That's a bit extreme, isn't it No Jo? "until all traces of his administration are removed." Sounds like you have an irrational hatred for a man most consider, at the minimum, likeable.

I was referring to every tax, payoff, and onerous regulation put forth by this administration. All of the economy suffocating, government expanding spending.

I want the federal workforce cut back to pre-Obama levels- heck, pre -Bush levels. I want drilling permits issued, and I want the cap and trade regulations snuck through the back door by this EPA on Christmas Eve rescinded.

I want HCR repealed. Any stimulous dollars left used to pay down some of the obscene debt run up by Obama.

Funny thing- most people agree with me, according to the polls.

Now, the mean girl club that thinks it's funny to make fun of the blind? That's another story.

The Affordable Care Act hasn't even had time to take effect, and will not be repealed. President Obama has not run up "obscene" debt, that's just your spin on it. What adjectives would you use to talk about the Bush Administration fiscal policies and debts? "I want..." "I want..." "I want...", and you are the sort of person who blames President Obama for using the pronoun "I" in sentences. Everyone who visits this site knows that you have a visceral hatred for the President. Not everyone understands why....by your own admission you are a successful person whose husband has a business across more than one state, and you have grandchildren, and should be enjoying life. To let your dislike of the President destroy your enjoyment of life is sad.

HCR is already collecting taxes, and it's unknown costs are preventing businesses from hring.

Moreover, THIS is the effect of Obama's economic policies

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43837880

That's just one aspect.

What, exactly, do my personal circumstances have to do with my dislike of what Obama is doing to this country? Or yours, for that matter?

One little problem, the bush tax cuts to the richest are creeping up to be the cause of 1/2 of our debt and now 10 years old. You have to remember they only got extended because the republicans were holding unemployment benefits hostage to get their way.

So how exactly did President Obama do this running up the debt? Did the president go into the past and force the republicans to give tax cuts that our country could not afford?

Why when the tax cuts are costing our country so much did the republicans demand they stay while claiming they want to get the debt down?

The republican drum roll to war and the incurring debt is I'm sure is part of President Obama wild spending in your mind. Come to think of it I just might have seen Obama telling bush to start not one war, but a second one of choice all the while keeping tax cuts costing us trillions.

I can't even imagine the convulsions your brain must have to go through to make it all President Obama's fault.

American First how do you keep it all straight?

Obama's tax cuts or Obama's wars? Cause brother they are all his now.

Or shall we pretend they are not?

No lets pretend that republicans had nothing at all to do with where we are now, the tax cuts and the wars just started the day Obama was elected president.

Its like I drove the car until it ran out of oil and froze the engine and when I gave the car to someone else the damage had suddenly been created by the new owner.

I think I have the republican dance down now. I broke it, its your fault. cha cha cha... I broke it, its your fault cha cha cha...

I am going to settle this once and for all.

The national debt was at its highest after WWII (120% of the GDP). In the 35 years after WWII, however, the various administrations (both Republican and Democratic) brought down the debt consistantly. Then one day, a man named Ronald Reagan started spreading scare tactics about how the debt was "out of control", even though he knew it was at its lowest since WWII. He somehow one the election due to poor campaigning from the other guy. As he was going into office, he claimed he would lower the debt faster than anyone else. Guess what happened.

For the first time since WWII, the debt started to skyrocket. He, and Bush Sr. followed "supply side" economics, and increased the debt more than any other president in history. After Bush Sr., William Clinton came in, and even though he never claimed he would do so, for the next 8 years reversed the deficit to a large surplus that paid down a big chunk of the debt. After Clinton, Bush Jr. won the white house illegally, and like Reagan, claimed he would reduce the debt more than anyone else. From his FIRST BUDGET, he once more reversed a surplus and started increasing the debt. Due to the INTEREST of Reagan and his father's debt, plus the cost of his tax cuts, plus the cost of his illegal wars, he skyrocket the debt to incredible proportions. Barrack Obama, who is actually a legitimate president (contrary to what you birthers think), never claimed that he would reduce the debt. His focus in his first two years was to improve the economy. He (correctly) thought that the deficit is much lower priority than the economy, as it can wait. Unfortunately, the Republicans in congress managed to stall most of his legislation, causing both the economy and the deficit to worsen, though the economy was saved from catastrophy.

