Where is Romney? After the weekend AMES Poll we have heard a lot about Bachmann and even more about Perry – who apparently has stolen the show from MB.

Bachmann has all by herself raised Palin to the level of a Mensa Member.

This week she gives Happy Birthday congratulations to Elvis Presley on the anniversary of his death

Her understanding of the Enron scandal (Fraud) makes her think we still have debtors prisons in this country

And the American People are afraid of the rise of the Soviet Union – hello, there is no Soviet Union for about 20 years now. They are all independent States.

Bachmann claims she took a job at the IRS to prepare for her political career - Why - To destroy the IRS.

And this person is home schooling her kids??? She wants to run a country??? She could not manage a “Corn Dog” shack.

Perry continues to prove just how much of a “Fraud” he is. He has lied about everything from accepting Stimulus Funds and if it worked (see link below) to his bogus job creation record, poor State Education record and lack of Health Insurance in his State of Texas. Other things that Perry appears to be in favor of: (partial list)

1. Education: He does not feel that the Federal Government should be involved in education. He wants to do away with Pell Grants and Student Loans. He also wants to teach Creationism along with Evolution in Science Classes. You have to remember – Texas is the State that is re-writing the History Books for all schools in this country and editing out what they do not like, even though it is true and part of our History and who we are. And this is the State that ranks 47^th in educational standing – You would think they would take all the help they can get.

2. Labor Laws: Anti Collective Bargaining and thinks “Child Labor Laws” are unconstitutional

3. Voter Suppression: Perry wants to repeal the 17^th Amendment – the one that gives citizens the right to elect their ‘Senators” by popular vote. He wants them appointed by the Governor or the Party in power at the time. Now there is an idea, we have TP/GOP held States that are re-writing voter registration laws resulting in the disenfranchisement of millions of citizens, the “Citizens United” decision that literally sold our political process to the highest bidders (foreign or domestic) and ratified by the Republicans in their blocking of the “Disclosure Bill”.

4. Civil Rights: Perry says Federal Laws protecting “Civil Rights” are unconstitutional

5. Status of the Federal Government: Perry supports the repeal of the 16^th Amendment - the one that allows for the collection of Income taxes etc. This would wipe out 80% of the Federal Revenues. This would destroy the US Government to the point we just would not have one. No military, no FAA, FEMA, FBI, CIA, No Federal Judges (including SCOTUS), No Medicare, No Medicaid, No Social Security, NO NOTHING PERIOD. We would not even need a President, Senators or the House – there would be nothing to govern, the doors are closed. This is nothing more than a blatant assault on the Federal Government – Period: The AINOS want to “Privatize” the government. That is they want to give control of our government to Wall Street, Big Business, Big Oil and the Insurance Companies.

The latest yap from Perry is that talking point from the radical right that the Stimulus did not work – Sorry Perry you are not telling the truth again - especially in your own state – see below:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/08/18/299174/rick-perry-stimulus-no-jobs/

New GOP presidential contender Gov. Rick Perry (TX) continues to get a free pass from the press for his stimulus hypocrisy on the campaign trail. Last week the governor claimed that the Recovery Act signed by President Obama had “failed” — conveniently forgetting that he accepted more stimulus money than any other state besides California, and used the funds to close 97 percent of Texas’ massive budget deficit.

The Houston Chronicle reported that as of July 2010, federal stimulus funds created or saved 47,700 jobs in the Lone Star State. Yet today during a question-and-answer session in Pembroke, New Hampshire, Perry once again feigned ignorance of the indispenable benefits his state received from stimulus money. In fact, he claimed that the stimulus “didn’t create any jobs, as far as I can tell”:

So far, Texas has used $17.4 billion in federal stimulus money to keep schools open, ensure Medicaid coverage for children, and put more people to work on infrastructure projects. About half of that was spent on “shovel ready” projects — “things we would not have done with our own money,” says a senior budget analyst for the Center for Public Policy Priorities. Texas benefited disproportionately from the stimulus, using it to balance its budget two years in a row.

Perry is just another radical tea bagger lying through his teeth hoping America will not notice. Well we are noticing and Walker and Kasich know we are watching.

More about Rick Perry at:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/06/10/241830/top-10-thing-texas-gov-rick-perry/

Did the Stimulus Work?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-08-30-stimulus30_CV_N.htm

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/wait-did-the-stimulus-work/

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2910

The GOPTP Has No Viable Candidate:

An overview of the political landscape reveals that the GOPTP has no savior, no rock star, no one with the intellect and wisdom to be Commander-in Chief. Some potential candidates have clearly said they will not run. Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee, Chris Christie and Mitch Daniels have decided to stay on the sidelines. Pawlenty has already dropped out and it won't be long until Herman Cain, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich find their seat along side Jeb, Mike and Mitch.

So what about those candidates still seeking the nomination? That doesn't look so good either. Romney flip-flops and is saddled with Romney care. Bachmann has said too many crazy things to be viable and Perry is just beginning to show his colors.

Perry talks too much and essentially says everything from Social Security to Pell Grants to Child Labor Laws to the 17th Amendment to care for the elderly is unconstitutional. His loose lips could put him put him in the ditch.

The GOPTP is still looking for a candidate: Enter stage right is Paul Ryan. Well, to put it bluntly, he doesn't have a chance either. It's going to be a long primary season so sit back and watch the GOP destroy each other one state at a time.

Hey FR crew - does anyone know what the Congress Critters are up to on their vacations?

Other then the sporadic PAY to PLAY town halls meetings they appear to be laying rather low...

With all the brouhaha over the President taking a 10 day working vacation, I & others sure would like to know how they're spending 5 whole weeks away from DC.

*** Target: Vulnerable House Republicans:

Don't forget Joe Walsh deadbeat dad from IL - that should be some easy pickens! ;o)

The Republican/Tea Bagger Party of today has hit the all time low. How can everyone with an ounce of self respect endorse or be a part of this group. It's all so simple, they just want to defect President Obama at all cost. The old GOP of your fathers has become the "GrandObstructionist Party."

What has happened to the moderate Republicans that we use to respect? Today such figures as Ronald Regan and John Warner would be thrown out of the Republican Party as being too moderate.

The current Republicans /Tea Baggers, who are being propped up by the likes of such groups like the Koch Brothers, have one agenda and that is to see President Obama fail. They are rabid in trying to obtain that goal, without considering the consequences to the United States and our citizens. They block and stall progress in an effort to make President Obama a one term President, no matter the cost to the nation.

The biggest question I have for the Republican/Tea Baggers is WHY?

The reasons they give are clearly made up fake outrage reasons of people who just hate the President, with no facts to show why. It's more of the canned and false facts from the extreme right wing play book. I think many Obama haters just don't like having a man of color who is smarter than them in charge.

You hear almost daily certain racist statements coming from people such as Rush Lentball and Glenn Beck. Not to mention people who have been elected to public office, who spew their racist over tones. Look at Slick Rick Perry, who says Federal Laws protecting "Civil Rights" are unconstitutional.

The best thing we Progressives/Moderates and people not on the crazy train can do to counter act this attack from the extreme right is to continue to talk and brand these extremist evil doers for what they are. Then, we have to continue to encourage the President to keep up the fight against these same extremist, who want to destroy our President and take the United States down while doing so, at no matter what the cost is in obtaining their goal in getting at the President and making him fail.

