I am hoping that you mean politically dead, not a real threat.

Thanks for the laugh. That is the best summation of this presidency I have seen.

Bighorn, you bought a Kirby Vacuum cleaner too? I used to sell those when I was a kid until I realized I was completely duping the people I thought I was helping, lol. Then I moved on to selling Cutco knives...

Fool me once right? shame on you ... fool me twice....double shame on you, lol.

in any event, Obama is doing the best he can... no other president has been handed the hand this dude was handed. And with absolutely no help from the repubs as a result of the hyper-partisan era created by the Clinton/Gingrich era - his hands are tied. I give it to him to continually try his best. Extend a hand to the repubs.... hopefully they take it and overall make the country a better place.

Tunde,

Let's clarify that. Obama is doing the best he can with all that community organizer experience. Which means he is totally incompetent and completely out of his league. Worse than that, he foolishly appoints advisors that are worse than himself. So the advice he receives is non-productive. He ends up wasteing a couple of trillion dollars, and blames it all on Bush. Wow, great job there Barrack. What's his 2012 motto going to be??? I thought I could?? Blame Bush?? Michelle's vacation guide??

An alternative would be to impose tariffs on Chinese imports in order to offset the imbalance.

Edward,

You rhetoric speaks enough volume for the type of thinking you keep in that cranium of yours. For me to respond would definitely not be a fruitful effort. You speak of so much about how much you dislike the president, but bring nothing to back it up. I'll keep my hope and change.. and you can keep your hate. Merry Christmas Sir.

Regards,

Tunde

you got it, but why doesn't the right wing talk about customers the way they do about taxes.

John, some businesses are doing OK. The economy is growing, manufacturing is growing, the number of jobs is increasing (even though the official unemployment rate went up last month). If you're in construction or real estate, you should probably find another line of work. Many other parts of the economy are growing, albeit slowly. I just opened a new office last month, and we have customers. Maybe you're a victim of your own bad attitude.

We need the tax break & more. Business & investors started to shut down as the end of the 10 year tax cut neared, and we had a soon to be (now) president who promised to raise taxes. Then stir in a health care bill no one yet knows what it will cost business, toss in a tax on all energy used & the economy could go no where but down.

The 2 year continuation of the upper level tax cut, ie business & investors is a true sham. 2 years is not long enough for a new business to start, hire, & begin to earn their target income. We will hear just in time for the presidential election that tax cuts do not work. (Neither does half a bridge)

When this country can set up a flat tax rate for all people & incomes we will return to the greatest nation on earth. Business should not be taxed. Investments that create jobs should be rewarded. Personal incomes & purchases should be taxed at the same rate for all.

Why should the last 10 people hired earn far less for the business than the first 10 when they all produce the same amount?

Will a business want to do more if their taxes will go up if they do so?

If business knew today what they will end up with next year if they did 10% more they would hire people to do it. For the last 2 years business has had no idea if they can afford to operate even at the same rate with tax rate promises.

"In short, when it became to time to decide on the tax rates, Obama flinched, finally faced reality, and gave up his populist message."

And- how do YOU feel about that?

But wait, in the run up to the mid terms, the reason given for extending the cuts for the wealthy was that businesses weren't hiring because of uncertainty over taxes.

So that means they were sitting on a bunch of jobs until taxes were hashed out.

So we should now see an explosion of hiring, right? RIGHT?

dash, no- They are already warming up the yak-machine. Pence and DeMint were on Hannity yesterday, whining about this 2 year extension being for 'only' two more years.

If it were passed for 20 years, the problem would become '20 years of uncertainty'.

Yeah I know man, I was being sarcastic.

i am sure each one realizes the POTUS can take over their companies at any time, negate any bondholder contracts, wipe out their equity, and fire the executive staff as they see fit.

great way to promote their cooperation, perhaps Rahm can be there with his bat.

You do realize that he will inform them that he knows a lot more about running their businesses than they do, do you not?

The odd thing is that he actually believes it.

I wonder if he thinks he knows more about flying a plane the the pilot of Air Force I? Might make for some dangerous travel.

