Good Morning Bev:

Trust you had a Happy Thanksgiving. You are right on the money with your post this morning. I like what you have to say.

So true Bev, and what have they produced from their tax breaks and lack of accountability? Not widespread prosperity, that's for sure. Instead the result has been heartbreak for the working American -- an increasingly severe series of speculative economic bubbles, coupled with widespread disruption and steadily declining incomes for the middle class. Our society is in trouble, and there's nothing unfair about asking those who have been most rewarded to step up to the plate and contribute a little something to fixing the mess.

Good Morning Ron Indiana

Yes, I had a wonderful Thanksgiving. I couldn't help but think of those people who have worked so hard to serve and help build this country. So I e-mailed Congresspeople to let them know what I thought of Republicans blocking the unemployed and tax cuts.

They should be listening; especially, Boehnor and Mitch McConnell. After all that's what they claim to do. I'm hoping if everyone does that before the lame duck ends they'll listen.

Thank you Ron

Have a nice day.

Terrific post, Beverly. If republicans were/are being honest about reducing the deficit and the debt, they can do neither by extending tax cuts for those who have benefits greatly the last ten years. The Obama and democratic plan does give tax cuts to the higher income brackets but at a more reasonable rate than the over $103,000 cut the republicans claim as stimulative. The GOP uses the term "small business" often to defend their policy but most Mom & Pop small businesses are not in the millionaire/billionaire club. Small business has nothing to do with size--it is based on number of owners and several other factors; some giant billion dollar profit corporations are small business by definition.

I guarantee that if any of you were multi-millionaires, you would be using tax shelters also. It is easy to criticize when you are not wealthy.

Some of those same Senators to whom 98% are millionairs, use those shelters they are criticizing. This is all about politics.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/nov2010/cong-n26.shtml

Who in this room does not attempt to receive the largest payout possible at tax time every year???? I rest my case........

What does having and using tax shelters to do with whether it's good policy?

Bev:

Your first sentence goes to the heart of the problem - and the incredible fighting - going on between Republicans and Democrats, left wing and right wing. We are far too sloppy with our use of the English language.

The rich are NOT getting a tax subsidy. The fact is they already pay a higher percentage of their income than those whose income is less....that's the nature of the progressive tax rate structure. That said, it was instructive to listen to Buffett because of what was implicit in his assessment of what is going on. The rich SHOULD pay more, not because of the woes of those who make less, but because the rich make greater use of infrastructure and benefit in far greater measure as a result of government investment.

The argument for higher taxation should not be rooted in a "woe is me" mentality. It should be based on cold, hard, arithmetical logic. The right wing dunderheads have had a field day making fun of Al Gore's creation of the Internet. Al Gore never said any such thing, but it's great right wing fodder. In any case, vast sums of money have been made via the Internet and it was ONLY because the government paved the way. Yes, that rotten, inefficient wasteful government. The same is true for the computers that we all own. That was the government behind all that. Vast amounts of goods are shipped via rail and highway. That's the government behind all that. I could go on for hours about the benefits of government investment that accrue to the rich in far greater measure than those who have lower incomes.

The argument for continuing tax cuts for the rich is absolutely without foundation. Though it's roots go back to the "Laffer Curve", the data for the construction of that curve are not valid in today's economy. The wealthy are most assuredly NOT investing in America.

The government MUST do that, and doing it with borrowed money is suicidal. So, we should take the Willie Sutton approach to raising revenue. He was the bank robber who was asked why he robbed banks. "That's where the money is," he said. WELL, where do you go to get money for infrastructure repair and upgrade? You go where the money is, and EVERY single measure says that money is in the hands of the rich and it's still going there even faster than before.

Is there some reason a hedge fund manager should only be taxed at a 15% rate? Well, yes as a matter of fact there is. They buy legislators. Plainly and simply that is the case with all of this utterly unjustifiable preferential tax treatment. The rich have bought the government.

Every time I come to this forum, I see the left and the right sniping at each other as though Republicans are ALWAYS wrong or in the alternative, the Democrats are ALWAYS wrong. That approach is beyond stupid and it guarantees that we will not be able to come to resolution on any issues.

I'd sure like to know why Democrats and Republicans can't get on the same page as far as the fairness of taxing the rich more than the poor. I'd also like to know why it's so hard to understand that the vast, vast majority of legislators - Democrat AND Republican - are already in the bag; the property of the rich.

Beverly,

There are 2 reasons why the Republicans want to extend the Bush tax cuts:

1) Cannot bite the hand that feeds you,

2) Put the country in a bigger deficit so they can use that as a campaign tool in 2012. The Republicans are excellent at the finger pointing even if they caused it. They would rather see us fail than succeed just so they have a chance in 2012.

The sad part is that many of the voters blindly follow that finger without checking out the stats. Hey, if Beck or Palin or O'Reilly says it's true, it must be true.

>The rich are NOT getting a tax subsidy. The fact is they already pay a higher percentage of their income than those whose income is less....that's the nature of the progressive tax rate structure.

No they don't. Wealthy people can more easily shift their income to be taxed under capital gains, which is much lower. Also, payroll taxes are only paid on income under the cap. Buffet himself says that his effective tax rate is lower than his secretary's.

The answer is for all income (payroll, capital gains, dividends, inheritance, corporate, etc.) to be taxed in the same way. Let companies deduct dividends also and the money will flow where it should without concern for differing tax rates.

Rich, to sum up your words: a good accountant is like a good lawyer. He will get you out of almost anything.

Boring, Beverly. It's all just politics. Yawn.......

More spin and deception by the left. you don't like the tax codes change them. you want multinationals and offshore companies to pay into SS and medicare change international law. Blame, fear and spin from the left wing posters on 1st read

Rich,

I have been saying to tax everyone at the same rate for months, but no one wants to listen. Mainly because both sides have their reasoning to keep the rates the way they are. What gets me is that Bev and others continue to cry about taxes, yet 53% of the taxpayers in this country contribute to the federal budget, and yet 47% last year did not pay taxes, or they received more back than they should have.

The Democratic party loves to tax, I don't care what they say. Taxing the wealthy is the reason we have offshore accounts. And that $700 billion over 10 years, could easily be cut from the federal budget each and every year. Quickly and easily, but you don't hear them calling for cuts, yet the federal budget will have a deficit of $1.29 trillion, $70 billion this year is a drop in the bucket, yet they won't cut anything, just increase federal employment, increase foreign aid, and increases for the state department.

Just open up the coffers and let the Libs have everything. Free what ever you want. What a utopia we will have. Weeeeeeeee And by the way.......when the money runs out, just whos going to pay then? Got any ideas Bev, Ron Jody or Fiesty! I mean you do realize we will run out of money. Its happening in Europe right now.

Care to bring us a real argument, LJP, or is reductio ad absurdum all you have? Society needs a balance between adequate government spending to support the society and adequate private activity to provide a vibrant economy. Tax rates are the lowest they've been in 50 years, yet all we get is more whining about being overtaxed. Tax rates aren't the real issue. The real issue is a combination of a society that's slowly failing through malignent neglect coupled with stagnant wages for the middle class and a rapidly increasing gap between the "haves" and everyone else.

Beverly,

About - "tax cuts for the rich," "we cannot afford it," "what about the debt" crap:

This is pretty simple, one of two things will happen - taxes will stay the same of they vote for the extension, or taxes will go up if they do nothing. Tax cuts for the rich is a simple class warfare liberal lie.

Between 2003 and 2008, around 8 million jobs were added. Check the BLS. Bush's tax cuts performed, but were undermined by the devaluation of the dollar. Tax cuts for the rich under Bush produced no jobs is another lib lie.

The rich use tax shelters to - NOT PAY TAXES. That is what we have been saying! Your whole argument is BS because if you raise their taxes - THEY WILL USE THE SHELTERS AND - NOT PAY TAXES. Thanks for acknowledging our point (even if you didn't know any better).

BTW, about tax shelters - the deficit commission called for reworking the tax system which would address what you guys cry and moan about day after day. Funny, but the main opposition seems to be coming from Democrats!

So you want to tax them and maybe Obama collects a few dollars that takes their money off Wall Street. What does Obama do. He prints $600 billion. Where does that $600 billion go? Wall Street.

How clueless.

We cannot tax our way out of this mess, we have to grow our way out. Only a moron would raise taxes with 9.6% unemployment, especially capital gains taxes.

That being said, people need to understand that Obama has saddled the country with more problems than tax policy can over come.

David,

Conservatives realize Al Gore did not invent the Internet.

If only the liberals would realize that he did invent Global Warming.

I work, I provide and I give. I dont have a problem. When I work and I give, but I cant provide because someone else is talking my money from me......thats when I will have an issue.

Government spending has traditionally been 17% of the economy. Under Obama it's now 25%. Extend all the cuts and return spending to traditional levels then let's see where we are.

Also, freeze the debt ceiling to force congress to do their jobs. We can never balance the budget if we never stop borrowing.