Are we still wasting space talking about the damn bus?

"bob" - The Secret Service bought two buses...the other will be used by the GOP nominee next summer. Do you have a problem with that? Did you know President Bush used a bus manufactured by the same company in 2004?

Enough about the damn bus, already!

Feisty - a number of Representatives are avoiding holding any open meetings, thus evading bitter criticism from the voters who the Tea Party claque (cq - that's journalism-talk for "correct," it's not a typo of "clique") betrayed. But other Representatives are taking it in the teeth.

At one town Hall meeting reported on cable news last night, the Congressmember was shown attempting to use a pie chart to spin his position about Federal finances. "Where are the jobs on that?" shouted a person from the audience. The chant went up, "Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!"

When the voters cast their ballots in 2010, the leading issues were employment and the economy, followed closely by the partisan gridlock in D.C. The deficit and debt hadly registered among voters. Only 22% of the voters attributed their votes to Tea Party positions.

The Republicans have betrayed the trust of the voters.

And the voters are telling them so. Makes for a nice vacation, doesn't it?

Ron:

Romney flip-flops and is saddled with Romney care. Bachmann has said too many crazy things to be viable and Perry is just beginning to show his colors.

What's worse for Perry is that he not only says crazy things, he wrote lots of crazy stuff down in a book. Unless the Democrats decide to roll over and play dead, his claims that the Civil Rights Act, Social Security, and Medicare are unconstitutional are going to be questioned rather severely should he be the GOP nominee.

Bob,

You have earned passage on the crazy train today.

Feisty:

They are starting early today. The Birth Certificate of the Bus is still their main New idea to move this country forward.

I appears that Bachmann has used up her 15 mins. of fame She now claims she took the job at the IRS so she could learn how to destroy it before going into politics - What an idiot. She make Palin look like a mensa member.

It is going to be a race between Perry and Rummy. A fraud that wants to Privatize the Federal Government by giving complete control to Wall Street, Big Business, Big Oil and the Insurance Companies and a flip-flopper that has no idea what he wants from day to day.

Heaven help us.

Holy Cow

Michele Bachmann disclosure includes farm receiving government subsidies [updated]

Despite repeatedly asserting that she has never received income from a family farm that drew federal subsidies in the past, Rep. Michele Bachmann again listed the farm as a source of income when she filed her 2010 PERSONAL FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES LATE LAST WEEK.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-pn-bachmann-disclosure-20110815,0,6520326.story

Obama enforcer Michellee Bachmann worked for the IRS because "the first rule of war is 'know your enemy'"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg08BDY0ZiA&feature=player_embedded

HAIRY PERRY, Killer in Chief got a Smack down

President Michele Bachmann Has A Promise: $2 Gas

I know Obama didn’t pick-up the phone to order the bus MADE IN CANADA …… he has people do that for him

*falls of chair*

OMG - you FINALLY got something right!

That would be the Secret Service who are in CHARGE of his security!

Please continue to milk the 'bus certificate' nontroversy from now until the election...

It highlights beautifully petty & bitter the tea baggers & birthers really are!

Houston: You are absolutely right. Perry will have a lot of explaining to do. But the Tea Party will not care how he answers the hard questions. At this point they are only focused on making Romney a second tier candidate.

DaNoid:

Now you know why I havehim on ignore. He is a bigot and racist and lies through his teeth. He is not a true American he is a neo fascist/despot/tea bagger trying to go back to the 20th Century. He is not worth you time in my opinion.

The Obama Leftists attacking Perry like mad on any front

Cutting spending means cutting redistribution of wealth

Socialist idealogues won't stand for that

Navy, spot on, but one teensy correction, if you will. He wants to go back to the 13th century, complete with serfdom, feudalism and a theocratic organization to administer civil rule.

Bad news for Governor Christie.

On the same day a report suggested that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) is exploring a presidential bid, the ratings agency Fitch downgraded the state's credit rating from AA to AA-.

As the Wall Street Journal reports, the state's budget needs more funding to meet growing needs of pension and worker-benefit liabilities: If you remember, the unions agreed to pay more for their pensions and healthcare and still the pensions are underfunded.

The ratings company said the pressure is exacerbated by New Jersey's weak economic recovery, high debt burden, limited financial flexibility and persistent structural imbalance.

Fitch revised New Jersey's outlook from negative to stable, after it had lowered its outlook in April, according to the Journal.

Just goes to show…on a macro level….the effect of an expense cut only philosophy. No new revenues, no taxes on the top 2% of the wealthiest people in NJ, deep cuts to education and public services, backing out of the largest infrastructure project in America which would have created thousands of jobs and still, after all that the net result, insufficient funding.

There can be NO growth or acceleration of demand in a state or nation- wide without proper funding. That old saying about having to spend money to make money still applies. Spend a little and get 10 times the return in new jobs, that generate revenues and spending.

Take NJ as an example and extrapolate to the national level. The economic plan we are now on just doesn't not work. A balanced approach must be adopted or we are on the path to a double dip recession...that simple.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/fitch-downgrades-new-jerseys-credit-rating-to-aa-.php

DaNoid: Bob has become as crazy as Bachmann. Not a worthy opponent.

Oh, look who dropped by to leave some smokin' hot, high-acid droppings! Madison's swoop-and-poop of course mischaracterizes the "redistribution of wealth" class warfare waged by the ultra-right, as usual. The goal of the right is to redistribute wealth to the few at the top - taking it from all the rest, of course.

The 'Vine's screech owl lies ... err, flies ... again!

You couldn't have said it better when it comes to the case that Republicans have nothing to offer. One of our FR Conservatives even backed up that argument by what he DIDN'T say. He didn't defend any of the candidates, or the GOPTP agenda, or the deep pocket Conservative elites who seek to remake our society, or the changes they aspire to as laid out in Navy's post.

Instead he wants to criticize the Secret Service's taste in buses. Again. For how many days in a row?

No wonder the disapproval rate of the Republican Party is now 59% and people look more favorably upon Atheists and Muslims than the Tea Party.

Madison From NY,

You have earned passage on the crazy train today.

John A:

True, they are taking a page right out of Karl Rove's manual - Tell a lie and run and hide. Just watching the last week none of them answer a direct question. They just restate the talking point and get mad that you asked the question that they do not have an answer for. The witch was a great example this week.

Houston:Very true as his book tells us all we need to know. I have not read such an un-American collection of trash in a long time. He will have to answer questions sooner or later.

Job1:Great post to end the week. Bob has been on and off his meds for a long time now.

Bev: Nice job to end the week.

John A:

I stand corrected. Thank you for the correction. The 13th Century indeed. Thanks again.

Would the real Rick Perry please stand up... please stand up... (and then go back to texas and stay there)

Terrific posts, liberals. Perry's staff issued a statement that the views he stated in his book "Fed Up" published just last year do not reflect his current views. Seriously?

bob numbers, while I disagree with your views, I give you points for taking the time to write your own thoughts. Perhaps you could explain your theory sometime why government protecting the public from the private to prevent another financial meltdown is wrong.