I feel sorry for these people- locked in a room with a powerful narcissist. It would certainly put me off my lunch. ..

the "professor" will probably bore them to death with his redistributionist ideas, then have them break up into groups for ideas, then have a leader from each group present.

they should refuse to see this numbskull. unfortunately, protection money (in many forms) is still a very big part of doing business in the US

Recall Obama had the same type of meeting last year, the "Jobs Summit" if you recall.

How'd that work out?

My guess is Obama will brow-beat the CEOs, telling them to spend all those "piles of money" they have "stacked up and locked up" at their private offices.

How many of the posters on here every day actually have people they employ?

I'm serrious- can we get a couple of your (screen) names, followed by the number of folks each of you directly employ right now? Type of busiess service or product optional- I have a relevant question I'd like to ask you, but would need to see some of the data first......

Mitch J: The POTUS cannot take over their companies at anytime. He doesn't have that authority. We still have the rule of law in this country and the 5th Amendment protects property rights. And he cannot even realistically brow beat them into doing anything. Remember, come January his little lemmings in the House will be in the minority.

Pat, Boston, MA

High Noon.

How about show down at the Okay Corral?

As you can see the "Nay" sayers are out in full force.

I had a change to get a glimpse of Bill Burton when he was here in the down town campaign office. He's sharp and articulate. He's also biracial and handsome. He would be a good heir to the podium to replace Gibbs imo. he's young and can relate to the new blood we need.

I had a chance to get a glimpse of Bill Burton when he was here in the down town campaign office. He's sharp and articulate.

Using the same approach...

President Obama might even have accomplished a bipartisan health care reform bill supported by a majority of the public...instead of the exact opposite.

Oh well...

It only took two years and an electoral tsunami to bring him around.

President Obama might even have passed a bipartisan health care reform bill supported by a majority of the public...instead of the exact opposite

you do realize that the health bill is supported overall, there are many objections to it, liberals didn't like no public option and then gop talking points include them in their dislike for the bill.

BIGTIMEj-

I suggest you pay a visit to Huffpost Pollster (formerly Pollster.com) where you will find an average of all the major polls conducted on Obamacare, with links to each individual poll.

What you will find is that the vast majority of the polls done leading up to and since the passage of Obamacare either show pluralities or outright majorities of the public opposed to the legislation.

Currently, the average shows:

48.0% oppose

42.3% favor

Clearly, there is not "overall" support for the bill.

And...you will continue to see ongoing attempts to undermine the bill legislatively, and legal challenges with the intent of having it overturned in the courts.

That is the consequence of forcing through legislation without bipartisan support...OR majority public approval.

Sorry.

I dont disagree but what is done is done - im willing to judge by his actions and not hold grudges for past moves -and i am not President Obama's biggest fan, but im not into the politicing. Im not a buyer of the "We win if the president fails" philosophy.

I dont care about the left vs right thing. President Obama is OUR president. If he fails, then America fails - and i cannot see how that is good for anyone. Give credit where credit is due, and criticize when appropriate. This is a good move for the left, the right, the President and overall the people of America. I think this is a good move by the president, and shows that he did in fact learn from the past election. Its not like the President is going to all of a sudden believe being a progressive is a bad thing and swing to the right - that isnt realistic. But it is encouraging to those of us in the middle who thought he was too far to the left that the President is moving to the middle on some issues and is showing that he is willing and able to compromise for what he feels is the greater good, regardless of what the fringes are whining about.

Again, Kudos Mr. President - i applaud your willingness to play nice(er) with others.

Add in the people that want to see it expanded and you get a dead split of 48%-48%.

Sorry.

mixedbag, I know the study read what I said and read the study, the opposed include liberals who didn't think it was liberal enough, but they also support it over no bill as the regulations forcing companies to not drop people and no lifetime limit is a good thing! yes, technically, they oppose it, but that is because the media didn't sell it...when the Iraq war was marketed to us we supported it, when we found out the truth, we didnt' support it. So, the studies you cite are misleading.

and the mandate is needed, or else people won't pay into it (own insurance) until they get sick and then they will be a drag on your insurance and increase costs.

societies need stability and they can't make everything about money and only money, we can't kill the middle class at the expense of the rich.

dosh27935-

Even if I agree to accept your 48%-48% split, without substantiation...

You're simply confirming my original assertion.