Finally, take SS back off the budget as it used to be. That way the politicians can't play games with it. Do the same with Medicare so it can stand on it's own without political game playing. If a budget showdown occurs, no one can then use either to blackmail the public if the government shut down. With the way the progressive have been running government, shutting it down would be an improvement.

Bob Lotsanumbers, BigBear, and Little Joe Peep:

You first Bob: I borrow from Saint Ronald of Reagan - There you go again. I did not say that conservatives love to get on Gore about the Internet. NO, NO, NO, Bob. I said the right wing. You can go back to my post to double check. While you're there, re-read the part where it talks about being sloppy with the language.

Gore did not invent global warming. It is a statistically verifiable fact. Empirical evidence clearly shows the planet is warming. Did you mean "Anthropogenic Global Warming"?

BigBear: It is not accurate to say that 47% of Americans did not pay taxes last year. Virtually no one escapes taxation. Federal taxation may not be direct for that 47%, but virtually all of their purchases are subject to taxation in some form or another.

Recall that I suggested doing away with the child care credit. Let's imagine you paid no income taxes last year, thanks to that credit. You DID pay for the care provider whose income will be taxed. That is why the velocity of money is such an important factor in our economy. That is why unemployment insurance has a much, much larger effect on the economy than reducing taxes on the rich.

There are countless examples of those who pay "no tax" putting money into the hands of those who will pay tax.

Joe Peep: You ask for ideas, yet I note a distinct absence of them in your post, but that's the way of the right wing. You have no ideas, but you sure know that whatever anyone else suggests won't work, right? You're weak, weak, weak, Little Joe Peep.

BigBear,

You get W2 from your employer. You, or your accountant, do the taxes. You subtract the deductions like medical expenses, childcare expenses, etc. You pay taxes on your net income. No brain science here. You really don’t have too much opportunity to hide anything or add expenses unless you have a business. So the IRS looks at your return and says: you did not make enough for us to take more from you. We feel bad that that’s all you have to live on so here is some money we are going to give you.

Here is my question to you BigBear: in today’s economy (for example – gas almost tripled in the past 10 years so did food, electricity, heating oil, health insurance – I can keep going) how low can you go with the net income for you to say –YOU do not have to pay income taxes?

I will not understand what most of you Tea Baggers get out of taking side of the rich not being rich themselves? Why don’t you have a problem giving breaks (BREAKS is the key word by the way) to the top 2% knowing that we either have to borrow that money from China (like Bush did to pay for the breaks and THE interest on the money borrowed) or take away from people’s Social Security or Medicare. Granted, SS and Medicare need to be looked into for wasteful spending, but that does not mean to take away from a grampa who worked his whole life and paid into the system just so some billionaire can buy a second private jet.

We keep taking away from schools. We keep sending our kids to get their educations in buildings that if built before 1978, possibly have led. The schools have no books. The school buses are getting cut. There are fewer teachers and more students. You guys don’t care about the system that partially raises your children but you do worry that the top 2% are unfairly taxed when 2 out of 3 corporations DO NOT PAY TAXES ALREADY?!?!

David,

That is a great quote.

Yea, there are "Lotsanumbers" about global warming being a statistically verifiable fact - as well as global cooling. It's what the Earth does. Yea, technically anthropogenic, and while we are at it, technically he didn't he didn't invent it - he just sold it and made a lot, a lot of money off it. I was taking a shot at him, he deserves it.

Thanks for your comments, David.

>I have been saying to tax everyone at the same rate for months, but no one wants to listen.

Beacuse it is dumb. I didn't say tax everyone at the same rate, I said to tax all income in the same way.

>Mainly because both sides have their reasoning to keep the rates the way they are. What gets me is that Bev and others continue to cry about taxes, yet 53% of the taxpayers in this country contribute to the federal budget, and yet 47% last year did not pay taxes, or they received more back than they should have.

More that they should have? You mean Reagan's earned income tax credit? So you want to increase taxes on the poor and the elderly. At least you are honest about it.

>The Democratic party loves to tax, I don't care what they say.

Then why should I care about what you have to say? The Republicans just want to give money away to their rich friends as I see it. They don't want smaller government, just a government that puts the money where they want it.

>Taxing the wealthy is the reason we have offshore accounts.

Then we shouldn't try to tax them at all? They already pay less than almost anywhere else and a lower effective percentage than the middle class. I don't think rewarding deadbeats is good policy.

An American citizen who works outside of this country still has to report the income earned in a different country and pay taxes on that income if applicable. Why do we make exceptions for these "off shore accounts"? If you sell a product or a service in the US, regardless of their address, you pay taxes. PERIOD.

Not only we give tax breaks to these corporations to “create jobs” that only create jobs for their illegal immigrant cleaning ladies, we do not penalize for shipping jobs elsewhere and we definitely do not penalize these corporations for moving their PO Boxes to countries that do not have tax laws.

"Yea, there are "Lotsanumbers" about global warming being a statistically verifiable fact - as well as global cooling."

Wanna show some that actually prove your statement? Here are some that show the temperature of the Earth up almost a full degree in 100 years. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

No big deal, it's only science. What else 'ya got?

John, you are trying to convince people who don't believe in evolution that global warming is real. It's kind of like saying "Evolution is not real because when I go to a zoo, I don't see a monkey turn into a human..." Unless you start having 120F winters in Alaska, there is no proof or the proof is not instant enough.

Why is it that the fact that the TSA pat downs only affect 1% of the people is justification for going ahead and doing what is best for the other 99%. However the fact that extending the Bush tax cuts for 2% of the wealthiest is used as justification to prevent extending them for the other 98%? Doesn't seem right to me.

Yeah, I know that bayllie...would've been fun to lay out all the evidence for those who CAN be convinced, though.

A further example of the amateurishness of the this administration and congress is in their signature HCR legislation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/27/us/politics/27health.html?_r=2&hp

"Mr. Cuccinelli and the plaintiffs in the Florida case, who include attorneys general or governors from 20 states, have emphasized that Congressional bill writers did not include a “severability clause” that would explicitly protect other parts of the sprawling law if certain provisions were struck down."

How could they leave out one of the most basic pieces of law from their signature legislative accomplishment?

Alan,

They were too busy trying to force it through on us they forgot to do the I-dotting and T-crossing.

It's Bush Administration documents that are out there, too...or are we not allowed to talk about that stuff?

If he doesn't leave sooner.

I imagine that the left, who were fine with the original Wikileaks document dump (as it was embarrassing to the Bush administration) will suddenly notice that this guy is, actually, anti-American. I imagine that the allegations of sexual molestation, brought by two different women in Sweden, which were given short shrift before, will suddenly gain validity. He will be referred to on this board as a serial rapist, a thug, and a terrorist. All he had to do was aim his invective on Obama for the left to suddenly realize that he is a nogoodnik.

Meanwhile, there were three things that struck me about this document dump- only one was surprising.

The surprising thing was Hillary Clinton's directive that our diplomats at the U.N. prove their abilities as spies by gathering credit card and frequent flyer information from their foreign counterparts. To what end, exactly? It sounded like a high stakes scavenger hunt.

The second thing, which I initially viewed with disbelief, was that Obama tried to convince the Slovenian president to accept a single Gitmo detainee, (who is not, it must be understood, Slovenian), by dangling the possibility of a face to face meeting with himself. After my initial shock, I actually had a laugh at this. Obama has changed diplomacy to a lottery- Win A Date With Obama as first prize. Second prize is undoubtedly two dates.

Thirdly, Obama's comparison of Sarcozy as "the Emperor with no clothes". Good lord, Obama. Project much?

Every day, in every way, it becomes more apparent that Obama is unfit for the office he holds.

Sooo... it was OBAMA that uttered the words in the Wikileak communication??

Really, Joe? We know you hate the guy, but really......

Joe in Albany

Once again, the Barry administration demonstrates it’s not ready for prime time.

The embarrassing nonsense in the WikiLeaks document dump shows just what a bunch of amateurs are running U.S. world diplomacy under the Barry admin. If these morons should know just one thing about how the modern world works, it’s that you don’t put in writing anything you would not want to read about on the front page of the NY Times.

This is Jimmy Carter level stuff and hopefully his second term in office will be ended in 2012.

Again you fail to understand what it is you want. Viewing it through of a prism an unquestioningly loyal tea bagger minion, the transparency you tea bagger minions want is there. Besides, it is really nothing in there you probably didn't already know or suspected.

Or what about FOX NOISE?

Fox Nation reposted this story without a disclaimer accidentally, as a prank, or because of something more sinister .
Yes, the Fox Nation editors were apparently so enamored with an Onion piece from today entitled “Frustrated Obama Sends Nation Rambling 75,000-Word E-Mail” that they reposted the first two paragraphs in their culture section with nary a sign as to its fictional nature. The only clue that this wasn’t real (besides a quick peek at your inbox to confirm thatBarack Obama hasn’t been emailing you) was a link at the bottom instructing readers to go to TheOnion.com for the real story. This tiny link was, unfortunately, not enough for the vast majority of FN readers. At least, that’s the way it seems from the comments section.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/fox-news-reposts-article-onion-slamming-pr

Fox reports; you decide.