FDR's financial regulations kept this country strong, the economy grew, recessions had relatively minor impact; the economic swings were moderate. When Reagan began the de-regulation of financial institutions, the first thing that happened was the mortage loan crisis and taxpayers bailed out these failed groups--that should have been a warning but the de-regulators won. The ultimate result was 2008 and almost a second depression. I believe in the free market capitalism but I understand that greed and corruption must be held in check as much as possible. Banking and financial regulations protect the ordinary citizen, the average mortgage loan holder from the speculators and those whose greed trumps smart investment.

John A.-400474

Oh, look who dropped by to leave some smokin' hot, high-acid droppings! Madison's swoop-and-poop of course mischaracterizes the "redistribution of wealth" class warfare waged by the ultra-right, as usual. The goal of the right is to redistribute wealth to the few at the top - taking it from all the rest, of course.

A few days ago, the PBS Newshour had a segment about an experiment an economist conducted with people on the street. He showed them three pie charts dividing the nation's wealth into population quintiles (20%) from poorest to richest. The first pie chart showed wealth equally divided between the five quintiles (not very logical since you'd expect the wealthiest quintile to have more wealth than the poorest). The second pie chart showed the wealthiest quintile with 35 or 40% of the wealth and the poorest with maybe 15% of the wealth. The last pie chart showed the wealthiest quintile with 85% of the wealth and the poorest quintile was invisible because it had only a tiny fraction of the nation's total wealth.

When people were asked which chart most closely resembled wealth distribution in the United States, almost everyone chose the middle graph. One person dismissively said the one showing the wealthiest 20% of the population owning 85% of the nation's wealth looked more like India than the US. The correct chart for the US was the one showing the wealthiest 20% of the population owning 85% of the nation's wealth. The middle one that most people chose was actually the wealth distribution in "socialist" Sweden. If the Republicans continue their redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle class to the already wealthy, the graph of the US is going to end up looking like Zimbabwe.

<strong>Poor Booby, is running around with his hair on fire trying to get some traction on something, anything. He has become more crazy than even the candidates he is promoting or defending.....poor dear

Hey Feisty,

I want to thank you for starting off the Perry creationism and evolution debate.

What did it end being ...... 130 - 150 spirited replys?

What was funny, with everything discussed in all those comments, my statement that

Your comments everyday are the best argument against evolution.

was not challenged by one person.

Thanks for the chuckle, Feisty.

<strong>Poor Booby, is running around with his hair on fire trying to get some traction on something, anything. He has become more crazy than even the candidates he is promoting or defending.....poor dear

Would you expect anything less the from the 'boob'?

After all his mentor is the nut job from NJ... lol

Speaking of the nut job - I'm not sure she's gonna make it to the election at the rate she's going...

Come to think of it I don't think the 'boob' is gonna make it either... ;o)

bob numbers, black beauty, I forgot to mention that petty nonsense about a bus costs your side points every time.

The attack dogs for the liberal media begins.

Why are we not surprised? That's all Obama has to run on, since he certainly can't run on his record.

The closer it gets to the tea people GOP losing the congress, senate and white house the crazier they get.

I love the way they talk about how great a candidate is before he throws his hat in the GOP ring. Then two days after he's in they start looking for someone else to come to the Republicans rescue. aka: Romney, Huntsman, Bauchman, and now Perry, none of which was what they thought they were. Now they want Christi, Ryan or anyone else that can save the republicans to get in the race to rescue the republicans. The Republicans have to face the fact that since they were co-opted by the tea baggers there is no rescuing them, their toast in 2012.

You lotus eating liberals are bound and determine to place blame on everybody but the people that actually put the policies that caused the sub prime meltdown. And you accuse conservatives of lying! Are you all actually dumb enough to think that the rest of the country is going to buy into that. If you all are so freaking smart then tell me how the following people had nothing to do with it.

1. Bill Clinton and Sandy Weill

2. Brooksley Born

3. Herb Moses

4. James Johnson

5. Franklin Raines

6. Jamie Gorelick

So, what they are saying is Ricky George is two faced.

GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY set them and us up for the "collapse" of the era of FALSE prosperity. How you could think that Brooksley Born at the CFTB could be responsible for unregulated derivitives trading is mind-boggling.........the woman was excoriated for trying to head off the disaster they would inevitably bring to us.

Well, it's Friday. How much wealth will ObamaNomics lose in the world stock market today?

I know, I know. It's just a little streak of bad luck for Obama. Great way to run a country, on luck.

At least the Congressional Black Caucus is out front on trying to get people jobs. Good for them. Source:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/thousands-show-job-fair-jobless-rate-rises/story?id=14336519

Looking forward to the presidents "Jobs speech" in a couple weeks. It's about time we got that problem cleared up, and it will be good to get the solution from Mr. Obama.

17.4 billion in federal stimulus money to keep TX schools open??????

Navy, I still havent heard from you on your tin hat comment? Still ignoring the repudiation comment on Obama's record that you so eloquently applied to Walker? Come on show your true colors. If Obama is so great, you should be writing all the great things he has accomplished as that would easily sway voters away from Perry. Why personally attack him instead of just proving that Obama is better?

JoAnna:

Well, it's Friday. How much wealth will ObamaNomics lose in the world stock market today?

So, today it's ObamaNomics, but the day after the lousy debt ceiling deal, in which John Boehner claimed he got 98 percent of what he wanted, it was Greece.

Thanks for the clarification.

You see, I really get SO confused by all these world economics and high-falutin' things that you and the other high wizards who know so much more than I do talk about, you know?

Feisty,

Other then the sporadic PAY to PLAY town halls meetings they appear to be laying rather low...

It is so bad out there that even our Congressmmen seek part-time employment. But seriously, I cannot even comprehend how that is even legal. A paid public official should not be able to charge his constituates to speak to them.

Houston -

Good post. Naomi Klein in The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, shows how the Friedman/Chicago School of Economics ideology, that promoted by the ultra-right in the U.S. today, produced disastrous results in country after country. She observes on p. 304 (Picador Books, 2007 paperback edition):

"...(W)hat the whole episode (of Russia's Chicago School shock therapy conversion to a Friedman-style capitalist structure) has to teach about the true face of the crusade for unfettered free markets, the most powerful political trend of the past three decades. The corruption of many of the (post-Soviet) oligarchs is still spoken of as an alien force that infected otherwise worthy free-market plans. But corruption wasn't an intruder to Russia's free-market reforms: quick and dirty deals were actively encouraged by Western powers at every stage as the fastest way to kick-start the economy. National salvation through the harnessing of greed was the closest thing Russia's Chicago Boys had to a plan for what they were going to do after they finished destroying Russia's institutions.

"Nor were these catastrophic results unique to Russia; the entire thirty-year history of the Chicago School experiment has been one of mass corruption and corporatist collusion between security states and large corporations, from Chile's piranhas, to Argentina's crony privatizations, to Russia's oligarchs, to Enron's energy shell game, to Iraq's 'free fraud zone'. The point of shock terapy (the very strategy behind the Ryan budget proposal) is to open up a window for enormous profits to be made very quickly - not despite the lawlessness but precisely because of it."

Parenthetical additions in italics are mine.

