, to any actual work that helped the country. So now Obama and his merry Dems are out there again today, asking for 2 more years, 2 more years of failure, 2 more years of high unemployment, 2 more years of record deficit spending.
America declines your offer Dems.
Real complaints from the low-informed!
------------------------------------------------------------------
How did so many get so stupid in short a time? They were all so well-informed 2 years ago...
Oh, brother, the right has fallen over the edge. The President discusses why he did what he did, the economic mess he inheritied, and the impact the GOP had on creating the massive debt (which they yell about constantly now) and then claim President Obama is the one complaining. He isn't complaining, he's stating facts but if you insist that he is complaining, here's a thought--he has a right to because just look at what Bush/Cheney and the GOP did to this country; look at the disaster Bush left: a recession that began in Dec 2007; collapsing financial system; losing 700,000 jobs a month; high unemployment; two unfunded and unfinished wars; Iran and North Korea emboldened by Bush and that's just a few. Bush inherited a budget surplus, he inherited a country that was moving toward reducing the massive debt left by Reagan and Bush 41 and BUSH BLEW IT TO PIECES to provide tax cuts to enhance the lives of the rich. Not once did Bush ask the American people to sacrifice to pay for his wars but he asked our troops and their families to sacrifice, some with their lives. Bush's regret--he didn't privatize social security. I can think of a lot of things he should regret but that isn't one of them. The hypocrisy of the right wing posters here and the GOP legislators is beyond belief--blame the democrats for what the GOP did.
Bush inherited a budget surplus,
HEEHAW! The utter ignorance of the libs never ceases to amaze.
There was no "surplus" there fruity. That was a CBO projection made IF no budgetary changes were made,
which is kind of hard to do when the country has just been attacked (remember that thing called "9/11"?) and the financial markets have collapsed due to it.
There was no "surplus" that actually existed. Are you lying or just uninformed?
JoAnnaSmith1
The training wheels never came off for Obama. He never grew into the job. He's still the same local-yokel Liberal Chicago pol that got to where he is by reading nice speeches that someone else wrote for him.
Good God, then, JAS- can you imagine what shape things would be in if Palin and that one old dodderer got the job??
Scarry, huh?
So drive-by-observer, your platform is "it might have been worse."
Is that it?
That's not a very energizing slogan for the left. lol
So, Slim- your platform is 'Being worse is more better'?
It seems to be quite the energizing slogan for your side!
Sphincter, er, Richter needs remedial help in the budget and deficit area.
Yes, Richter, Obama had his own 1.3 trillion deficit this year. I think you said it yourself.
All together now: $1.3 trillion one year. Then $1.3 trillion the next year. $2.6 trillion in two years added to the national debt.
Obama is no better than Bush.
And Jody: The surplus from the last year of the Clinton adminstration went to pay down the national debt. A good thing, but not a revenue item in the next Bush budget. You're really smarter than that aren't you Jody? You're smarter than Sphincter aren't you?
Any your alternative? Do nothing? You want it both ways - Obama should have balanced the budget during the Recession, but now because the economy is still weak, we dare not raise taxes. So what programs do you propose to cut, because the argument that if taxes are reduced to zero, money will fall from the sky and the streets paved in gold has been pretty much shown to be a myth.
No William, I would have been happy if he had REDUCED the deficit. But there was no attempt, none whatsoever. And yes, Bush did a horrible job with the record revenues this country's citizens provided him, with help from both Democrat and Republican congresses. But if you're interested, you'll find it wasn't just the wars that caused it, or the prescription drug program.
And you're really full of crap with your hyperbole about reducing taxes to zero, because you can't find a single Republican or conservative of any substance that would subscribe to that.
So--almost every economist said enact a large stimulus, which the President proposed. Congress wouldn't pass it. So now it is his fault that the economy isn't in better shape? And what if he had said--no, can't add to the deficit and then we would have had a depression.