In regards to WikiLeaks : What about Valerie Plame’s exposure as a secret agent, whose work centered around keeping US safe from nuclear threats? Libby. Dick Cheney. Karl Rove. etc. Maybe there’s some worry due to their greedy a*$e$, receiving increasing international disapproval of their war mongering all over the globe once cables are released.
Or what about the neocon, GW Bush’s recess appointee as US ambassador to the United Nations, creepy Hitler look a like who really looks like Hitler on crack (especially with that mustache) John Bolt-on? Bolton was using NSA intercepts of Secretary of State Colin Powell's conversations in order to undermine his policies.

As usual the FOX NOISE bots talk about weakness instead of realizing wikileaks is an international organization.
because of Colin Powell's battle to block Bolton 's nominee to the UN as unsuitable.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/28/usa.comment

Joe, where are you getting that the present administration is not doing a good job in foreign diplomacy.?

For you, this is just another opportunity to take cheap shots at the WH.

Thirdly, Obama's comparison of Sarcozy as "the Emperor with no clothes". Good lord, Obama.

So, now we're supposed to believe the righties care about what the French think?

"I imagine"

Kinda sums up the entire body of work for some people, doesn't it? Conservatism is a collection of smoke and mirrors, promising opportunity while taking it away, promising fairness while consisting mostly of attacks like that above, all of us to divert from our ever growing inequality.

Oh, CUCCINELLLI and the rest of the GOP hacks say it's so? Then, it MUST be so!

Gingerbread Mam, I do not know where Joe in Albany is getting his information, but I only have to look at what came out of the recent G20 meeting to see that Obama is about as adept at foreign diplomacy as hens at economics.

He screwed the pooch on the South Korean free trade agreement.

He was treated with the contempt he has earned by the German, English, and French delegates.

The only "success" he achieved on his excellent Asian adventure was the accolades he got from the crowds in Indonesia. Now, for Obama, that is a hallmark of success- how many people clap- but true foreign policy experts understand that it takes more than applause to accomplish anything of value to your nation.

The logic of Joe is beyond comprehension--blame President Obama for the traitorous acts of one person and yes, that person is a traitor. I would remind the conservatives that this release of classified information to WikiLeaks by one person also damages the Bush administration.

This is not some political game and those conservatives who are cheering out of dislike of President Obama again miss the mark. Their desire to see President Obama fail is stronger than their desire to consider the damage of WikiLeaks to Presidents Bush and Obama along with future Presidents regardless of party.

But when it was leaked who's watch was it on? the amateurs watch Obama!!!!!!!!!!!!

NOJO, as usual you spout nonsense by putting your own skewed and I might add mentally confused condition take on anything President Obama. Come back and talk to me when your condition improves.

Bev,

Can we stop living in the past please? Every time someone criticizes President Obama for something your response is "well the republicans did it" Come on, are you two years old or what. You won't give anyone any credit if they change their minds about an issue. For example, most of the posters on this page won't give the republicans a chance to improve the economy.... maybe just maybe they do have ideas on how to reduce the deficit. But you people won't even listen. You dismiss any idea they have as stupid because you don't agree with it, then go on and on about how the republicans don't have any ideas. Then you go on and on about the Bush Administration, maybe just maybe there are some people who are republicans that would like to try to FIX some of the errors that were made by the Bush Administration. But as long as you and people like you refuse to live in the present its going to be hard to move our country out of its economic troubles.

Your so knowledgeable and wise Joe. Why don't you run for Congress and "fix" all these mistakes the Dems are making? You sound just like the other GOP fools, all criticism and NO answers or solutions.

You live in Cali, your state had to budget a 13b stimulus gift to balance your budget. No credence!

Little Bo Peep -

First of all I don't live in California (assuming are we?). Secondly, what does where I live have to do with my post?

Joe, like most Republicans , you're a fool. The leaks are embarrassing but that's about it. The reason they were easy to hack is because 3 million people have access to them because now all agencys are talking to each other so that critical info will not be missed. I love the right. They have caused the last 10 years to be the worst in a life time, but refuse to accept any responsibility for any of it. BTW, this happened under the Bush administration, under the Homeland Security Act. So stop Whining. Also to janet, you've had 10 years, time's up.

ROTFL- I guy who goes by California Tom railing on someone for assuming he is from California. Who would of thunk! Of course I am assuming he is a male because he used Tom also. Hahahahahaha

This Administration is an Utter Failure the leaking of so many Documents under the Obama Administration is telling on just how incompetant Obama is along with the people that he has Appointed to over see these departments..

I wish the man would just resign.. He would be doing the world a favor..

Judging by the tone of the FR lefty liberals responses to my post, it seems like I touched a nerve.

Could it be that deep inside they agree with me, but, just can't bring themselves to admit it??

Eloquent speeches only gets you so far, and then reality kicks in.

No Joe, I dont agree with you and your take on Fox Network announcements.

Your irrational hatred of a sitting President is disturbing, surely you have other interests in your life, if not, you should look to how you can make the world a better place for all and not consistently spread hate and your twisted observations on topics you dont see eye to eye with.

Janet-489369

Bev,

Can we stop living in the past please? Every time someone criticizes President Obama for something your response is "well the republicans did it" Come on, are you two years old or what. You won't give anyone any credit if they change their minds about an issue. For example, most of the posters on this page won't give the republicans a chance to improve the economy.... maybe just maybe they do have ideas on how to reduce the deficit. But you people won't even listen. You dismiss any idea they have as stupid because you don't agree with it, then go on and on about how the republicans don't have any ideas. Then you go on and on about the Bush Administration, maybe just maybe there are some people who are republicans that would like to try to FIX some of the errors that were made by the Bush Administration. But as long as you and people like you refuse to live in the present its going to be hard to move our country out of its economic troubles.

Um, Janet

You're the one living in the past. When the fraudulent Iraq war was started by Georgie Boy and money was borrowed from China it blew a hole in the deficit. The $700 billion over the next decade will do it. Can't you see it's repeating the same thing? Because those tax cuts for the top 2% will be added to the deficit.

Republicans had their chances then and now. It's still the same thing nothing.

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

bob-

Beverly,

About - "tax cuts for the rich," "we cannot afford it," "what about the debt" crap:

This is pretty simple, one of two things will happen - taxes will stay the same of they vote for the extension, or taxes will go up if they do nothing. Tax cuts for the rich is a simple class warfare liberal lie.

Between 2003 and 2008, around 8 million jobs were added. Check the BLS. Bush's tax cuts performed, but were undermined by the devaluation of the dollar. Tax cuts for the rich under Bush produced no jobs is another lib lie.

No, I think not a lie. It's tea baggers gullibly.

Jobs: It all depends how you look at it. Either way Georgie boy lost jobs according to these 2 fact checks.

President Bush puffed up his description of the economy using an apparently bogus number. And in fact, when we dug into this we found that the White House has been using inflated numbers for job gains for more than four months.

Bush: We're now in the 41st month of uninterrupted job growth, in a recovery that has created 7.2 million new jobs -- so far.

The 7.2 million figure is correct according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, counting an unusually large upward adjustment in the figures for total non-farm employment that the BLS announced in October. However, as in the past, Bush concentrated only on the period since August 2003, which was the low point of the prolonged job slump that plagued the first 2-1/2 years of his presidency. Since 2.7 million jobs were lost that time, the net gain from the time he took office has been 4.6 million jobs, a respectable number but still not so large as the one Bush highlighted.

http://www.factcheck.org/article475.html

According to the BLS website, there were 111,634,000 Americans employed in the private sector at the start of George W. Bush's first term, in January 2001. Eight years later, in January 2009, there were 110,961,000 Americans employed in the private sector. So the United States lost 673,000 private-sector jobs on Bush's watch.

That makes it easy for Pelosi: If the United States netted even one private-sector job in 2010, she'd be accurate. And the nation actually did quite a bit better than that. Private-sector employment in January 2010 was 107,123,000, a number that grew to 107,970,000 by Septmeber 2010. That works out to be 847,000 jobs created.

So Pelosi's statement is accurate. But it's also a classic case of cherry-picking -- for two reasons.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/oct/25/nancy-pelosi/nancy-pelosi-says-more-private-sector-jobs-created/

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

bayllie

An American citizen who works outside of this country still has to report the income earned in a different country and pay taxes on that income if applicable. Why do we make exceptions for these "off shore accounts"? If you sell a product or a service in the US, regardless of their address, you pay taxes. PERIOD.

That would be true if they didn't work for a shell company in a foreign land. For example, on page 2 of the Boston Globe which, btw is not media matters or think progress said this ...