She goes on, pp. 304-305:

"The movement that Milton Friedman launched in the late 1950s (sic) is best understood as an attempt by multinational capital to recapture the highly profitable, lawless frontier that Adam Smith, the intellectual forefather of today's neoliberals,* so admired - but with a twist. Rather than journeying through Smith's 'savage and barbarous nations' wherever there was no Western law (no longer a practical option), this movement set out to systematically dismantle existing laws and regulation to re-create that earlier lawlessness. ...(T)oday's multinationals see government programs, public assets and everything else that is not for sale as terrain to be conquered and seized - the post office, national parks, schools, social security, disaster relief and anything else that is publicly administered."

*Neoliberal: a term coined to describe the Chicago School movement advocates. It derives from the original meaning of "liberal" as expressed by Edmund Burke in the 1700's - an open and permissive government and economic system. It was used to contrast with the closed top-down autocratic systems of absolutist monarchs of the time. In effect, however, "neoliberals" produced autocratic, despotic governments everywhere they went and a cartel corporatist political economy.

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

That is precisely what many of us have been warning about for more than a year. It is the overall sum of the Tea Party program. Elements of it, launched during the Reagan Regime, and intensified under G.W. Bush, led inevitably to fraud, corruption, and collapse. Ms. Klein elsewhere in her pages documents how inevitably the Tea Party-styled program resulted in massive expansion of unemployment, huge increases in poverty and homelessness, and huge concentration of wealth in the hands of a few.

The facts are there. What the Tea Party advocates is known as a failure - except by the small number of those who become immensely wealthy. This is the stark truth behind the "class warfare" Madison, Bob, and others here advocate. And most Americans really do not understand it.

Paul-977599

GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY set them and us up for the "collapse" of the era of FALSE prosperity. How you could think that Brooksley Born at the CFTB could be responsible for unregulated derivitives trading is mind-boggling.........the woman was excoriated for trying to head off the disaster they would inevitably bring to us.

And who stopped Brooksley Born from bringing the derivatives market under control? According to Ms. Born herself it was Bill Clinton and his advisers that pushed through a bill to prevent her agency from having any control over the derivatives market. Clinton's budget director; Franklin Raines was nailed for questionable accounting practices while he was at Fannie Mae that resulted in something close to 100 million in undeserved bonuses for himself and James Johnson. Jamie Gorelic was Clinton's deputy attorney general and she raked in a few million while at Fannie Mae. Herb Moses was Barney Frank's boyfriend. Frank got him a job at Fannie Mae at the time Fannie Mae was pushing some of the worst mortgages. Sandy Weill of Citicorp was a huge friend and contributor to Bill Clinton's campaign and his stated goal was to merge Citicorp and The Travelers Group to form Citigroup one of the worst sub prime abusers. The sub prime scandal has democrat written all over it so I can understand why the liberals want to divert attention away from the real drivers of policies that put us in this mess in the first place.

A paid public official should not be able to charge his constituates to speak to them.

They're skirting around it by including lunch...

Like the senior citizens who are surviving on cat food can afford it...

So much for a free & open government!

Anna Molloy:

And when the market was going up and jobs were better it was the tea baggers that deserved the credit.

You are trying to talk to another one of the unhinged that is so full of hate for President Obama she is crossed eyed.

The TP/GOP Party has nothing to offer America. NOTHING but stupid old talking points, many of which have been debunked, they change their story like the weather (more like Rummy).

They talk about everything except what they campaigned on - Jobs, Economy and Education. Instead we get the uterus police, privatization of the Federal Government, more tax cuts for the richest 2% and higher ones for the middle class, and the list goes on and on and on.

Since President Obama has taken office they (TP/GOP) has opposed and/or blocked virtually every thing that would create jobs and improve the economy. 4 Bills just this year alone. They have blocked important appointments to Federal Agencies basically making impotent (like them).

Hey Ron & Navy,

DaNoid: Bob has become as crazy as Bachmann. Not a worthy opponent.

Really?

You ever win one?

Post it.

BTW - I haven't become more crazy, I've always said the same type of things ....... sheez can't even get that right.

Now you know why I havehim on ignore. He is a bigot and racist and lies through his teeth. He is not a true American he is a neo fascist/despot/tea bagger trying to go back to the 20th Century. He is not worth you time in my opinion.

If you have me on ignore, that's pretty stupid because I rip your cut-n-paste posts to pieces every week.

Maybe you are not aware, but I'm not trying to convince you how inept this president is, I'm trying to convince any undecided / independent readers. You chose to not reply - that just looks like you can't refute anything (which you can't.)

Polls say no joe and JoAnnaSmith and Joe and Spanky and the rest of us are winning the debate, huh?

29% approve of Obama's handling of the economy? That's about 7% more than the 22% base libs, right?

You guys are losing the debate big time.

And you don't ignore. You pretty confident in thinkprogress stuff the other day, even challenged me. Remember the ......

Come on Bobby short pants – show proof ………… Put your proof where your mouth is.

I did, over 1,500 words of economist quotes, IRS data ..... even the numbers of the pages!

Crickets, right.

Look at today, for the first hour, one little conservative against all the libbies, all the libbies in the herd are talking about the big bad bob ........ yet not one of you can refute one point out of almost 1,000 words.

I used to come here and watch no joe and JoAnnaSmith just rip into you guys like a pair of female lions toying with a herd of antelope. Looked like fun. And it is.

But the important thing is to win the argument, win the debate - get of rid this disaster in office.

Again we are winning ........ thanks for ignoring, quiting, whatever - Navy and Ron ..... maybe defending the indefensible is just too tough, huh?

Either way, trust me, this guy is not worth it ......even for you guys whether you know it or not.

PS - Navy, I almost forgot about the fascist comment.

Need another fascist slapdown on fascism?

Surely you haven't dorgotten the last one.

Say it again and I will happily accommodate you.

Rick numbers - close, but no cigar:

Sandy Weill of Citicorp was a huge friend and contributor to Bill Clinton's campaign and his stated goal was to merge Citicorp and The Travelers Group to form Citigroup one of the worst sub prime abusers. The sub prime scandal has democrat written all over it so I can understand why the liberals want to divert attention away from the real drivers of policies that put us in this mess in the first place.

Matt Taibbi, in Griftopia: Bubble Machines, Vampire Squids and the Long Con That Is Breaking America, goes into this particular episode in considerable detail. The prime mover of the Citigroup deal was Sen. Phil Gramm, assisting his wife Wendy. They engineered the merger in direct violation of the Glass-Steagall Act, presenting President Obama and Congress with a fait accompli. Indeed President Clinton was persuaded by his friend Sandy Weill not to move in and unroll the merger - because Gramm had his piece of legislation ready to roll, legalizing the deal. Clinton, who has since expressed great regret for signing the measure, at the time backed the so-called Financial Services Modernization Act.

However, the point of the first reply to you was that you tarred Ms. Born, who indeed tried unsuccessfully to oppose the de-regulation of many things, with the same brush. similarly, you have erred in blaming Barney Frank for the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae share of the debacle. That was the direct result of President Bush keeping the regulators off the agencies' backs - while their executives, who had been making only conforming loans, thought they'd get rich on the bundled bum mortgages and credit default swaps the other institutions were passing around. Both of those institutions, by the way were private businesses.

Nice try, Rick, but you just didn't finish telling the whole history. Your stuff is misdirection and propaganda, as a result. But you get credit, at least you didn't try to blame the Community Reinvestment Act. That discredited spin still sometimes stinks up the place here.