The fact of the matter is that he has done the best he can in the midst of a global economic meltdown and it will take more time for things to get better.
it will take more time for things to get better.
And they will begin to on November 3rd. lol
Why do people have so much contempt for the so called "rich"?
If you think it is so easy to be wealthy then go ahead and get "rich" yourself.....Not so easy is it?
People act like a bunch of spoiled step sisters tearing at Cinderella's dress out of envy...its dispicable. Obama feeds that with every interview he does. Its tearing us apart.
It is not contempt for the rich, it is expecting the rich to pay a fair and equitable share of taxes. The rich pay less taxes than middle America, they make more of their money on capital gains which is 15% tax rate. The least that can be asked is they pay capital gains at the same rate as their income--it is income. Even Ronald Reagan believed the capital gains rate should be close to or equal a person's federal income tax rate. That isn't contempt, that's simply middle income Americans demanding that WE not subsidize their tax cuts which is what we've been doing since Bush 43 signed his tax cut legislation.
I don't have contempt for people who are rich. I just want them to pay their fair share in taxes. They gain the most from society, so they should bear the greatest burden. And you also have to make sure that all the wealth does not accumulate at the top since that is not compatible with the kind of society we want to have. A great Republican president instituted estate taxes for a very good reason.
How have we gotten to the point where the wealthy pay a smaller percentage in taxes than the middle class? Why are capital gains taxed at a lower rate than regular earnings? The answer seems to be that Congress is bought and paid for.
You just can't pay attention, can you? It's not about envy or thinking being rich is evil. ITs' HOW they got that way that is the concern. You know- If I can take away YOUR job and give it to Chen Yan, and pocket the savings, how would YOU feel about my newfound $$? Pretty peachy, huh, Concerned??
Concerned806-
Yes, it is exceedingly difficult for average Americans to 'get rich'. Some do, most don't. Most Americans stay in the economic class they were born into- and that includes the rich. Do you think George Bush worked hard for his Money? No, he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. The rich are the ones who can afford to send their children to elite prep schools, which in turn practically solidifies their 'right' to get into an ivy league school like Harvard or Yale. Which in turn solidifies their 'right' to a high paying job on Wall Steet, or some other monied position of power. It is exceedingly difficult to break into this cycle if you're not part of the club. It takes lots of hard work, dedication and loans to make your way in. If you're born with money though, its practically a birth right. So don't sit there and tell me that everyone with a heaps of wealth in this country 'worked really hard' to get it, because its a crock. The top 1% of people in this country control approx. 40-50% of the entire wealth in the US. That is more than the bottom 95% combined. In March 2006 Forbes reported 793 billionaires in the US with combined net worth of $2.6 trillion. In March 2007 Forbes reported 946 billionaires in the US with combined net worth of $3.5 trillion. That is a 1-year increase of 19% in the number of billionaires and an increase of 35% in their net worth during a time of increasing poverty. Severe poverty is at its highest point in three decades.
Sounds like contempt for the rich to me. You paint them all with the same brush: They don't do their fair share.
What's the fair share?
None of you ever answer that. You just continue to have contempt for the rich.
Who pay most of the bills despite their evil existence.
And I defend the rich because they've done more for me than any of you.
Why exactly do we have a Department of Education?
If someone has to ask this question, it is proof we need one. One could also why do we need a Dept of Defense, a State Dept or a Commerce Dept. Logic and common sense should tell us why we need them.
JFK. Take a look at Jody's sentence structure:
One could also why do we need a Dept of Defense,
That's why we need a Department of Education.