In interviews with more than a dozen KBR workers registered through the Cayman Islands companies, most said they did not realize that they had been employed by a foreign firm until they arrived in Iraq and were told by their foremen, or until they returned home and applied for unemployment benefits.

"They never explained it to us," said Arthur Faust, 57, who got a job loading convoys in Iraq in 2004 after putting his resume onKBRcareers.com and going to orientation with KBR officials in Houston.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2008/03/06/top_iraq_contractor_skirts_us_taxes_offshore/?page=2

FYI. Bev -

The democrats still control Congress until January. Please explain how Boehner is supposed to bring new jobs when he has no power to do so yet.

I'm waiting...

Still waiting...

I guess you'll just have to admit to yourselves that the policies of Obama and his democrat-controlled Congress have failed to produce real jobs that will invigorate the economy.

Oh, and even considering that Boehner will be in control of the House of Representatives in January, the democrats still control the Senate and the Presidency.

Unless they want reclaim the title of the 'party of NO', I would suggest that they actually reach across the aisle to get some real work done without concentrating on agendas and legacies. Pelosi is already planning to try to throw a wrench in the works.

I think it's going to take an awful lot of work to rebuild those bridges Obama and his democrats have burned behind themselves.

Ah yes, more from Tammy, our little Beck adherent. Here is what is true: The current recession was caused by the Republicans. Just that simple. Only the truly delusional believe differently. As to Boehner? He is entitled to exactly the patience he was willing to show the President. None. He said that electing Republicans would bring jobs to this nation. Republicans were elected. Boehner..WHERE ARE THE JOBS? As for the party of NO. That would be the Republicans as any educated RESPONSIBLE American knows. Which automatically disqualifies you, right Tammy?

The current recession was caused by the Republicans. Just that simple. Only the truly delusional believe differently.

Keep repeating and repeating but it will never come true. The recession was caused by the housing crisis which was caused by the Clinton administration forcing Fannie and Freddie to accept subprime loans in the secondary market. The smoking gun in the New York Times 1999 article where the subsequent collapse and bailout was predicted just won't go away:

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html?scp=6&sq=bill%20clinton%20approved%20sub%20prime%20loans&st=cse

Only for the ignorant. The recessions was caused by Bush overspending, getting us into two wars that he kept off budget, and the tax breaks for his rich buddies. It actually started with the move to deregulate everything under the sun from the Republicans, starting from Reagan's time. You own this one, and the Republicans brought the country to its knees, and will finish it off if mental midgets like Boehner get his way.

The economic time-bomb was put in motion by the republican GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY Act. It passed the senate 90-8. Sen. Byron Dorgan(D) was a vocal critic and predictor of our eventual meltdown.

Next, you will want to try to blame the Community Reinvestment Act, which is another falsehood. Banks were not required to lend to the "unworthy", nor to sell the questionable debt to anyone else. Their own economic interests determined those actions.

Yep, and sadly Dorgan, from our neighboring North Dakota, got tired of the game playing with the Republicans and retired. His was one of the last honest voices there.

Delusional is one that believes the housing crisis didn't cause this recession. If you truly believe that you are clearly on the fringe. Try actually reading the NYT article and defend that.

I did read it, and it defends absolutely nothing. The only person who can possibly read as much into that article as you did is a true Fox "News" devotee. Do try reading a book.

You are right the article does not defend anything. I asked you as a devoted liberal to defend it. FYI I have never watched Fox news. I know that is your standard answer to ever one who would dare to question a democrat but it doesn't make it so. BTW exactly what is your point with the book? The liberal NYT isn't a good enough source for you?

There is no housing crisis. We have more housing than we can occupy. What we have is an employment, living wage, and credit crisis. Our currency is based on FAITH and CREDIT. If you won't employ people, you can always create an economic downturn, 98% of Americans were told to believe that they had to take part in the American dream by submitting to the credit rating system, and making use of that credit.

The Capitalists have decided to go on strike, and take their capital with them. Ayn Rand would be so proud. Atlas is shrugging. GLB created this Atlas.

You know, it is pretty bad when I have to decode what YOU wrote for YOU, since apparently you type and don't think. Your post at 2.27 is clear, except to you. You made statement alleging what you purport to believe as fact, it is not up to me to defend ANYTHING that you post, and certainly something I don't agree with. And that article was a waste of time that I can't get back again. It said NOTHING of any importance. And yes, we all know that you are a Fox idiot, one only has to read what you say to know that. So, grow up. My reference to reading a book is simply this: I get tired of the willful stupidity on this board by people like you. If you actually picked up a book, any book, and read it, you might learn something.

Wow you are one nasty person! Is everyone who disagrees with you an idiot, needs to grow up, doesn't read books and is stupid? Seems to me you slightly violated the Code of Honor here. I will report it. The article is not an opinion. It is pure fact, written in 1999 when Clinton forced Fannie and Freddie to purchase subprime loans and stands by itself. I'm sorry you can not comprehend it.

Really? Did you get your feelings hurt? That article is of no importance whatsoever. And yes, I often tell people who write like you do to read a book, since you might learn something. But, do feel good that you have found the (sound of the the theme of the Twilight Zone in the background) smoking gun. Gee, did you notify the government authorities of the this amazing piece of detective work? I'm sure they will be FASCINATED! Just as much as I was.

All of that ignores what made the sub-prime loans go bad. GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY and outsourcing. And ratings agencies who were paid to commit fraud. Not all risky loans are certain to go into default, unless you are simultaneously destroying the middle class's ability to find employment.

The loan bundling and subsequent sales didn't help either.

I disagree with you there. I think the primary reason they went bad is because the vast majority were qualified for and made at teaser rates with negative amortization payments. Also the poor credit quality of the borrowers didn't help. Most people believed that the loans could be refinanced or the homes sold when the payments reset because real estate prices would only go up. The borrowers were not qualified to make the higher payments. That also created the artificial demand because people who could not afford their homes were added to the pool of buyers and pumped up the bubble until it burst. Unemployment spiked after the bubble popped.

Yes. Predatory lending practices and fraud by loan originators, fed the bubble. Why blame the victims and not prosecute the perpetrators? The unqualified borrowers didn't burn down the houses nor poison the land they were built upon.

If you are saying the loans by their terms were inherently predatory then how about some blame for the politicians that required Fannie and Freddie to create a market in these loans? Personally I feel the vast majority of the borrowers knew what they were doing but erred in their judgment of being able to later sell or refinance. Yes there were a small amount of buyers who did not understand the ramification of what they were doing. Most however were motivated by fear and greed. Fear of missing out on owning a home and the greed to make a financial killing. The same two things that create all bubbles. In the end it was nothing more than a government sponsored ponzi scheme.

Fannie and Freddie controlled less than 20% of the subprime market. Who "required" all those loans to be made?

You never have explained how politicians forced Fannie and Freddie to buy up these loans. And you keep ignoring the fact that the houses, the supposed ASSET, still exists. Country Wide, Wall Street, and the ratings agencies are much more to blame than "government" unless you want to discuss GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY.

The Clinton administration required Fannie and Freddie to make loans to sub prime borrowers beginning in September 1999....That is what the NYT article I linked to is about.

"Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."

They not only bought the sub prime loans but the interest rate charged was below market at only 1% above their conventional loans.

"These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans."

Their subsequent failure because of it this was also predicted in the 1999 article:

"In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

I do not disagree that the asset still exists. Obviously it does, but in most cases for these borrowers equity does not and that is what matters. I also agree that there is plenty of blame to go around. Realtors, banks, builders, mortgage companies, rating agencies, escrow companies, investment banks, SEC, the Treasury and the Fed esp. Alan Greenspan to name a few. I give the most blame however to our government who sponsored the whole mess. The 1999 prediction says it all.

Good lord! How were they pressured, and how were they forced? ....How were they made to do what they did not want to do?

LOL has a pretty fixed view of this Paul: But the realtors own their share of the blame for encouraging Variable Rate Mortgages. Some folks wound up with too much house. You made the point before. In the old days, you could expect your income to rise enough to cover the increase in mortgage payment as the payment went up. Joe and Joan America were not expecting the employment market to take the hit that it did. As jobs disappeared overseas, and you can thank the Chamber of Commerce and the robber barons in the Republican Party for that, jobs became scarce, people lost their homes. There is lots of blame to go around, but to fix it on Clinton is partisan blindness of the worst kind. Like the kind from the Fox "News" slaves.

They were GSE's- Government Sponsored Enterprises created and regulated by Congress and HUD. They were federally chartered and Clinton even appointed directors to the board including none other than Rahm Emanuel in February of 2000. Chicago Tribune:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-rahm-emanuel-profit-26-mar26,0,2144542,full.story

So how were the forced to do what they didn't want to do?

paul - probably much the same way obama got the dems to pass HCR and wall st reforms, bribery! Or if you want PC, earmarks. BTW, who said they didn't want to do it?

If they wanted to do it they would have just done it. The argument is being made that they were "required", "pressured", and "forced" to buy up subprime mortgages. No one seems to be able to substantiate that claim, or explain why they couldn't have just said, "no" they don't meet our standards.