I have been trying to remember who Perry reminds me of - and then it occured to me last night - he is the female version of Sarah Palin. Basically a good looking candidate with nothing inside the brain area.

The GOP in TEXAS Have,- HOUSE BILL 2012 ( loop--Hole ) For ILLEGAL UN-DOCUMENTED SERVANTS.

Google Texas House Bill 2012 ..

There's Your GOP Lying and DOING what they ATTACK and BLAME the DEMS for ( PERRY'S STATE )

Whether Passed or Not !

This is MINIMUM WAGE & You are on YOUR OWN HEALTHCARE ----------- AGAIN

The 2000-2006 GOP MAJORITY Proved It...............................................

Bob - you do realize that the liberals such as Feisty, Navy Vet and a few others are just parroting liberal talking points. This has become a real hobby for me since nobody wants to hire an old man like me. I have researched both conservative and liberal web sites and the same names keep popping up especially concerning Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac plus the entire sub prime scandal yet these lotus eaters continue to spin the entire fiasco to place blame on Republicans then when they can't refute my points they resort to name calling and outright lies. Like you I want to stop their agenda of misinformation for those independents and moderates that are just looking for some information to help make a decision. But these liberals do everything in their power to censor those that disagree with their methods.

Like you I want to stop their agenda of misinformation for those independents and moderates that are just looking for some information to help make a decision

In case you haven't noticed - you're on a left leaning web-site...

Lot's of luck - you & the boob are gonna need it! lmao

Here's a helpful hint - if you're looking to persuade someone it's best to do it with FACTS...

Otherwise you know what they say about everyone having a opinion!! ;o)

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

They're skirting around it by including lunch...

well, in that case I take it back. Hopefully, they get a nice steak and not a hot dog.

And who stopped Brooksley Born from bringing the derivatives market under control?

That would be Conservative Republican Alan Greenspan, who was so alarmed by Born's intention to impose reasonable regulation on the derivatives market that he made a hasty trip to Congress in order to kill any hope of Born's success.

Keep going Rick, you're doing a great job giving us an opportunity to fully expose 30 years of Republican failure in the arena of economics and fiscal policy.

John A, special kudos to you on your outstanding information on how the 2007 recession had its roots long in the past.

Good OLD GOP ,,B.W.BUSH!

Campaign 2004 OWNERSHIP SOCIETY !

Housing For ALL at ZERO DOWN PAYMENT !

And the GOP Credit Card economy CRASHED DOWN During BUSHES REIGN.!

The END isn't OVER YET with The G-NO-P................................................

Accept NO NEW TAXES for The WEALTHY ONLY...............................

Hopefully, they get a nice steak and not a hot dog.

Nah - I hear the menu consists of a cold turd sandwich & all hatoraid you can drink!

Anna - Regardless of Boehner's political posturing, which is really a moot point, what difference does it make what he said? The economic policy is set by this president and I am curious as to what really great things you think are being accomplished by Obama. Can you come up with anything he's done to further job growth, or increase GDP? Its been almost 3 years since he took control and one would think in that time, an economic turnaround would at least be starting. Latest headlines I've read indicate that we, along with Europe are facing an even deeper recession.

Would you agree that the president is the CEO of this country? If so, wouldn't the CEO be the person that directs the business end of things? Isn't the business end based on the monitary flow? In otherwords, the president is in charge of the health of the economy. In your mind, beyond the words of Boehner (as you love quoting) is the president doing a good job?

AM: So, today it's ObamaNomics, but the day after the lousy debt ceiling deal, [yadda, yadda, yadda, same-old copy-and-paste]

You really need to get back with the tree house gang and decide if this was the Tea Party Downgrade, or the S&P taking revenge for being investigated by Obama's state department. Can't be both AM. Let's hope someone brings juice boxes to your meeting. Sour grapes for you, correct?

Cold turd sandwich w/hatoraid??? LOL *tears*

If you were even half as intelligent as you claim to be then you would know that I have based everything I have posted on verifiable information. And of course I am on a liberal website. Why would I want to preach to the choir?

Madison earned passage on which "crazy-train" ? Surely not the one on where Fisty is the conductor. And by the way, Rick is correct, grab a bag of crackers and you might be able to shut them up for while. Fisty wanna cracker?

"Liberalism is proof-positive of mental constipation"

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Nah - I hear the menu consists of a cold turd sandwich & all hatoraid you can drink!

don't they give that up for FREE already?

UH-oh. Speaking of somebody layin' a turd in your lunchbox today:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44203833/ns/local_news-houston_tx/#.Tk6EyV3R5XQ

Rick, again you ignore inconvient truth. I did refute you, quite specifically, and cited sources. You only recite that part of history that serves your purpose, leaving out the unfortunate other elements. I didn't name call you and am not now. But incomplete use of history is intentionally misleading and becomes propaganda no longer worthy of debate. And by the way, John B. was correct about Alan Greenspan's role.

Who gives a @!$%# whether is it establishment Perry or Teatard Perry. They are both douchebag @!$%#s.

Hmmmmm GE owns 49% of MSNBC, Obama hires GE's Chairman Jeffery Immelt as the White House Chief Economic Adviser, GE pays NO TAXES last year, and White House operative Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL gets to post first on MSNBC's main political site. Coincidence?

Keep spewing it Bob and keep that hope that someone out here in the sphere will be stupid enough to buy in. That IS the Republican hope, that they have dumbed things down just enough that folks like you, Bachmann, Perry and the rest of the Tea Smokers can sell your lies and falsehoods. But I think you have misjudged your fellow citizens. Most see through the lies. You are deluded if you think you are winning anything. The problem with tea smokers is that you never get far enough away from the tea pipe and the Koch lines to find out what anyone else thinks.

Madison, are you drunk today? The wanderings of your alleged "logic" seem to stagger from lamppost to fireplug to leaning against a wall.

I know directly that Feisty is not a "White House operative," nor am I or the other posters on the liberal side who are personally known to me. This is a canard you and some others - Bob comes to mind - toss up because we simply bash the daylights out of your falsehoods, misdirections, and diversions from the topic.

As for who "posts first," it's a first-come, first-served service here, folks. Even Spanky, who is on ignore for quite good reason, at times grabs the lead spot.

But thanks, Madison, for demonstrating to everyone that your only real method is the completely false smear campaign. More of your swoop and poop-poop-a-doop crap.

Madison From NY

GE pays NO TAXES last year

Do you actually have proof that special GE tax code exists? Do you realize that GE follows the same tax code as the other 99.999999999999999999999999 % of companies?

Talk to Boner about the tax code because it's Boner who is so against anything that would result in tax increases for the top 2%.

bayllie: Do you actually have proof that special GE tax code exists?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?pagewanted=all

If you were even half as intelligent as you claim to be then you would know that I have based everything I have posted on verifiable information.

So why don't you dazzle us all by proving wrong the numerous points where you've been refuted?

JoAnnaSmith1,

I don't need proof that GE does not pay taxes - 2/3 of companies in this country don't pay taxes. I asked for proof that shows GE doesn't pay taxes BECAUSE of Obama's help (like Madison implies).

Over 66% of companies (and that includes GE) take advantage of the current tax codes and don't pay taxes.