There are several claims GOTPs make to the contrary. They claim that Reagan's debt was due to a Democratic congress. This is false. If you look at a comparison between Reagan's requested budget and the actual budget that congress passed, they are virtually the same. In fact, congress' budget was lower than Reagan's budget by a small amount. Republicans also claim that the Clinton surplus was due to a Republican congress, though this is also false for similar reasons.

Now, they also claim that Bush Jr.'s deficits were mostly due to the Democratic congress in his last quarter, as that was when the deficits were the largest. Let's stop for a moment and consider the facts. The Democrats never claimed to wish to reduce the deficit. Bush did, and every single one of his budgets was a deficit, even though some of his congresses were Republican.

The Republicans attacked Obama from the start for not addressing the economy, and now that they are in slight power, they claim that "government can't do anything to fix the economy". How hypocritical. Or should I say, how Republican.

Maine's director of Marine Resources, who had been unanimously approved by the legislature, just resigned his position with a blistering litany of criticisms of our TeaPublican governor after just six months on the job. One of the more shocking statements he makes is accusing the governor of "punishing" the city of Portland for not supporting the governor, and threatening to withhold help building up our fishing industry. Why would anyone vote for Republicans at the national level, after seeing what Teapublican policy looks like in Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio and Maine?

http://www.pressherald.com/news/marine-resources-chief-quits_2011-07-21.html

No Joe, you did know that pre-Bush federal workforce levels were generally higher than today's, right? In terms of total number of people, Reagan never had a government as small as Obama's in 2010 (well, 1982 just barely, if you don't count the military and you don't take into account temporary census workers inflating the 2010 number). http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTables/TotalGovernmentSince1962.asp

The three post above say it all.Both history and the current affairs in the states are proof that the revisonists are without merit on the theads today. Thank you all for posting,Anon, Amy and Nathan.

Paul Ryan: "we will find a way" to screw the middle class and protect the corporate/wealthy.

History of the Federal workforce by year:

(Excluding military personnel)

During Reagan’s 8 years the average number of Federal employees was 2.91 million.

During the 4 years of Bush 41 the average number of Federal employees was 3.05 million.

During Clinton’s 8 years the average number of Federal employees was 2.78 million.

During the 8 years of Bush 43 the average number of Federal employees was 2.12 million.

During the first 2 years of Obama the average number of Federal employees was 2.78 million.

http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTables/TotalGovernmentSince1962.asp

What would it look like if you simply look at Government employees as a percent of the US population?

no joe, no bo, nj

HCR is already collecting taxes, and it's unknown costs are preventing businesses from hring.

Disagree.....LACK OF DEMAND is what prevents businesses from hiring.

Solution? Our largest market "the middle class" needs to be spending again..but they need income to make this happen. And, as importantly, we need to figure out what to do with all the workers we no longer need in the jobs they used to enjoy. We simply need less people to accomplish the same tasks. Workers have to reinvent themselves. Actually we've known this was going to happen for a few decades.....the latest recession put it front and center.

Obviously these are simplistic explanations...but food for thought...

*****************************************

Mr. Anon....excellent post!!

Wow, it must be really hot in nj for you to be drinking so much koolaid there No jo, no bo.

Business always adapts to whatever change takes place, it is uncertainty that leads to inaction. The election of the do nothing Republicans have lead to the current stall of the economy. The stimulus worked, the economy stopped falling and actually started to improve. The unemployment rate stopped increasing and actually started to be reduced.

The uncertainty is created by the repeated futile attempts by to change the ACA and the other regulations passed in the first two years of the Obama Presidency. The business community expected the Republicans to actually enact laws which would stimulate the economy, which is what they campaigned on. I don't think you will find in the history of their campaigns a single Republican who campaigned on the promise to cut Medicare and Medicaid spending. Yet that has been where they have been focusing for the last 3 months.

It our Congress really wants to get rid of the deficit, they need to do whatever is needed to get the economy moving. A better economy means more jobs. More jobs results in more revenue. Once there is more revenue, the deficit is reduced and all of the problems associated with the debt will go away. The first priority has to be to improve the economy. Party politics should not be priority #1.