Obamacare was passed without bipartisan support OR majority support from the public.

Thanks.

http://www.medpie.com/politics/featured-articles/1111101-Healthcare-Reform-Exit-Polls-and-Exit-Strategies.-A-Column-by-Expert-Roger-Forsyth.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20021540-503544.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/coonce/2010-elections-gop-gridlock_n_778072_66058782.html

Happy? Ok I was off by 1%.

As to bipartisan support, that was impossible considering the republicans obstructed absolutely everything, including provisions they pu forth themselves.

And a dead heat on support does not favor your arguement at all. While there is not a clear majority, an even split suggests there is plenty enough support.

dosh27935-

Are you serious?

Among your links is a Huffington Post article on gridlock...you want me to read that when President Obama has just concluded a bipartisan agreement with the GOP to extend all of the Bush-era tax cuts? And after a vote TODAY in a U.S. Senate with a large Democratic majority approving the deal by an 81-19 vote? The first major vote since the Democrats' midterm disaster? That's what you call gridlock?

Please...

But...the next time you're over at Huffington Post, check out Huffpost Pollster's average of the oppose/favor numbers for Obamacare. You'll see not TWO polls...but, poll after poll showing pluralities or majorities opposed to the legislation.

The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY), a liberal giant, suggested that it is unwise to even attempt to pass landmark legislation without bipartisan support...much less without solid majorities of the public approving.

President Obama had neither, and will face endless legal and legislative challenges to his health care reform law.

It's already begun, we already see it, and it will only escalate during the new 112th Congress.

Ok the huffington post one was a mistake.

Anyways, you're ignoring the other two, reports from exit polls during the midterms. I'd have to assume because you have no answer for them.

Fact is the poll you're referncing doesn't give a clear picture. It lumps in those who want to see the current bill kept but expanded in with those who favor repeal.

So far as your endless legal and legislative challenges coming in '12, you maybe a bit disappointed. The republican leaderhip is steadily moving towards the center. My guess is because they know they'll have to find votes among the democrats when the new firebrands come in and start trying to get all mavericky on them.

I'm pretty sure healthcare will be one of a long line of concessions they have to make in order to get the rest of the old gaurds agenda through.

And so far as legal, well we'll see what the supreme court says.

So, want to try again? And this time don't derail the conversation on tangental issues.

you are a fool, none of those are the problems with businesses, tell me what new regulation is there is 1990's when businesses were hiring, businesses can have all the money, deregulation, and power they want...if there are no consumers it doesn't matter.

its not a tax cut, but an extension of rates. failure to act will result in an increase. there is NO TAX CUT! that said, limiting the estate tax increase, and holding capital gains, as well as the (throwing business a bone) temporary reduction in payroll taxes are all good ideas.

of course, he knows if he really wants unnemployment below 9%, he will REDUCE tax rates, across the board, for everyone. this will increase employment and result in increased treasury receipts. for a reference: JFK.

problem is, his "laserlike focus on jobs" over the past two years has been that, except it was a focus on how to destroy them!

btw:everyone knows the above facts to be true, regardless of anyones responses to the contrary to this post.

everyone knows what facts to be true? Facts like the stimulus did create jobs, and that cutting taxes reduces revenues, and that extending the bush tax cuts will lead to growth but most of that growth comes from the cuts dealing with the middle class.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/feb/17/barack-obama/obama-says-stimulus-responsible-millions-jobs-save/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/nov/09/mike-pence/mike-pence-says-raising-taxes-lowers-tax-revenues/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/dec/03/national-association-manufacturers/national-association-manufacturers-cites-cbo-suppo/

and why are we in debt...well, healthcare costs is a reason..true, but also paying for tax cuts to those alreadxy sitting on billions of dollars, unfunded wars, that Bush did not count in his budget but Obama did (he was a fool for not telling the nation this), medicare moderization act, he actually reduced the deficit the most ever in one year. the debt was and has been caused by supply siders, they want to overfund govt now, so in the future they can cut it and use corporate fascism to overcharge you in health care and insurance.

Health care bill needs work. Yes. Again, the citizen was not protected against higher costs. We have all paid more every year. I do not know of any year the insurance was less. We need it to be less. Mine cost 50% more out of pocket than last year. But the insurance is excellent. 100% coverage for doctor's appointments, etc.