What part of Government Sponsored Enterprise do you not understand? This was a Federally Chartered Quasi governmental corporation controlled by the POTUS who sat Directors on the board and Congress. HUD a 100% government agency which at the time was ran by Andrew Cuomo was their direct regulator. I believe he issued them a mandate requiring their portfolio to be something like 42% low income. Franklin Raines did it their way or was obviously out the door. I would do the research on the actual mechanics if it mattered to me but it does not. When I learned to drive I only needed to know that you stepped on the gas pedal to move. The fuel to air mixture was unimportant to me. If you read the entire article about Rahm Emanuel that I linked to above you would have gotten greater insight into the mechanics. Here is another article that might help you in your quest:

http://www.villagevoice.com/content/printVersion/541234/

"In 2000, Cuomo required a quantum leap in the number of affordable, low-to-moderate-income loans that the two mortgage banks—known collectively as Government Sponsored Enterprises—would have to buy. The GSEs don't actually sell mortgages to borrowers. They buy them from banks and mortgage companies, allowing lenders to replenish their capital and make more loans. They also purchase mortgage-backed securities, which are pools of mortgages regularly acquired by the GSEs from investment firms. The government chartered these banks to pump money into the mortgage market and, while they did it, to make a strong enough profit to attract shareholders. That created a tug-of-war between their efforts to maximize shareholder value, which drove them toward high-end mortgages, and their congressionally mandated obligation to finance loans for those who needed help. The 1992 law required HUD's secretary to make sure housing goals were being met and, every four years, set new goals for Fannie and Freddie."

Google is your friend here. Enjoy!

You still haven't addressed the over 80% of subprime mortgages NOT controlled by Fannie and Freddie. Who tied down all those lenders and forced them to make loans that WEREN'T under the jurisdiction of CRA?

Nor has he answered the question of how they were forced. So Cuomo set a goal. What was going to happen if they didn't meet his arbitrary goal? And how were they able to choose to stop buying the majority of it and the worst of it at the end of the bubble? LOL is learning to drive the car without bothering to check the brakes.

Read the articles I pointed to Paul. It is a mandate that they are required to fulfill not an arbitrary goal. If you have info that shows they were not required to follow Cuomo's mandate I would love to read that. Please provide. Sorry guys I only have so much time. Especially if you refuse to even read the articles I pointed to. John if you have specific facts and arguments on why it matters please point to them. I would love to read them. The collapse of the GSE's, subsequent takeover and ongoing bailouts by the US taxpayers is an indisputable fact.

I guess if you don't think the matter of who controls 80% of a market matters I can't help you. Apparently it also doesn't matter that F&F were FAR from the first dominoes to fall. It all started with Lehman Brothers and AIG, after all.

Facts John. Where are your Fact's? Again please point to them along with your arguments on why it matters. We could all use the education. BTW Fannie and Freddie began failing prior to 2003. The accounting scandals in 2000 are referenced in both the Rahm Emanuel and Andrew Cuomo articles I posted above. You can also read about the beginnings of their subsequent takeover by the Feds and get back to me on that too. But please if you refuse to read and use facts we are all wasting our valuable time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?pagewanted=1

Although Barney and friends were some of the few that didn't believe so:

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed."

You are working awfully hard to have the last word on this, and at the same time refusing to substantiate your claim of effective political coercion being applied on the GSE's. The articles you cite don't provide the answer, even though you keep pointing us to them. Mandates don't tell us what would happen if they weren't met.

You however have done nothing to substantiate your claim that the GSE's were not legally required to follow Cuomo's mandate (which they undoubtedly were) and in spite of the fact that I have given you several sources that say they are. If you won't provide facts to back up your claim their indeed is nothing further to argue about. In less either of you have some sourced facts to point to the last word is all yours.

Thanks for nothing. You were given multiple opportunities to cut and paste the relevant points from the articles you cite into the thread, and you FAILED. Why would you have hesitated to do so, if the citations actually existed? Because they don't exist or substantiate your claim.

LOL...Here is an excerpt from an excerpt of my post #2.52:

"The 1992 law required HUD's secretary to make sure housing goals were being met and, every four years, set new goals for Fannie and Freddie."

Sorry I know I was through but your post was just way too lame. Not only do you refuse to open your mind and actually read the articles but you Fail to even read the posts. I am obviously debating with a child. Over and out.

Or else? This is what you refused and still refuse to answer. You can set goals. What penalty is imposed for failing to reach them? No penalties, no force, no requirement. No argument. Child.

Second that, and great job FR to write your entire column around lines from "Airplane".

...and don't call me Shirley!

Something we can both agree on!

Good Morning Jody:

Kyl is a great example of party first, country second. He is willing to allow Russia to do whatever they will without inspections. What a pathetic man!

Congrats on the Chargers. They clearly played a better game.

Beverly is right that the Republicans have NO interest in cutting the deficit. If they did, they would not be for lowering taxes for the rich, who have already received SO many benefits from their wholly owned Republican Party. No doubt, the best money they ever spent; to purchase this Congress. If they were serious about relief for those who are struggling, and the deficit, they would come to the table with a serious proposal, not their usual mantra of CUT TAXES FOR THE POOR BADLY USED RICH FOLK. If cutting taxes for that group created jobs, where are the jobs? The rich have it better than they have had it in recent history, but are still not willing to put country first over their own selfish needs.

No one trust us anyway. With as much BS that is leaked to the media daily, why would anyone trust us?

newdayDAWNING

If they were serious about relief for those who are struggling, and the deficit, they would come to the table with a serious proposal, not their usual mantra of CUT TAXES FOR THE POOR BADLY USED RICH FOLK. If cutting taxes for that group created jobs, where are the jobs? The rich have it better than they have had it in recent history, but are still not willing to put country first over their own selfish needs.

newdayDAWNING,

If the Republican/Teabagger Party knows what's right for them they'll stop blocking the needs of the American people.

Wikileaks will be a pimple on their greedy a@$#e$ should more people join the unemployment and soup lines as well as living in cars, relatives an even cardboard boxes.

This certainly won't give the Great American impression they so tout.

Thanks, Ron, the Chargers played a terrific game especially the second half.

Jody, Iowa

Damage Control is an understatement. The WikiLeaks release of documents involve the Bush administration as well as the Obama administration.

WikiLeaks releasing classified cables, and thousands of documents is simply irresponsible. Their defense is "transparency" but this goes beyond that. It places people's lives in jeopardy, it provides details on methods for obtaining intelligence, it places other middle eastern countries in danger because of their view on Iran, it does so much harm. I agree with republican Peter King's comments this morning and other democratic and republicans politicians who say this is dangerous--no one will trust us anymore. Transparency is a flimsy excuse for sensationalism which costs us diplomatic trust and foreign relations.

Peter King should STFU with criticizing the President since he posted how to build a bomb on the internet. I learned that listening to the Rachel Maddow show a while back.

I hope you had a nice Thanksgiving.

"Ammonium nitrate is a weapon of choice for terrorists," said Congressman Peter King (R-NY), Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/ammonium_nitrat.html

If anything , I see the cables as nothing more than embarrassment than distrust. Certainly you don't think other countries don't say nice things about our country in public.

My favorite leak was reading that nut job Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the release by the Wikileaks website of thousands of extracts from US diplomatic messages was simply psychological warfare against Iran. RMOAFL

Darn those Republicans for their voting against poor people. But, wasn't the Obama administration the grand party of increasing the deficit? Why not ralley against him also? Or are you liberal types still blaming Bush?

I have to laugh at all of the post from the lefties so far on this board.. "Damage Control" is the best way to discribe it..

They are doing everything they can to try and Control the Damaging Information that shows the incompetance of this Administration. Information that comes out on a Daily Basis of just how Over his head this Dimwit in White House is.. He is the Laughing stock of the world

How about a telephone campaign to Senator Kyl's senate office?

(202) 224-4521 ...

He needs to know that the vast majority of Americans support the treaty and he is an obstructionist of the highest order.

Me, too. The GOP plays politics while people suffer. Hard to believe voters actually bought what they were selling in the 2010 election.

What have the people done by electing these demagogues?

Speaking of which, how's that economy working for you (hint: crappy)? And those jobs promised by the stimulus (hint: non-existant)? National debt coming down any (hint: Obama is selling us to the Chinese)?

Thanks for pointing out the fruits of 30 years of Conservative economic policies, CD -- ruin for the middle class. Meanwhile the share of the economy given over to the very wealthy is at an all time high while they continue to wail about paying too many taxes. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116849172911973577.html

Now now Johnboy, you libbies like to point to that "surplus" Clinton left us with when he left office...Georgie boy (and the dem controlled congress) pointed us south in '06.

So to recap: dems controlled the purse strings when the economy started tanking, dems passed the stimulus which has yet to stimulate anything, and the current president has sold us to the Chinese to the tune of trillions.