No Joe - "You Can't Always Get What You Want". You sound like a spoiled child having a temper tantrum. Get real bud. There will be compromise and you will have to live with that. President Obama has made mashed hash out of you and all the people like you. Your intransience is not sitting well with the American people.

The budget wars; I love it! If the great politician of the modern time, Barry O., is favoring tax cuts and has before gone on record against raising the debt ceiling, why does he want to hurt the economy by raising taxes?

And did I actually read somewhere that the lack of a budget (thanks Progressive leadership) may hinder the recovery. Did I miss something along the way, we are in a recovery with this massive unemployment, U6 actual numbers, growing gas and grocery costs and the probability of increasing interest rates soon? Has the housing situation improved, or will it again go into another round of tanking values?

I guess I didn't read the MSNBC position point on the subject as yet.

Ok, at first I thought maybe it was ignorance, then just stupidity, but this continued assertion that the House has not done it's job and passed a bill is just too absurd, even for Feisty.

Brain damage? I honestly cannot come up with a viable alternative explanation. Or is it true - they only know what they read on ThinkProgress?

Now is only Reid would squeeze a bill out of his ass.

Yes the house passed a bill. One they KNEW would not go anywhere. Makes 'em real productive, huh?

Makes us all so proud of the choices we made in representatives, huh?

Means we are now really getting somewhere, huh?

I am sure they will find a way, and Paul Ryan will celebrate forcing seniors to pay more for Medicare with a nice, $350 bottle of wine.

You can bet that if Nancy Pelosi was still Speaker of the House, no one would be going anywhere until this is resolved!

Boehner's got a bar tab he's got to settle...

They passed a bill. It's the senate's turn. If only the dems didn't lose that huge majority, right DBO?

If Pelosi were speaker the ceiling would be infinity.

Too bad she messed it up so badly with the health care bill, eh Fiesty?

Sorry Amy those seniors paid in $100k and take out way more than that. Insolvency sucks, but it's a fact.

Amy you do have a backup plan, right. No rational human would rely solely on the government, for anything.

[They passed a bill.]

There's that parrot again...talking about an ideological turd based upon some perverse pledge. CCB is going nowhere, therefore it is useless, just like the ideological "we repealed/defunded healthcare!" turd. See, the thing with turds is you can dress them up in a $2000 suit, but at the end of the day, it still smells like a turd.

Spanky,

Spot on with your 2.5 post. The ObamaCare bill rammed by Reid and Pelosi is an indicator of just how damaging it would be to have Nancy still leading the House. A debt ceiling of infinity without a doubt. After all, she hasn't met a spending program she hasn't loved.

And I, like you, would like to see anything that has been proposed by the Spending Party leadership. I am not involved daily with keeping up with the political machines, but I haven't seen ANYTHING of substance from Barry O. or his tribe of spenders. But I have read the delusion of the members of this sites Obama Fan Club in the job Barry has done attempting to solve the problems caused by Bush.

Spank, who is the Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL who believes she is the correct in her assumptions? Is she the leader of the Obama Fan Club for the liberal-leaning NewsVine site? How misinformed she is.

[The ObamaCare bill rammed by Reid and Pelosi...}

Talk about spreading disinformation...nothing was "rammed" by anyone. Both sides had plenty of time to read the new HCR bill, comment on it, AND make contributions if they chose to, but it seems one side of the aisle was a no-show on the topic. Sucks to be late to the buffet...all the good stuff is usually gone.

Hmmm...I wonder why..the HCR bill is based upon Romney's model, as well as what the GOP proposed in the 1990's as an alternative to then president Bill Clintions plan...

If you want to take a look at a bill that was "rammed" through look no further than the CCB bill. We don't even know what's in that bill. If it wasn't for Senator Conrad speaking on the Senate floor late last night I still woudn't know what the ramifications of that bill were.

The Affordable Care Act became law in March 2010. It took over one year for the law to be written, debated, amended, read, rewritten, debated, amended, adjusted and signed. How anyone can rationally state that a law that takes a year to get through Congress is "rammed through" is beyond me.

I imagine that if the Republican House ever gets around to passing a rational budget, it will have to be rammed through as well.

Get off the talking point, the memo is starting to get covered with coffee stains.