This bill is not a compromise. Definition of Compromise:

Compromise

1. Agreement:A settlement of a dispute in which two sides agree to accept less than they originally wanted.

2. Something accepted rather than wanted: Something that somebody accepts because what was wanted is unattainable

This is a total Spending Bill not a compromise. For 2 years the democrats have been saying that the Bush Tax cuts have not spurred job growth, and now Obama is saying that they will? What - did he step off the Twilight Zone train into la la land? And where is the Less that the definition above states? This is not acceptable. You don't compromise when you "add" to what you have to compromise with. You compromise when you get less than you wanted. You don't have a Ford to compromise over and go out and buy a Mercedes.

you laugh, what is your solution to jobs problems. oh, do what we have been doing, and give more money to those already with a lot of money. I mean really, figure it out, it hasn'tt created jobs for years.

"give more money to those already with a lot of money"?????? you have got to be kidding me....who the hell do you think you are to say that??

IT'S NOT YOUR MONEY....keep your grubby hands off WHAT DOESN'T BELONG TO YOU...

how about FOCUSING your attention on the SPENDERS, sunshine...yup, those lame duck idiots who just loaded up the budge with TWENTY THOUSAND EARMARKS...

unbelievable.

Yeah, donedone. ME FIRST! The hell with other citizens!! Goddamnit, who do they think they are??

Let 'em starve, I got MINE!

Bastards, anyway.

(hey- wanna go to church with me this Sunday, and listen to the gospel of Jesus? C'mon, it should be fun!)

its our money, it is the socially responsible thing to do in a society that lets you get rich to protect, and empower it and its citizens. Plus, can u think for yourself, you repeat right wing talking points. It is funny you think you are smart, do you ever challenge these talking points. It is our money, it is calledx a society fine, don't use public roads. and dont' use military to defend us, dont' exploit 9-11 workers and then deny them healthcare funds, you can't say itt is their money while still using public goods without paying for those public goods. secondly, a lot of the earned money, was from innheritence, I know this is tough for me. I am fighting a talking point by a bunch of rich well-organized status quo infrastructure. But you think, this will benefit you (giving money to those with already a lot of money) when in reality it will force us to attack spending and decrease programs that benefit our society. the rich know holding onto their cash will defund govt. and then they can cut programs, while at the same time they benefit from it...think 9-11 responders and then not funding their healthcare, think war stocks and private contracts, while not paying for the war, think medicare moderization act, while at the same time saying govt is evil....spending.........lol, earmakrs are a small percentage...are you willing to cut military spending, private susbsidized contracts, any public money that is given to the private sector adds to the deficit. Are you willing to cut NIH ffunding, which created drugs such as AZT (look that drug up, one of the most just drugs ever made)? I know you think there are programs to cut...social security, medicare...but remember there will be economic consequences. do you understand why ss was invented, because everyone lost their retirement savings during that time, so there will be lose of economic activity due to loss of social security and medicare would have to be replaced by private insurance, talk about increases in your insurance premiums. wow, ever think about that. Really man do some independent research and it is our money, as they could not get rich without a stable society, without an educated working class.

"IT'S NOT YOUR MONEY....keep your grubby hands off WHAT DOESN'T BELONG TO YOU..."

wow, you do realize that your children or grandchildren will have to pay for us subsidizing the rich by having them pay such low taxes as it adds to our debt. spending, if you aren't willing to guy the military anything else has little efffect.

do you know what a banana republic is... it is when the rich have their way, lets cut teachers, firemen, cops and let's create more wal-mart and mcdonald jobs, and that will create a middle class. lol

those "evil" rich ALREADY pay the most...and you're absolutely WRONG...

it IS NOT YOUR MONEY...and the wealthy ALREADY pay for those "public" features...FAR MORE THAN YOU DO...