If I've pointed out 30 years of conservative economic policies for 30 years, so be it. I've also pointed out failed "progressive" policies of the past 4.

Ah, what a clever retelling of history, CD. In reality the $6.1T debt that we have GW Bush to thank for accelerated like a Ferarri from the moment Bush had his first budget in place, 2001. That's FIVE YEARS before the Democrats took Congress. All you can do is keep ignoring the facts. It's what Conservatives do. http://zfacts.com/p/1170.html

"...Speaking of which, how's that economy working for you (hint: crappy)? And those jobs promised by the stimulus..."

I'd say the jobs are working about as well as they have been for the last 10 years under the Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich folks.

Fact 1, I'm independent, not conservative.

Fact 2, the president has added $1.57T to the deficit in 1 budget, half as much as his predecessor did in the previous 4, and one-thid as the previous 8...in one year.

What exactly am I ignoring?

drive by: unemployment was 4.6% in January of '01, and 5% in January of '07. Then the dems took over and it's now over 9%. So I fail to see your correlation.

Chef Darrell: You simply FAIL.

Oh paulie, please expound upon that.

You FAILed again, Chef.

Because I voted for Obama? I guess I would call that a failure.

Won't let it happen again.

Because you aren't smart enough, nor intellectually honest enough to point to any legislation which the democrats passed which Bush signed into law, that would have created the economic collapse or the unemployment that followed. Because there isn't any, nor any causality.

Aside from the budgets totalling over $3T, can't say I find anything outside of a $700B in stimulus that amounted to anything. There is that renewal of the patriot act at every turn, but that's another topic.

Thing is, I can admit that the reps aren't the brightest bulbs in the socket, that's why I don't vote party. You can't do the same about your precious democratic party. All you see is someone who isn't blinded by partisan loyalty, hence all the childish "you fail" retorts. You seriously need to grow up.

Am I smart enough to be an economist? Yes. Do I care enough to be one? Not particularly. Do I think democrats are idiots? I'll answer that with "They are cut from the same cloth as their republican counterparts."

Still not voting for Obama again.

Bush signed the stimulus into law???????????? I think you are"FAIL"ing again. And the TARP and stimulus and the huge deficits which you suddenly care about took place after and because of the economic collapse. And the collapse is a function of GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY all Republicans. It passed the Senate 90-8, so no veto.

Stimulus...bailout. My bad(?)

Is "fail" your favorite word or something?

Suddenly care about? You libbies are touting Bush running up the debt like he was driving a Ferrari.

If you're trying to convince me to see things from the libbie standpoint, you are the one who is FAILing.

When interacting with intellectual failures like you, it can't be avoided.

The facts should be what is convincing to you, but you are unwilling to examine them dispassionately.

Dispassionately? All you do is engage in ad hominem attacks.

Like I said, if you're trying to get me to see things from your point of view you're approach is a little lacking.

Commment #5.14, no ad hominem attack. FAIL, Chef DIMWIT DARRELL. You are an ignorant, and apparently proud of it.

Either get informed or go away.

Hey FR, how about pointing out that David Gregory asked John Kyle 3 times how long it took to pass the last START treaty, and he ducked the question every time?

You noticed that to? lol

Hope everyone had a good holiday!

Personally speaking... taking a few days off from politics was a refreshing change! ;0)

And how ABOUT da BEARS! WHOO HOOO!

Republicans do not seem to care about right and wrong, or the good of our country anymore. It just boggles my mind that they think they can get away with it. Hey media, CALL THEM OUT!

John B.

Hey FR, how about pointing out that David Gregory asked John Kyle 3 times how long it took to pass the last START treaty, and he ducked the question every time?

There seems to be a corporate media rule that forbids them from reporting on a Republican who demonstrates outrageous dishonesty, hypocrisy, disregard for national security, and hyperpartisanship unless they can also point to a Democrat that is guilty of precisely the same bad behavior. That's what the media people think the word "objectivity" means.

BTW: The rule doesn't work in reverse. If a Democrat is guilty of bad behavior, as some of them are, the corporate media there is no need to point out Republican misconduct. That's why you'll hear talking heads pointing out Charlie Rangel's ethics problems in a story about Tom Delay's FELONY like David Brooks did on PBS last week, but you won't hear anyone talking about Tom Delay or Duke Cunninham's felonies if the story is about Rangel's non-criminal misbehavior.

John B. That was the one bit of politics I watched this weekend, MTP's interview with John Kyl and Dick Durbin. David Gregory did a good job of challenging Kyl on many aspects.

Is this all you guys do everyday? Sit around and watch political shows and then come on a blog and bytch and whine about what somebody said.

There are a lot of you all without a life. NOTHING is going to change in D.C.

BTW: Houston,

In case you didn't know; DeLay is not in Congress anymore. His conviction is going to get appealed. It was expected that he would get convicted in Austin (99% liberal). Travis county had it out for this man for years because he cut that county in half with redistricting.

Is this all you guys do everyday? Sit around and watch political shows and then come on a blog and bytch and whine about what somebody said

There are a lot of you all without a life.

Funniest thing you've ever said ITM!

PROJECT much? lmao

I do so enjoy it with conservatives like In the Middle defend GOP crooks like DeLay. But they sure do enjoy slamming any democrats who do wrong. Does it not occur to conservatives that the "evidence" is why DeLay was convicted. Sounds just like what we hear from the Palins and others like them, blame the media, blame the liberals for their own short comings--that is easier than taking responsibility for their own situation.

I Must Remember This

ITM, no politics for me this weekend.

It's not even December yet. And my Christmas shopping.

Done.

All of it. No easy task for me with such a large family.

Done. I can hardly believe it. I have gotten into a bad habit of doing it late over the years. Not this year.

And I actually enjoyed the shopping. People everywhere were pleasant and just taking their time. No one on tv to tick me off this Sunday.

I must remember to do this every year.

Fiesty:

I know you're not being sarcastic. You are one of the main culprits that my comments were aimed at.

With all of this good football being played at the high school through pro level, who waste their time watching those boring shows besides people with no life?

Jody:

I am not defending Delay. I am just stating a fact about Travis county. That county has always been super liberal.

If you think DeLay is going to do some prison time; then I have a lot of ocean front property in the Mojave dessert for sale. They will get a change of venue for the appeal to a more conservative part of Texas and it will be over-turned. This is Texas and things here politically travel the same route constantly and consistently.

InTheMiddle:

In case you didn't know; DeLay is not in Congress anymore. His conviction is going to get appealed. It was expected that he would get convicted in Austin (99% liberal). Travis county had it out for this man for years because he cut that county in half with redistricting.

In case you didn't know (and you probably didn't because you seldom know what you're talking about) the jury that convicted Delay had one Republican and two independent conservatives. It would have only taken ONE of them to vote against a conviction if they thought a guilty verdict would be a miscarriage of justice. So your attempt to smear liberals as incapable of rendering a fair verdict based on the facts is totally unwarranted and bogus.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599203319200

The six man, six woman jury, drawn from an Austin-area jury pool, a region of the state known for its staunch Democratic leanings, was made up of six Democrats, one Republican, three independent liberals and two independent conservatives, according to the Houston Chronicle.

John B, Des Moines, IA

Hey FR, how about pointing out that David Gregory asked John Kyle 3 times how long it took to pass the last START treaty, and he ducked the question every time? Finally making note that Kyl refused the question Gregory gave his audience the answer...a few days. YES, this is ABSOLUTELY about Kyl trying to both run out the clock and take other items off the agenda. "Senator" Kyl was as oily and disingenuous as anyone I've ever seen, and needs to be called on his bluff.

It was so sickening looking at Kyl's big, brazen, head. I wanted to slap his face.

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) has been one of the few GOP lawmakers to step out of line. In particular, Lugar, the ranking GOP member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has blasted his own party for relentlessly blocking ratification of the New START nuclear arms treaty with Russia, calling on his fellow GOP senators to “do your duty for your country” and complete the pact.

This treaty closely mirrors the one their resurrected St President Reagan signed with the Soviet Union. Former National Security Advisors and Secretaries of State and Defense to the White House including Republicans Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, James Baker, and Brent Scowcroft and Colin Powell are in favor of it.

Louisville Courier-Journal:

The determination of the national Republican Party to oppose anything that could be construed as a victory for President Obama has moved from being irresponsible to downright dangerous. Republican preoccupation with limiting Mr. Obama to one term

Looks like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s top priority(just say "NO") in his meeting is allowing obstinate Republicans to hide behind Kyl's shirt.

Mitch Mconnell used the strategy that has brought Senate Republicans where they are today began when they gathered, beaten and dispirited, at the Library of Congress two weeks before Mr. Obama’s inauguration

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/us/politics/17mcconnell.html?pagewanted=all

Wow, Look at all the liberals up sooo early this morning. Sobering up from a long holiday must be rough!

Boy, no kidding. I would not have dreamed that a pfc could get access to that kind of material.