Jody
Nothing wrong in asking the question. Do you think that there is never a time to see if a department is fulfilling its function? Homeland Security did not exist before 9/11. Other departments and functions were folded into it. The current Finreg creates a new Consumer Protection department. Government is changing all the time. We also have overlapping departments at Federal, State and local level. So why is not reasonable to ask "why exactly do we have a Department of Education?. It is a fairly recent creation. Less than 35 years old. So has is it fulfilling its mission? Does it have to be a Federal function or could its responsibilities be carried out by the states? How does the commerce clause actually apply to education? Perhaps your reply is more indicative of the failing education in the states. This logic can also be applied to all current Federal Departments that are not specifically required by the constitution.
Jody, it was a question to Beverly but I'm glad you chimed in. Alan, thanks for your response. I was wondering if anyone would bring this up. This function along with so many others you mentioned can and should be carried out by the States. The larger our Government becomes the more dependent we will be...its time to take a look at each Department and figure out if they are truly necessary.
The department of education may only be 35 years old, but before that it was part of HEW (Health, Education, & Welfare) which was established in 1953. The commerce clause has nothing to do with it, what a weird question. The congress has wide authority under promoting the general welfare in the constitution.
JFK-
THe problem with something along the lines of education being carried out by the individual states is that it would result in those states having vastly different curriculums geared towards vastly different standards. In order for this country to truly exceed educationally, which we are certainly not, I think it is a good idea for everyone to be on the same page and working out of the same play book. I don't think a state like Mississippi would be striving for similar goals as a state such is Vermont.
Rich
From a very brief search it appears that the General welfare clause relates to tax and spending so how does that justify a federal Education Dept.
As to Jeff.T this is a much stronger argument. I personally have no opinion but I like to hear arguments for and against. That was the thrust of my reply to Jodi. I would like to hear some justifications and why it couldn't be folded into the states. Jeff goes down this road.
I think the larger issue is that the department of education probably doesn't have the authority it needs to successfully carry out its mission. While the Department can certainly set standards, the states are still the entities responsible for collecting the taxes and distributing funding for their schools. This obviously results in some states having a much larger bankroll from which they can invest in education. I remember a case not too long ago in which there was a large uproar because there was a state, and I can't remember which one, wanted to use tax revenue from a wealthy school district to help prop up a school in a poor district... this obviously didn't go over very well with the people in the wealthy school district....
>From a very brief search it appears that the General welfare clause relates to tax and spending so how does that justify a federal Education Dept.
Because they are allowed to spend money to promote things that are good for the country. Education would be one of those things.
The Department of Education's funding increased dramatically under the Bush Administration. That has to be bad, doesn't it?
Still, it represents about 3% of what the country spends on education. Get rid of it.
moved
And you didn't lie Mr. President because my Nephew is a Birmingham law enforcement officer...fresh out of the academy and two Nieces are newly graduated school teacher's...
42,000 jobs have been created in Alabama and more would be employed if Bob Riley stops attempting to derail employment efforts...
We are electing Ron Sparks on November 2 and Terri Sewell to the Congress...Shelby will get back in because he's in the cradle of the Republican stronghold...Tuscaloosa...and that is the only reason WHY...
Be nice if those people in his district would send his old dilapidated butt home...
what have you been smoking? Obama - Incompetent; Riley - mediocre, but honest; Sparks - honest but will lose; Sewell - Irrelevant, Shelby - mediocre, but speaks for Alabama
djman,
On your job hu?...I KNOW what's happening in my state in politics and your analysis is in your mind and not in the minds of the majority of Americans that count...
You people don't have a competent candidate running in any of the races, they are all wrong wing loonies...slicks TRICKS...And hustlers...
Riley is full of chit and is attempting to derail creation of any jobs in this state because he KNOWS that the seat will go DEMOCRAT...AND YES...I am a registered Democrat and stand firm on my analysis...
ABA, I could tell that you are Democrat and delusional in Alabama. If you are so proud of Alabama Democrats, then explain why Authur Davis gave the Alabama Democrats such a glowing endorsement as he left this states politics. Stand firm with your analysis on this one.....