So Joanna, do you have proof that special GE tax code exists - I will make it simple for you - a tax code that ONLY GE gets to use thanks to Obama?

Thanks JS1 for linking to an article that proves GE is NOT getting special treatment but in fact is only taking advantage of the tax code in the same way hundreds or thousands of other corporations do.

Such strategies, as well as changes in tax laws that encouraged some businesses and professionals to file as individuals, have pushed down the corporate share of the nation’s tax receipts — from 30 percent of all federal revenue in the mid-1950s to 6.6 percent in 2009.

Thanks JS1, you've helped prove what we've been saying all along--that the burden of supporting society just continues to be heaped upon the middle class. Lest you try to recover by implying that this is all a recent development, well, as one of your heroes said "there you go again";

As it has evolved, the company has used, and in some cases pioneered, aggressive strategies to lower its tax bill. In the mid-1980s, President Ronald Reagan overhauled the tax system after learning that G.E. — a company for which he had once worked as a commercial pitchman — was among dozens of corporations that had used accounting gamesmanship to avoid paying any taxes.

“I didn’t realize things had gotten that far out of line,” Mr. Reagan told the Treasury secretary, Donald T. Regan, according to Mr. Regan’s 1988 memoir. The president supported a change that closed loopholes and required G.E. to pay a far higher effective rate, up to 32.5 percent.

That pendulum began to swing back in the late 1990s. G.E. and other financial services firms won a change in tax law that would allow multinationals to avoid taxes on some kinds of banking and insurance income. The change meant that if G.E. financed the sale of a jet engine or generator in Ireland, for example, the company would no longer have to pay American tax on the interest income as long as the profits remained offshore.

Known as active financing, the tax break proved to be beneficial for investment banks, brokerage firms, auto and farm equipment companies, and lenders like GE Capital. This tax break allowed G.E. to avoid taxes on lending income from abroad, and permitted the company to amass tax credits, write-offs and depreciation. Those benefits are then used to offset taxes on its American manufacturing profits.

Don't think I don't appreciate your assistance in making the points we Liberals make every day.

JoAnna:

You really need to get back with the tree house gang and decide if this was the Tea Party Downgrade, or the S&P taking revenge for being investigated by Obama's state department.

Please try to pay attention. I never said anything about revenge -- show me where I did. And I don't have to decide. I read the report. If they wanted to take revenge on Obama, then they could have done that, but instead they laid equal blame on the Republicans' failure to discuss revenue growth.

How you can say that it is NOT, at least in party, a Tea Party downgrade completely escapes me.

By the way, if what you are suggesting is true, then what then explains the New Jersey downgrade, and not by S&Ps -- the third such downgrade so far this year.

So far, the theme seems to be consistent. I believe Fitch said something about revenue in that deal, too.

Why does Fitch hate Chris Christie, JoAnna?

More to the point, how will you demonize Fitch, JoAnna? Let's see you get creative.

Or -- like Governor Walker, apparently -- doesn't Christie own his economy, either?

Huh. They both owned it a month ago.

So you liberals are saying that Booksley Born was not prevented from bringing the derivatives market under control. Are you saying that the democrats did not amend a beefed up CRA to the Graham-Bilely-Leach Act. The CRA act that prevented the lending agencies from merging had they had not met certain criteria regarding low income, high risk loans. Are you saying that Franklin Raines did not get nailed for questionable accounting practices at Fannie Mae. Practices that resulted in a huge bonus which he had to pay a part of back. Are you saying that Barney Frank did not get his live in boyfriend a high level job with Fannie Mae. Can you at least give me a hint at what Republicans did to block regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? BTW John, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were Government Sponsered Enterprises.

Rick -

Your reading comprehension is clearly sub-par. Go back and check the posts again.

As for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, they were private corporations, set up initially by the government (thus the GSE component) and backed by Federal guarantees. However, they operated entirely independently as private enterprises, answering to Boards of Directors. As a consequence of the Bush Recession brought on primarily by highly-leveraged offerings of collateralized mortgages and credit default swaps, in the TARP program set up by President Bush, these two firms were effectively nationalized.

A number of people of those institutions were in trouble because of their excessive practices once they decided to join the Goldman Sachs - Lehman Brothers - Merrill Lynch - Citigroup buying and selling spree.

Rick, you debate like a Baptist preacher. Good tactics, mis-stating your opposition and attempting to reshape what was really said into something you want. But you are still a propagandist and clearly not an historian.

I thought that Comcast now owns MSNBC.

Perry said that S.S., & Medicare are unconstitutional, if you put me into office l will do away with them and get this country back on its feet. ??????????????????????

unconstitutional is a little out there, unsustainable is more like it.

You are correct you did not name call but the post you are referring to was not directed at you. My sources are just as verifiable as yours but like me you did not post any links to your sources

Is Rick Perry establishment or Tea-party?

Let's see who is Rick's puppet master? AHH the Great and masterful GROVER NORQUIST! The same man that wants to see "A government so small he can flush it down the drain."

There is Rick's name, He's one of the people that holds his oath to Grover over his oath to the people that he was sworn in with.

Oh, and looky here, here is Rick's name AGAIN on ALEC exposed. Yep,He's a member of ALEC AND the ATR! CLEARLY he IS A TEA_PARTY guy! (No corporate taxes, No business taxes at all, Self regulating business, no restrictions needed, Low wages and long hours, small government that does nothing for the people, etc,etc....) Same old crap!

Don't we have enough people in Washington shaking their heads NO already?
A VOTE FOR RICK PERRY IS ANOTHER VOTE FOR BIG BUSINESS!

I guess it wasn't enough for him to screw up Texas, now he wants to screw the whole country!

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

I see the usual unemployed and 47% who do not pay taxes Liberal Progressives are on here in full force again. Don’t you people have anything more constructive to do?

Topping the propaganda list is:

Feisty Deadhead Roselle, ILL. His usual nonsensical comments trigger tingles down the other Liberal Progressive's legs and they start chanting to their boy-toy Barrack Hussein.

US Navy Delusional Veteran-Relapsing. His usual long winded, and obviously tiring, cut-N-paste sermons that only a slow thinking zealot can find informative are praised and exalted (even though he reposts the same thing daily).

dRone Indiana. He usually just blathers his useless opinions and the other drones just mindlessly give him thumbs up so he won't feel bad.

Jeb1. He is your typical Liberal Progressive who worships the seat Barrack Hussein sits on (visualize at your own peril). His obvious preoccupation with TeaBaggers exposes him as the defacto Teabaggee. I'm sure you know what I mean, right Jeb?

Beverly is Chicano. This poor child is obviously myopic as her large fonts and bold posts prove. It goes to reason as her political ideology is myopic also.

This pre-school clique gathers daily for their usual pat-on-the-back and vote of encouragement that they and the other Liberal Progressives cannot acquire in the real world. As Barrack Hussein ignores his responsibilities in Martha's Vineyard, showing the suffering masses how much he really doesn't cares about their plight, our economy continues to collapse.

ABO (Anybody But Obama) 2012

Oh, by the way, bob-1805084. Excellent post #1.8.

It's a shame the Liberal Progressives can't read more than a few sentences before their ADHD kicks in, they may actually learn some real facts.

"GE exemplifies critical remarks by Mr. Obama in his State of the Union address this year, when he derided the "parade of lobbyists" who had "rigged the tax code to benefit particular companies and industries".