If he's an Intel guy he does, but his Supervisiors need to hammered too. The people that did his background needs to be hammered too.

PFC's in intelligence have TS security clearances too. It is those fricken senior non-comm's and officers that need to get slammed.

The PFC agrees, at a briefing and with his signature, never to reveal classified information entrusted to him. Yes, there are supervisors who we can assume weren't paying attention but they did not do what this PFC is alleged to have done--provide thousands of classified documents to a news outlet. It is the PFC who disregarded National Security for whatever misguided reasons. It wasn't just one or two documents, it was thousands.

Its the reason Thumb drives are not allowed anymore. I held a TS for years and was in the presence of thousands of Doc.s of this type. Previous to eletronic media everything was put in binders in secure areas and discussed on Secure lines. Most of this info was embarrassing and not so much a threat to our security.

Lack of oversight is dereliction of duty.

Assange is hardly the "bad guy" in all of this. He simply let the public know what all of our enemies may well have already known. The information dump to WikiLeaks could have just as easily have been sent to them in a digital file.

Ultraconservatives are exceptionally arrogant, ignorant, and boorish. They seem to think that's what makes America exceptional.

Much like obama and the the ultraleft, right??

Houston, somehow you got that mixed up......were the dumb a$$ed ones. You guys are the uber elitist edujamacated people. P.S. Check your Degree it should say Harvard or Princeton on it.

You forgot Yale, where George HW Bush and George W Bush came from.

Under the "new class strategy" of Conservatism anyone who speaks to the needs of ordinary Americans is an "elitist" and the very wealthy are "regular guys." This attack on language and reason is one of the best and most common illustrations of the up is down, day is night, "truth is what we say it is" world of Conservatism.

Orwell's "doublespeak".

Exactly so, Paul.

I concur. There is something wrong with a system that allows a Pfc. the ability to access any sensitive documents of any kind. for my money the little traitor should be hung by his toes.

for my money the little traitor should be hung by his toes.

Good Morning GM!

You're being to generous... I'm thinking some other appendage would be much more conducive! ;0)

GM: You went from blaming the system, to punishing the "leaker" of information he never should have had access to, pretty fast.

Punish the people above him, who permitted this systemic stupidity to take place as well. They are accessories to the same crime.

So Fancy That what you're saying is that if you were handed Classified information, you feel that it's your right to publish it? That answer would be NO, and you would had also comitted a crime.

No, WikiLeaks is not a terrorist organization but it is certain an irresposible media; one that has decided sensationalism trumps everything else.

Yes Paul, I do blame the system that appears to not be very selective in who has access to it. The traitor that leaked to Wikileaks must have had a lot of time on his hands with little or no supervision is the main culprit and needs a severe example made of him.

What he did was treasoneous, what Wikileaks did was wrong, but if Pfc Manning hadn't given them the material, we wouldn't be talking about this, would we?

Feisty, I thought of that possibility regarding his 'junk' but decided better go for some other part to clear the CoH police. Some of these posters on here suffer from severe testerone overload and might take exception, but between us girls you have the right idea.

Having worked with classified government information, the "level" of one's position has nothing to do with the access allowed. Depending on the classification level determines the extensiveness of background checks and investigations; for some levels, these investigations are repeated at frequent intervals. The US spends millions on this effort every year but sometimes the checks reveal nothing that would prevent access.

No, absolutly not.

But if it was a real device you would had more that a burnt down Islamic Center. It was a stupid response for what happened-to burn it down.

<insert Conservative anti-union rant here>

Maybe if GM didn't build crap for vehicles people would buy them, don't you think? Funny, Ford didn't need the bail out. GM can start thanking the tax payers when they pay back their loan. No, they didn't pay it back yet, they barrowed money to pay back the load they were forced to take.

You should say, Thank you for the Tax Payers who keeps shelling out money to extend benefits for people who don't want to work!!! Yes there's people that truely need it, but there's those who just want the hand out.

Boy, I can't wait until Jan. when my taxes goes up for what? I'm just a Middle Class family guy that's going to have to fork over $400-$600 extra a month to support who? I shouldn't had taken the day off today. Hey, who on here wants me to pay for their internet this month? Heck I'll even pay for your cell phone too.....................

If your taxes go up 3%, I doubt your bill will rise $600 per month. If it does, you have been overpaid for whatever you do, and that would be an anomaly in today's economic system.

Pat,

your post has the simplest but the nicest message. It gave me goose bumps. I wish there were more NICE stories on TV, in the paper, on the net. All we hear is negativity and it's depressing!

GM's ad thanking us for helping them. This is one of the best stories of 2010. GM and the auto workers.

I was so anti bailout. To me it was yet another handout to the rich friends. How wrong was I based on the fact that I failed to see all the families behind the Big Business face. I am happy to see that credit is given where it's due (even if it's only given for the publicity -sorry cannot help being a sceptic).

Happy Holidays everyone.

Thank you bayllie, very much. I remember a year ago thinking that it isn't possible that our auto industry was going to be gone. I just couldn't understand why we as a country didn't support them as they attempted to climb out from the hole. It was awful just thinking about it.

So yes, that ad really did bring a tear or two to my eyes. Keith Olbermann had a segment last week about the rich who are happy back out spending their money on art works, big parties, etc. It was sickening watching them addicted to spending money in huge sums on themselves, instead of investing in the country.

These auto workers made it by investing in themselves, in America, not Wall Street.

I am unsurprised that Obama's head of GM is grateful to taxpayers- who was it who said there is a sucker born every minute?

I am a little surprised that ANyone could call this a success with a straight face.

We are still owed ten billion dollars from just the car maker; their financial arm has not yet begun the repayment process.

The government turned two hundred years of contract law on it's head, and rammed this restructuring through a bankruptcy farce with a judge they handpicked for the purpose.

So, the taxpayer stake is reduced to 37% of the company, and any idiot who bought the stock bought back their own property.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/2010/11/examiner-editorial-obamas-gm-success-story-still-losing-deal

There really is a sucker born every minute. This proves it for all time.

Pat - yes it was...

Keith Olbermann had a segment last week about the rich who are happy back out spending their money on art works, big parties, etc. It was sickening watching them addicted to spending money in huge sums on themselves, instead of investing in the country.

I found it rather exciting that the gallery owners, starving artists, salespeople, caterers, waitresses and waiters, autoworkers, jewlers,etc all benefiting by the rich spending money wantonly. What a blessing to these workers that someone appreciated their efforts by buying the products that they made! Makes me want to leap up in joy and happiness!!

Apparently, it does not matter to some conservatives that millions of auto manufacturing jobs, parts manufacturers, auto dealerships were saved nor does it matter than the US still has a viable auto manufacturing industry--it is just so much more fun to spew the usual anti-Pres Obama speech, the anti-democrat speech. It is impossible for conservatives to admit that this was the right thing to have done in extraordinary Great Recession times least of all admit that it worked.

Yes, american...imagine how much better our economy would be if those ultra-rich decision makers weren't starving the middle class out of existence? Imagine if they had some responsibility to the society that made them rich beyond the dreams of avarice? Wouldn't it be great if the middle class still had enough "oomph" left to be the engine of the economy that we once were?

Thanks to our Comrade Unions Brothers......... Ostrovia!

Your weak attempt at deflection is duly noted. Since you seem to need for me to expand on my point I will. The middle class is starving.

It shows inflation-adjusted GDP per capita and median family income from 1947 (the earliest year for which the income data are available) to 2007. To facilitate comparison of the over-time trends, each is indexed to its 1973 level. Since the mid-to-late 1970s, growth of income at the median has been slow — very slow — relative to growth of the economy. The current decade, with no improvement at all in median income, is especially striking.

The dashed line in the next chart shows what median income would have looked like had it risen in sync with per capita GDP. The difference is huge: in 2007, the median family’s income would have been $91,000 instead of $61,000.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/09/gdp-per-capita.html

Where could that wealth have possibly gone? Easy, it went to the very top of the economic pile. Even the Wall Street Journal recognizes this;

We found only families within the top 1% experienced very large gains relative to the average since 1980 and that upper middle class families (the next 4% below the top 1%) experienced only modest gains.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116849172911973577.html

Society is becoming less fair, social mobility increasingly constrained, and Conservative policies are designed to facilitate that. It's that simple.

The wealthy are spending left and right. Let them.

Yet they whine about tax cut extensions perhaps ending. THEY WILL SURVIVE. Quite well it appears.

Pat what do you consider Wealthy? Im spending money, Im fixing up my homes and upgrading them. I bought a new vehicle. I dont consider my self wealthy. I make 6 figures but i work my butt off to make that money. Why do you think I should earn less income so someone that just wants to sit and collect a check Can?

Six figures is a big range, LJP. It extends from upper middle class into the top 1%. I'm not Pat but I'll answer for myself. $250,000 and up is the top 2%. If the top 2% can't be considered "wealthy" then who can?