Acknowledging that the economy still has a long way to go, the president argued that his party had a better plan for reducing unemployment and getting the nation's fiscal house in order than the opposition. Really? Like the plan he had to keep unemployment under 8%. Like his plan to create 2.5 million jobs, which changed to save or create, which changed to saved, created or imagined. Like his promise to put legislation debates on C-Span. Bottom line. You can't believe a thing he says. People are still trying to figure out what's in the Health care bill, but one thing we know for sure. Tax payer money funds abortion, and he said it wouldn't.
> People are still trying to figure out what's in the Health care bill, but one thing we know for sure. Tax payer money funds abortion, and he said it wouldn't.
Prove it.
Face it, Obama is all talk. He has had 2 years and look where we are at - deeper in the hole. The only solution Obama had - the stimulus -is a failure and since then he has been asleep at the wheel pushing the Democratic agenda. Now his only excuse is that he does not know what the Republicans would do.
Here is the problem in my opinion. America gave the Democrats the white houe, a 60 vote Filibuster proof senate for 1.5 years, and a super majority in the house to do 1 thing. Get the Economy going again. With this power the Democrats passed a stimilus for Unionized workers in state, county and local governmants instead of small business. If you take the time to research how much money went to the Governments coffers you will see it. Then they passed a insurance reform bill that made business very nervous. I dont see how any move from the democrats has addressed the private sector job problem. So now I am going to vote for gridlock because the democrats had their chance. Anybody that wants to attack please do so now.
MI, you are right on. Obama continually attacked the business world with his words and policies. Now he is scratching his head and making excuses as to why private jobs have not grown. He's a f****** idiot!
>a 60 vote Filibuster proof senate for 1.5 years
Try less than 7 months. Franken wasn't seated until the end of June 2009. Scott Brown was elected in January 2010.
You also have no idea what was in the stimulous. I think we'll call you a low information voter.
Rich, Obama got what he asked for in the stimulus. The stimulus was going to keep unemployment under 8.5%, was going stimulate a 'Summer recovery"....
Which summer, what recovery. Quit making excuses for the guy, he is incompetent.
Over a third of the stimulus bill was tax breaks for individuals and small businesses. I have asked this question numerous times on these pages and have never received a response: If what the democrats have tried has been so disasterous, what would you have done differently, and why?
> The stimulus was going to keep unemployment under 8.5%
Find me a quote of him saying that and I'll concede your point.
Jobs were being lost by the hundreds of thousands when he came into office. Those losses have turned into gains. Not enough to reduce unemployment significantly yet, but at least it didn't keep crashing (like when a Republican president did nothing at the beginning of the great depression).
"It is better than it could have been" isn't a great slogan, but it is the truth.
And for incompetance, Regan inherited unemployment around 5% or 6% and shot it up to almost 11% at about this point in his presidency. I guess he was incompetant too?
Jeff T., glad you asked. Obama should have targeted tax credits for business investment looking to make US business more competitive in existing business and jump starting new business. In his policies, he should have had a "Private Jobs Czar". The emphasis should have been business growth as business growth means job growth.
But you know these words just don't come from his mouth. Instead he added government jobs and yes cut employment taxes and then generally targeted business for its abuses to Main Street. And he wonders why there was no private job growth.
He's an idiot!
Rich T, face it Obama isn't getting it done. Record unemployment and foreclosures continues and the end is nowhere in sight. What a vision! We will never know what would have happened with a Republican President after W. What I do know is that a Republican president would not have pushed another entitlement program(ie. Obamacare) on to the backs of the American people and economy, attack American business and then wonder why private job growth is still not happening 2 years later.
Finally, your facts on Reagan are wrong. He did not inherit unemployment at 5-6% and then it shot up to 11%. Check your facts!!!
djman-
Many of the things you suggest have been done.
In Jan 2010 a 33 billion fund was set up to give tax credits to small businesses. 5,000 tax credits for each new hire.
in Aug. 14 new measures were passed to make it more difficult for corporations to outsource jobs.