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Elite lefitsts like Obama and Immelt get preferential treatment just like Communist party members did in Russia or the aristocracy in France

____________________________________________________________________________________

"Let them eat cake." -- Marie Antoinette, "Eat your peas." -- Barack Obama

Good Old G.E. Was Getting TAX BENEFITS Before ( OBAMA ) .............

Rhetoric or PLAIN LIES ?

Which is it FOX BOTS.......?

Rick-312779 -

I cited my sources. They are published books. Here's a link to Matt Taibbi, available new and used from Amazon for a price less than the shipping expense (the way I got the book):

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_21?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=matt+taibbi+griftopia&sprefix=matt+taibbi+griftopia

That's the updated and revised edition of the paperback edition, out in a few weeks. The link will also connect you to the original edition, which I have.

Other published sources to which I refer often in these discussions include Joseph E. Stiglitz, Freefall: America, Free Markets, and the Sinking of the World Economy (2010 paperback edition), Namoi Klien, quoted extensively in a post above, Thomas Frank, The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Ruined Government, Enriched Themselves and Beggared America, William Edward Leuchtenburg, Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal, and Robert Scheer, The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street. I must use some Internet sourcing as well, but tend to trust published works that have been reviewed and critiqued and contain detailed citations and references. Because I AM a professional historian, employed in private industry.

Is Maddison and Joanna the same person? They use the same links to "prove" the same thing. Maddison - your link (posted by Joanna already) proves only that GE does not pay taxes. What elitist treatment are you talking about? If majority of companies do what GE does, how is that even elitist? And if ou prove to me that it is 9which you cannot), isn't this elite created somewhat by the Bush Administration and continued by the Obama Administration?

I see the usual unemployed and 47% who do not pay taxes

markmich,

Yes, there are a lot of poor and unemployed people who do not pay taxes. Obviously they need to contribute. In total, that 47% owns around $1.4 trillion in assets... everything they own, including income, represents $1.4 trillion.

Now, how much should we take from them to fix the economy? Obviously just taxing them will not provide enough revenue, so how much of their assets should we take?

Then, what shall we do with all these poor and unemployed people? What should we do with the new babies being born to these people, they will just turn into more poor people? I want you to tell me exactly what we should do with these people?

Instead of placing blame, give me an answer. You obviously feel that the poor and unemployed are negatively affecting our economy, so what is the solution? What do we do with them to make sure this trend does not continue?

Madison From NY

And yet the Liberal Progressives believe that simply changing a few tax loopholes will bring a windfall of more money for our criminal government to waste on their unsustainable, unconstitutional entitlement and social programs.

A tax code of 71,684 pages and 1,200 forms is incomprehensible and yet they think Barrack Hussein can fix it. As soon as Congress fiddles with a few "loopholes" Wall Street will hire the next few math or economics geeks from MIT, Haaaahvad or Wharton's and find or make new loopholes.

This is the problem, Wall Street gets the geeks, America gets Timmy "Turbo Tax" Geithner and Barrack Hussein.

The government creates the tax code and now they scream and cry that the corporations and rich use it to their benefit. This administration had plenty of time when they controlled both houses and the WH to make any changes their little bleeding hearts desired, instead they spent all their political capital on an unconstitutional 2,700 page Health Care Redistribution of Wealth hoax.

Maybe some better time management is needed in this White House. Of course AFTER our Vacationer in Chief gets back to work.

Post 1.1 Another post with no sign of human Intelligence ....

@markmich

Who is Barrack Hussein? Certainly you aren't refering to President Obama? I'm politically left of center, and a veteran who served under several presidents, from President Regan to President Obama. I don't like it when people refer to President Bush as "Shrub," and he wasn't one of my favorites. It particularly annoys me when people do that to a president in office. You don't like the politics or ideas of the president, that's fine, attack and criticise all you want. But show a little respect for the man elected to our nations highest office. Making fun of the man's name does not give your argument more credibility, it makes you look like a radical.

Madison From NY

The Obama Leftists attacking Perry like mad on any front

Cutting spending means cutting redistribution of wealth

Socialist idealogues won't stand for that

Try not to get dragged too deep into the liberal plan to run Perry against Obama. They have spotted weaknesses in Perry and that's who they want to run...why else would FR continually only report on Perry and Bachmann?

Notice that Ron Paul hasn't had a mention in weeks? Anyone notice how much support he's garnering?

Rick, enjoy reading your well written posts. JohnA is a liberal shill and can't see anything past his liberal talking points so no matter how right you are, he'll always argue with some nonsense and quote some liberal rag or book that twists things to look good for that agenda.

Now for some fun with another of the clueless: US Navy-

1. Education: He does not feel that the Federal Government should be involved in education. He wants to do away with Pell Grants and Student Loans. He also wants to teach Creationism along with Evolution in Science Classes. You have to remember – Texas is the State that is re-writing the History Books for all schools in this country and editing out what they do not like, even though it is true and part of our History and who we are. And this is the State that ranks 47^th in educational standing – You would think they would take all the help they can get.

The federal government shouldn't be involved in education. They only screw it up. Evolution and creationism are theories, as is scientology. I do believe in Evolution as a theory, but I have been presented with Creationism as well and with critical thinking was able to come up with my own determination as to which theory fit better. What is the liberal problem with promoting critical thinking? Afraid you won't have as many kool-aid drinkers believing everything your president tells you in a speech?

2. Labor Laws: Anti Collective Bargaining and thinks “Child Labor Laws” are unconstitutional

Your point?

3. Voter Suppression: Perry wants to repeal the 17^th Amendment – the one that gives citizens the right to elect their ‘Senators” by popular vote. He wants them appointed by the Governor or the Party in power at the time. Now there is an idea, we have TP/GOP held States that are re-writing voter registration laws resulting in the disenfranchisement of millions of citizens, the “Citizens United” decision that literally sold our political process to the highest bidders (foreign or domestic) and ratified by the Republicans in their blocking of the “Disclosure Bill”.

Got anything that shows this? Perry promoted laws that required those that vote to have ID. Nothing wrong with that.

4. Civil Rights: Perry says Federal Laws protecting “Civil Rights” are unconstitutional

Huh? Where did he say this? Or are you twisting something yet again?

5. Status of the Federal Government: Perry supports the repeal of the 16^th Amendment - the one that allows for the collection of Income taxes etc. This would wipe out 80% of the Federal Revenues. This would destroy the US Government to the point we just would not have one. No military, no FAA, FEMA, FBI, CIA, No Federal Judges (including SCOTUS), No Medicare, No Medicaid, No Social Security, NO NOTHING PERIOD. We would not even need a President, Senators or the House – there would be nothing to govern, the doors are closed. This is nothing more than a blatant assault on the Federal Government – Period: The AINOS want to “Privatize” the government. That is they want to give control of our government to Wall Street, Big Business, Big Oil and the Insurance Companies.

Your tinfoil hat is crooked...better replace it so the aliens can spoon feed you more information.

Joe-755363-

Guess you didn't actually read the entire exchange. Rick left out pertinent facts that altered the interpretation he was promoting. As for my sources, at least I have them - and many more, besides. I don't do "talking points" but you seem to.