Ignoring your "blame the victim" attempt to put the entire budgetary problem on the backs of the poor, I'll point out that we ARE approaching a serious budget problem. It's a problem that was created in large measure by cutting revenue, and the majority of the benefits went to the top 2%. It seems quite reasonable that those who've benefitted most from society will be subject to the least discomfort paying another $30 in taxes for every $1,000 they make above $250,000. It isn't a lot for people who have a lot, often less than the plate at a really nice restaurant with tip.

John, when you want to buy that $130 million dollar boat it might make a difference.

It makes you wonder why the people who have more money than most of us will ever even be able to imagine always seem to hire illegal immigrants as their cleaning ladies or nannies. Is paying anything over $4 an hour to the people that clean your toilets such a turn on? I guess buying yet another pair of Gucci shoes and popping yet another Vicodin and XANAX makes the lives of the rich that much more bearable.

Buffet has it right---the wealthy prefer lower tax rates--who doesn't?--but will prosper even if rates are raised the relatively modest amounts which would result from the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.

Pat, Boston, MA

Think Progress: A roundtable of billionaires on ABC's This Week with Christiane Amanpour said they would like to see tax rates increased for themselves and other wealthy Americans. Warren Buffet, who is worth $47 billion, told Amanpour: "I lived in periods where capital gains taxes were 39.6 percent, when earned income taxes were 70 percent, and our economy did just fine."

Did you see this Pat?

Fox Noise pundits criticized the millionaires During his "Common Sense" segment on his Fox News show, Neil Cavuto slammed the "Patriotic Millionaires" campaign for wanting "to get creamed by Washington," telling Buffett and the other millionaires to "quit speaking" for the nation's top 2 percent of earners.

The others would be...

O'Reilly to Buffett: "Stop hawking me."

Stossel: "It doesn't help" for the rich to pay more. Appearing on The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News contributor John Stossel asserted that it "doesn't help" for the top earners to pay more taxes, adding that Buffett could give it to the Treasury but has chosen to give money to charity instead. Stossel added: "Wisely, people know giving it to charity is a better use of the money." Stossel also advocated for making up some of the deficit by cutting the Education Department, and concluded: "Money in private hands does far more good for the world and for Americans than money in government hands."

Tucker Carlson: "This is a form of moral preening. It's his way of saying, 'I'm better than you.

Greata Van Susteren: It's "appalling" to tell the rich "to pay their fair share. ... It was designed to create class warfare.

Mike Huckabee: Millionaires should "write the biggest check that will make you feel less guilty; but don't impose."

http://mediamatters.org/research/201011230022

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

Hey, it's FoxNoise that needs to "Quit Lecturing" Fake News and Lies.

I hope you enjoyed your Thanksgiving.I e-mailed Congress to let them know what I think about tax cuts, unemployment extensions, Dream Act, and DADT.

If they don't listen maybe they can see some protests.

Bev, What do We do when the rich people run out of money.

What makes you think that's likely to happen, LJP?

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010).

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

All the numbers say it's the middle class getting the short end of the stick. How 'bout you try to argue with facts instead of logical fallacies and empty rhetoric?

Beverly, aren't they something? The rich do all the whining.

Spoiled rotten "me me me".

Bev and Pat, Buffet and all the other billionaires and millionaires can write a large check to the IRS anytime they want to, there is nothing stopping them from paying more than what they owe. Also anyone else in this country can do the same thing and pay more that required. Since it seems that the biggest complainers are liberal democrats maybe they, the liberal democrats, all pay more than required, then they can brag about how patriotic they are.

sfcret:

Bev and Pat, Buffet and all the other billionaires and millionaires can write a large check to the IRS anytime they want to, there is nothing stopping them from paying more than what they owe.

Warren Buffett gave an example of how government rules (known by conservatives as bureacratic red tape) PREVENT government from spending money where it should. The example involved only a few million dollars, and Buffett was able to step in and fund the project. He also said that much of what government does cannot possibly be accomplished by private funding. (Anyone think that the Food and Drug Administration should be financed by private donations?) He and the other people interviewed on the show think that government and wealthy business leaders should work in partnership, and not consider each other to be enemies, as the Chamber of Commerce the Republican pols they buy want people to believe is the only relationship possible unless government does exactly what big business tells them to do.

"Bev and Pat, Buffet and all the other billionaires and millionaires can write a large check to the IRS anytime they want to, there is nothing stopping them from paying more than what they owe"

Which is nothing other than a diversion from the real point...Those at the top of the economic ladder have benefitted immensely from favorable tax policy for the last 3 decades. It's a benefit that's come at the expense of America as a whole, yet most of the very wealthy continue to complain that it isn't enough.

LittleJoe,

the rich will run out of money and have to move elsewhere when the 98% stop buying their product and services because they either are sick of buying lead infested crap made in China or simply DON"T HAVE ANY MONEY TO SPEND!

Naturally, the victorious Republicans would say they won't budge on issues important to them,

And when the Democrats were victorious in 2006 and 2008, the Republicans wouldn't budge then, either, even though the Democrats have shown a willingness to compromise after their victories. The Republicans won't even "budge" when what they're doing undermines national security, like with their opposition to the START treaty. The extremists who've taken over the Republican Party care nothing about average Americans.

If you really are a "JobSeeker," they will do nothing to improve your employment situation. And they'll try to deny you unemployment compensation while you're looking for work. Republicans believe that unemployment benefits make you lazy and living in desperate poverty will motivate you to get a job.

when the Democrats were victorious in 2006 and 2008, the Republicans wouldn't budge then, either

What in the hell are you talking about? Bush spent like a drunken sailor after the Dems took over Congress. He signed every spending bill the Democrat House sent him.

Republicans believe that unemployment benefits make you lazy

It surely does make you lazy. Most people wait until the benefits are no longer available to go back to work. Personally, I began "seeking" work in all 57 states when the recession began. I have gone through three different jobs in three different states.

The Republicans won't budge to the point that they will even abandon positions they once favored...

- Cap and Trade

- Government Bailouts

- A mandate requiring all Americans to carry health insurance

Republicans were FOR these things before they were AGAINST them. Bipartisanship for Republicans is a game...a game where they try to see what hoops they can get Democrats to jump through...a game of moving the goal posts...a game of kicking the can down the road.

You want leadership? You're not going to get it by being a President who follows hacks like Boehner and McConnell.

Bush spent like a drunken sailor after the Dems took over Congress. He signed every spending bill the Democrat House sent him.

Bush spent like a drunken sailor before the Democrats took over Congress. The Democrats just gave him what he wanted because the Republicans in the Senate would have filibustered anything the Democrats proposed that wasn't to their liking.

It surely does make you lazy. Most people wait until the benefits are no longer available to go back to work.

Unemployment benefits are just above the poverty level. They only help you get by when you're out of work. If you're unemployed and not taking them, then that's just dumb. But keep mindlessly spewing canned Republican talking points. That's what conservative "discussion" has degenerated into these days.

If you are a leader, you lead, not expect the other side to just fall in line. Reagan never had a Republican Congress, yet he got almost everything he wanted. He and the Speaker chatted on the phone regularly and had lunch occasinally. Obama and the senate minority leader never met face to face until half his term was over. I am mystified that someone who was supposed to be the great uniter turns out to be the ultimate divider. He had 73% approval rating when he took office. He has disappointed most of the independents who voted for him, and you saw the response three weeks ago.

And when he helps the Israelis bomb Iran's nuclear sites in October of 2012, he will have an 80% approval rating.

Houston:

Why do you keep referring to people that don't agree with you as the radical right? These billionaire's WRITE OFF EVERY PENNEY donated. They all talk a damn good game because basically they are just loaning the money out. These people are about making money period.

They didn't amass all this wealth from paying high taxes and giving it away. You had better go and read up on your billionaire idols.

You attack conservative billionaires as if those liberal billionaires really give a ratz azz about you.

InTheMiddle:

You attack conservative billionaires as if those liberal billionaires really give a ratz azz about you.

I don't work for any of them, so I don't care if careabout me. The conservative billionaires don't even care about their own employees, let alone the fate of the country or the world.

You and other far rightwingers like to misrepresent progressives as being opposed to and jealous of people simply because they have accumulated wealth. You're just angry because what I wrote puts the lie to that accusation.

we got poor before deregulating banks , credit cards ect.

Thank you Nashville_fan: I hope as well that you and your family had a great Thanksgiving. I see President Obama needed a few stitches on his lip after playing basketball. Boy when they play, they really play.

Yeah Pat, I heard about that . . . I'll bet the gentlemen who did it felt a little awkward . . . probably still does! lol

Hi Nash---hope you and yours had a great holiday. I'm thankful to know you and share in your wisdom!!

Good to "see" you this morning Steeler Fan . . . not feeling too "wise" today . . . hopefully, you have picked up my slack! :o)

P.S. Hope you had a great holiday as well!

So, how's life as an Ayn Rand character?

That's the only place where your point of view holds true. I suggest you name your new country "FYIGM."