In Dec. 2009 he proposed a 1 year hiatus on capital gains taxes for small businesses.
I understand people's frustration with the slow pace of economic recovery, but to claim that 'Obama is an idiot' for not getting the country back to 4.6% unemployment rate in 2 years is, quite frankly, grossly unrealistic. And if you think Republicans would have done any better, I would point out the the bank bailouts that took place in the waning hours of the Bush administration was overwhelmingly approved by virtually all memebers of congress. WHat is really frustrating to me is that when it REALLY mattered- back when all of this started to hit the fan, everyone knew what had to be done and we did it. Now that the bleeding has stopped and the patient has stabilized, Congress has moved back to the partisan bickering even though the patient is still in the hospital. I would like to direct you to an article published by the brookings institute back in July... In a nut shell, it states the following:
Events in the United States are confirming what scholars have concluded: economic downturns driven by financial crises differ fundamentally from classic cyclical recessions. Because a massive amount of wealth is destroyed and the normal flow of credit is disrupted, production shrinks sharply, demand recovers slowly as consumers and businesses shed debt, and job losses are large, pervasive, and long-lasting. Whether measured by duration, overall GDP, consumption, or investment, the recession that began in December 2007 was the worst in the post-WWII era. Annualized GDP fell by nearly 4 percent, consumption by nearly 2 percent, and investment by a staggering 21 percent. Median single-family home prices fell by 25 percent, the stock market by nearly 55 percent. Unemployment surged from 4.8 percent to a peak of 10.1 percent, representing more than 8 million jobs—again, the steepest rise since the Great Depression. And many of the lost jobs have disappeared forever.
djman
...."Record unemployment"....
Actually the highest recorded unemployment rate is 10.8%, Nov. 1982, President = Reagan
......."Finally, your facts on Reagan are wrong. He did not inherit unemployment at 5-6% and then it shot up to 11%. Check your facts!!!"
Reagan inherited unemployment at about 7.5%, then it shot up to about 9.8% at this time in his presidency. I believe those numbers are very similar to those of the current President.
VermontGirl, welcome to the show! You have dug up some facts but stopped when you saw a comparable rate. You only see what you want to see. Let's talk history. Reagan stepped into a mess like Obama. Here are the facts: 1)the unemployment rate peaked in late 1982 at 10.8%, but dropped by 2.5% in tye next year. We have been stuck at 9.7% for the last year 2) there is a term called under employment, which is conveniently left out of your argument. During Reagan's term this was a minor number. Now it's estimated at 10%. Check the facts!
D - you asked for fact checking....that's what I provided regarding "record" unemployment and the increase that President Reagan experienced and how it compares to President Obama.
Chill out man....I'm not arguing and I'm not picking a side here. I just try to be REALISTIC. I understand once a recession has been deemed "over" it can take 24 to 36 and even 48 months for jobs to come back and level off. Candidate Obama told us this in not so many words. If an (R) president was telling me this I would be equally as realistic.
I think we all need to take a step back with the wild rhetoric and finger pointing - it serves no purpose other than to divide the electorate further. Should we all try to correct the misinformation? Yes, in a respectful way. Is it time for some kumbaya? Korny as it sounds....probably yes.
Peace brotha'
Jeff T, good facts this time. The problem is that our government takes a shotgun approach when trying to grow the economy. Prime growth is through the private sector, yet no focused approach is ever taken. Capital gains and income tax rate reductions are just a big handout.
To truly grow the private sector the government can do more such as incentivise the domestic production of the most widely imported items(electronics) and continue to incentivise other areas where private jobs are lost.
Well put, FR. I believe this is the biggest mistake that the Democratic Party makes repeatedly. They've been doing it for years. They have policy ideas that are supported by huge majorities, push them. Brag about them. Refuse to discuss them in the twisted, divisive language of Frank Luntz. Grab the issue and make it yours.