"lol...earmarks are a small percentage".....ANOTHER entirely missed point, lib....

repeat....it IS NOT YOUR MONEY...keep your grubby hands off WHAT DOESN'T BELONG TO YOU...

driveby: repeat...the wealthy ALREADY pay the brunt of taxes...but that's not good enough for you, eh? GIMME GIMME GIMME....the liberal motto....

they pay the most, well they make the most by far and that 50% dont' pay taxes is a myth. once again, I used to be GOP. spare me, the rich pay the most taxes, first of they do, but because they make so much and you can't compare income to income cause, investments aren't taxed until cashed out, so if you include all financial worth, they under pay in taxes. The rich pay more in taxes cause they have destroyed wages, by bringing down unions, and employee rights, wages have decreased as a median per hour worked. We need a stable society if the rich don't like paying taxes then they should start paying people more. the conservative motto is dont' tax me, but let me use public services. govt does no good, except for military oh wait...i guess it does do good oh wait...the conservative mentality is to whip the slave harder. and you think the paris hilton's of the world earned their money. let me ask you, if someone followed the rules is middle class worked hard, kept up with education and their wages dropped...did they earn that drop in wages? no, the rich are overpaid and very, very few are business owners, sorry most are financial gamblers on wall street or ceo's - ceo's aren't usually the people who started tthe business. I know bill gates will be an example for you, but he is rare. most ceo's actually had poor performances in the 2000's yet were overpaid. you don't think you lose pay when they gain it. the wealthy don't pay as much taxes as you think. The top 1% paid 23.27% of their income in taxes and as I said that doens't include money they are sitting on in investments. what you dont' get is taxes is only one way of public policy, labor rules (which havve weakened), trade rules, environmental rules are other ways.

I find it funny that you the republicans have convinced you to feel bad for the rich, who are mostly rich by birth. yet you feel nothing for cutting cops, teachers, firemen, heck the middle class.

societies need stability and they can't make everything about money and only money, we can't kill the middle class at the expense of the rich.

I feel sorry for you BIGTIMEj. You have truly bought into envy that the left has been selling for years.

Ummm, you apparently you forgot that he met with them about a year ago too...but hey, lets cut programs to hurt the middle and poorer class more, that'll help!

Your concept of what went wrong with the economy is way off base. The free enterprise system may not be perfect. Just as you have done, you can find fault with the system and those that support it if you wish. It is still the best system. By the way, the spending that increased the deficit during the Bush years was related to social programs so to speak. On the jobs topic. There are many factors that are responsible for job loss in this country. For you to suggest that tax cuts and free enterprise were responsible for the jobs that were lost in this country is just plain crazy. More and more folks depending on government will not produce tax revenue. However, tax revenue will, and it always has, come from those wealthy folks you hate so much.

Thanks BeyondDemocrat. You are right on.

This is the "double speak" predicted in the novel "1984" where nothing is as it seems and words are meaningless because their definitions are so preverted that they usually mean just the opposite. We are there. "Tax Bill' actually equals big "Spending Bill", "Fiscal Responsiblity" Means tax less and spend more, "Real American" actually means idiot Tea Bagger without a clue, "Socialist" means enemy of the people, "Union" means causing job loss, "Peace" means a well planned invasion, "Canidate" actually means shameless self promoter, " Republican" actually means all for the little man, "Democrat" actually means filthy rich elite and gives to charity for the tax breaks, "Gay" actually means unhappy due to social injustice, "Black" actually means white as compared to @!$%# which actually has a meaning so bad no one can speak it, And here we are are folks, where nothing means nothing and time is running out. So what do Ya want to do about it?

Nonsense, the tax cuts helped keep the 2002-2003 recession mild and got us back to an unemployment rate of 4.6% for both 2006 and 2007. That means a whole lot of jobs were created by the cuts.

Right on Peter17,

You know in retrospect, George W. Bush will probably be revealed as one of the best presidents since George Washington. Just think, If Jihadists attacked us today, and killed several thousand innocent Americans, what exactly would this president do???? Make a loud speech?? Two loud speeches??? Would he do anything??? Appologize some more???

Tell us, oh smart one Don, what bills the Democrats in congress passed the last 2 years of Bush's admin that Bush wanted to stop, but couldn't-

List 'em here, please:

It's all true Don,

There is really no need to have any Democrats in congress. Oh, maybe keep a few of the real loons, like Pelosi and Frank, around for amusement purposes. Like you would keep a pet monkey. They really serve no useful purpose though, and they are high maintenance.