Micky,

[The ObamaCare bill rammed by Reid and Pelosi...}

Talk about spreading disinformation...nothing was "rammed" by anyone. Both sides had plenty of time to read the new HCR bill, comment on it, AND make contributions if they chose to, but it seems one side of the aisle was a no-show on the topic.

I'm certain this was discussed previously during the HC lack of debate, so I won't elaborate other than to say that Barry, Harry and Nancy didn't give anyone an opportunity to debate. It was a closed legislative deal, Democrats only.

Spin it any way you choose, the subject and the method of producing the bill is not an area of spreading misinformation. But you are a fan of the current leader of this administration, so to you, your vision is accruate.

hunky: anytime one party has control of the House, it controls all legislation and debate. Do you think there was ANY meaningful debate on HR2, which was intended to summarily repeal the Affordable Care Act ?

The Affordable Care Act was signed into law after one year of debate in getting it into place. The Republican "NO," had less than 12 hours of debate and was passed by the House Republicans (with 3 Democrats) before the month of January was completed. Who is doing the ramming of legislation ?

hunky,

Talk about spin, best look in the mirror. FACT is that HCR was available for well over a year...the FACT remains that the GOP knew EXACTLY what was in it. To suggest otherwise is simply irresponsible, and ignorant of the facts as they present themselves.

No dirp101, the one party that controlled all three houses of gov. made certain there was no meaningful debate.

The twelve hours of debate with the resounding "NO" from the GOP side was nothing more, if I recall correctly, than a photo op of this POTUS attempting to have meaningful discussions. If you recall, no actual imput was requested from the GOP.

As usual, the Progressives are doing nothing other than using the liberal media to place the blame on those who would reduce the size of government, lower taxes, improve the deficit and remove regulations that are hurting the business community to move forward on job creation.

Now wouldn't you agree the Spending Party is not ramming now that it doesn't control the House, just obstructing and playing the blame game.

If you think she's delirious now DBO - wait until President Obama wins by a landslide in 2012 & the tea baggers are sent packing! lmao

Unemployment t 9.1%, soon to be 10%, GDP at a whopping 1.3%, and yet Feisty is convinced of an Obama landslide.

Brain damage. No one is that overtly clueless.

You fall on you head there old gal?

Its worse than that, Spanky.

Unemployment would be at 12%, if the labor force measured the same number of people as just two years ago.

Itnis 9.2% due to the magic of moving hundreds of thousands of people into the outmof the labor force pool. Think they don't know they are unemployed?

Or that groceries and gas are sky high and climbing?

Let them drug themselves into believing Obama will win- they were blown away last November, as I recall, and started talking about buyer's remorse less than a week after the election.

The cult of Obama- peopled by perpetual adolescents and delusional thinkers.

Oh, and the guys getting the payoffs for their fundraising prowess. Of course, they'll be sitting out when the outcome of the election is clear. They don't bet on a losing horse.

Spanky, what would you do to decrease unemployed... in the scenario that was given to obama from Jan 2009, in 2010 and now. Also inlcude the hypothetical opposition that occur now (such as the other party stating that they will do everything to make Pres Spanky a one term pres). Also, you stated that "They passed a bill". So, WTF was it... a good bill, a bad bill, show some damn spine and critique your parties bill.

No Joe, what are your ideas instead of adolescently complaining and name calling. Also, just to be thorough, speculate the outcome of YOUR ideas.

To increase employment, President Obama and the Democrats could nix the TAA provision in the three trade agreements they've been sitting on and ratify the agreements. That would create hundreds of thousands of jobs.

President Obama could move a little center, focus on wealth creation instead of redistribution and create an environment in which business are free to expand. He said he directed the Regulatory Agencies to comb through rules and get rid of the unnecessary and cumbersome ones. He could prove it by citing some real examples.

Instead of penalizing the successful, he could lift up the struggling.

They could trim down ARRA, present it in a transparent way so businesses will know exactly what they will be dealing with a couple of years from now because it's provisions keep trickling out to the public and none of it is pro-business.

The President could broker a deal to cut the unnecessary spending on low traffic airports, for example, and non-essential projects and direct those savings to regular people who would benefit from services.

They could pull off the band aid they keep trying to stick on the housing market, let it crash so it would truly have a chance to recover.

He could have been frank and upfront with 54% of White House staff and told them we just can't swing a 16% pay raise right now. He could have directed those savings to viable project grants to come up with the next "gotta have it technology."

There's all kinds of things - even little things - the President can do to promote job creation. Sadly, this President has no creativity and no clue.

Yes Spanky - Now more than ever it looks like it will be President Obama in a landslide as well as all those radical un-American right wingers being swept away. Watch Wisconsin for a harbinger of things to come for Republicans.

I don't know, Say it isn't so, Mr. Cantor is giving him a pretty good run for his money as to who is most hated.

yea ryan has been quite for a while now. i figured the rethugs sent him to sicily to hide out like micheal in the godfather.

to paul ryan, and all who think SS should take all the heat for bush's massive mistakes.

if bush didn't steal the money we paid into SS for his idiotic ideas, SS would be self suficient for a very long time. it really bothers me that you younger idiots can justify that. you and your tea party flunkys will see in 2012. this country would be ok if your band of hostage takers would do what you were hired to do. that is WORK FOR THE PEOPLE, NOT NORQUIST AND THE KOCH BROTHERS. i'm sure you got yours, and don't have to worry about your future. scum bag

Don't be obtuse karl. It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and
Senate that took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it.

Thanks, Matt.

I'm not a think progress fan, so I found my own citation

http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20110721/AGENCY02/107210304/1001

Now, let me seemif I get the facts straight-

The FAA employs 47,000 people. This would affect 4000.

None of the 4000 are air traffic controllers, and 43,000 FAA employees will not be affected.

So, tell me, what the heck do those 4000 people do? And, if they are "non-essential-

Why the heck are they still employed in the first place?

Put another way- is this the only agency with that many non- essential employees?

Good grief- the many and sundry ways the government wastes money.

NJ, Please read the entire article you sited. Teh 4,000 are folks who are paid out of this fund. It includes contstruction, adminstration, and those who are working on a new air traffice system. but you missed the best pat. This whole showdown is really about the underlying disagreement between the parties about unions. But you need to read the whole article. I did.

But you need to read the whole article. I did.

Now why in the world would she DO that?

Today alone, a half dozen of her links have been debunked and it still hasn't stopped her...

I say, keep em coming - she's one of the BEST around here at promoting the progressive agenda - she's just too stupid to realize it! ;o)

Can it Fiesty. We all know you're the progressive BS agenda queen. That's why 90% of your posts get collapsed. Do you ever come out of Obama's backside for fresh air?

Our dysfunctional Congress has been funding the FAA by stop gap measures the last 20 times funding came up. Instead of making good decisions, they have been simply “kicking the proverbial can.” This time the disagreement is over a union provision. The unions seem okay with sacrificing 4000 workers for their cause and the Democrats want to stick by their union buds.

The truth is, however, the country is running out of money and credit. It’s not really a good time to be spending money on non-essential construction projects. Cutting back on administration is usually a good idea in hard times. In a time when the focus is spending cuts, it is especially not the time to subsidize conspicuously located airports $1,000 per passenger. Where’s that longing for shared sacrifice everyone talks about ?

The country is running out of money and credit because Republicans feel the need to give tax breaks to corporations and the phenomenally wealthy while handing the bill for such stupidity over to the most vulnerable of our nation.

Republicans continue to be the scum of the earth, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Mark, mark, the country is running out of money and credit is due to the previous administrations spending policies. But the previous administrations can't compare with the spending in this country since the Spending Party gained control of the House and Senate in what, 2006 or so.

And I don't believe you can place blame and financial division on only the wealthy. Please place equal blame on the tax laws that allow the wealthy to take advantage of the tax loopholes, as well as for the masses that pay no taxes. some of the non-payers even receive a refund for not paying taxes. Now, do you call that fair?

I do tak offense with your last statement that Republicans continue to be the scum of the earth. If this is true, how do you explain Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Weiner, Wasserman-Schultz and others from the Progressive side?

Now is it time for you to bring out the Republicans who also should be called out for their issues? Perhaps is time to remove the professional politicians from the roles of congress, revise the tax code, and also reduce and reorganize government. Why not also remove from law, the funding we send foreign countries and keep the money in the US for our own issues?

Would that upset your sense of fairness?

This from a fanatic who pledges to destroy the economy and force his delusional ideology onto the public.