And by the way - I lived and worked through the period of time being discussed and remember the people and events quite well. As a journalist, public affairs counselor and campaign consultant, those events were very prominent. I wrote articles here on the 'Vine discussing them and rendering analyses from personal experience. The authors I cited may have had some common experiences with mine, but they have also researched their books and provided in-depth references for their material, so rather than refer back to myself in articles posted here, I used their good work.

You don't have anything like that to offer here. You're simply an attack dog - and even while I have disagreed with Rick, at least his stuff had content.

Your comments on Navy's post shows that. All you have to do is read the main article in some places to get answers to your dismissive questions. You didn't add to the discussion at all. As The Bard once wrote, "Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

No more of you - "ignore."

Newly-Independent

Now, how much should we take from them to fix the economy?

This is the first thing Liberal Progressive mind needs to change. Our government shouldn’t be looking to TAKE anything from us. It shouldn't take anymore than is Constitutionally mandated. Both Federal and State governments. Every penny we take from a citizen must be used as well as possible. Do you know where every penny of your tax dollars go? Do you know how much the Federal Reserve really sent to European and Asian banks in 2008? Do you know how much of the $timulu$ money went to the best bidder vs. a union no-bid contract? How much has the military gotten the same way? The government shouldn’t TAKE anything from us unless it’s absolutely necessary. We have seen that our government has become a bottomless cesspool of corruption, monetary malfeasance and fiscal malinvestment. The government needs to be ASKING us for our hard earned dollars.

What we need in this country are jobs. The only things that will lift our economy out of its teetering insolvency are real long term domestic jobs. These jobs MUST be exportable manufacturing jobs. The reason they need to be exportable manufacturing jobs is that bringing NEW MONEY (money that comes into our treasury and our bank accounts from abroad) is the only money that will eliminate our massive debts and unfunded liabilities (IOU’s). These deficit spending $timulu$ infrastructure jobs are useless. We are borrowing money to give to ourselves and then it is taxed right back into the bottomless pit known as government. It never goes back into our Treasury to pay off debt.

We live in a very different world today thyan we did in the sixties. Short term government stimulus used to work until our massive export manufacturing industries kicked in. We no longer have that luxury. In 1960 our economy was based on 53% exportable manufacturing, today it is 9%. We have been bastardized into an 80% consumption/service sector economy. There is no nation in the world that has created the wealth, prosperity and standard of living we are accustomed to using this economic model. We cannot be a consumption economy without jobs to earn money to create consumerism. The question is how we create the jobs to create the wealth to get the poor people out of their poverty or low incomes?

What has been created over nearly 100 years is no longer sustainable. Our government is burdened with over 75% of non-discretionary spending. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, pensions, military and other social programs are crushing our economy. Massive debt due to entitlements, over 900 social programs and the military are no longer sustainable. Before you argue that we have all put our money into Medicare and social security answer me this? How did we accumulate over $115 TRILLION Dollars in Unfunded Liabilities? These are IOU’s that must be repaid. The reason is our government has been irresponsible for generations with OUR MONEY! To keep entrusting them with more and more tax dollars is lunacy. Our government has proven it’s incompetent to manage a lemonade stand let alone TRILLIONS of Dollars. Even during the alleged Clinton “surplus” our Debt NEVER went down, it keeps going up. Using three different accounting methods in a typical shell game our government has broken our nation. We can no longer afford our current massive bureaucracy.

EVERY election cycle we are told there is over $500 Billion dollars of waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare alone. As soon as the elections are over we never hear about it again. The same with our military. Recently we have been charged hundreds of dollars for a piece of PVC pipe. The GAO recently reported on the U.S. government having more than 100 programs dealing with surface transportation issues, 82 monitoring teacher quality, 80 for economic development, 47 for job training, 20 offices or programs devoted to homelessness and 17 different grant programs for disaster preparedness. It’s a wonder we don’t have a Department of Redundancy Department. This was estimated to cost between $100-$200 BILLION Dollars in waste, fraud and abuse. Having dealt with our government in a previous life I can reassure you these estimates can be easily doubled. Not only does the government’s right hand not know what the left hand is doing, it doesn’t even know it has another hand. This must ALL be thoroughly reviewed, reformed and most of these programs, departments and agencies eliminated. The States need to be returned to handling most of these issues as our Constitution mandates. The Federal government has 18 enumerated powers, anything above that must be amended as required, not legislated.

So, having said all that how do we create jobs? As the above problems with our dysfunctional government are corrected we must get government out of the way of the true free market. We no longer have a true free-market. We are a controlled/regulated market economy. This never allows the freedom needed by the private sector to create jobs.

Trade policies MUST be reviewed, and reformed. We need to get rid of NAFTA, CAFTA, GATt and the WTO. We don’t need “Free Trade”, we need FAIR TRADE! Our paying tariffs, cleverly disguised as import or consumption taxes abroad, will never create commerce. This is just as bad as China artificially keeping the Yuan undervalued to increase their exports. The Feds thinly veiled attempts to do some of the same with QE1 and QE2 didn’t work either.

Our criminal progressive tax system MUST be dismantled. As I explained in an above post we have over 71,000 pages of tax code and 1,200 different forms in our massive tax system. Why? We all know this monstrosity is created to be abused. It will continue to be abused as long as we resist to make our tax system truly fair. A Fair tax of 18%-23% with NO caveats is the only truly fair system. This can be used on both personal and corporate taxes. This way everybody pays. Everyone has skin in the game. This is necessary now to reduce our deficits and debt and to attract corporations and investment back to our shores. This also indirectly imposes a “tariff” on imports leveling the field if the trade reforms don’t materialize. The over $1 TRILLION Dollar black market is also taxed with this system.

Regulations must be reviewed, reformed and many eliminated. Businesses are handcuffed with hundreds of regulations, costing them billions of dollars. Many regulations must be left in place and the States can handle them. The vast majority of them are redundancies as explained above. More regulations or laws never prevent abuse or crimes. ENFORCING them severely does work. When the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded and created the gulf oil tragedy many of the regulations just weren’t enforced as the Mineral Management Service (now BOEMRE) was preoccupied watching porn instead of working. No one in our government has been prosecuted. The same with the SEC during the housing/credit collapse. If more regulations worked why don’t the over 15,000 regulations on motor vehicles and the NHTSA still have nearly 40,000 deaths a year?

Unions must become industry supportive rather than destructive. Most of the benefits unions have created as far as safety and wages are now laws. Minimum wage laws, OSHA and others are no longer responsibilities of unions. Unions must be required to be involved in the success of the industry it represents. We have nearly $3 Trillion dollars in state pensions that are collapsing. Why isn’t the union responsible for negotiating these unsustainable contracts? Unions obviously make lots of money off the rank and file when they can spend hundreds of m

Continued from above:

Why isn’t the union responsible for negotiating these unsustainable contracts? Unions obviously make lots of money off the rank and file when they can spend hundreds of millions on campaigns. Wouldn’t you be happier making sure the pensions you look forward to are solvent?

Well, this is enough for now. There are many other areas we can change such as a real energy policy, immigration reform, education (my favorite), judicial reform, elimination of our useless wars on poverty, drugs, crime and illiteracy. We have over 25 million Americans under/unemployed. Useless little government stimulus’s will never create the long term jobs we need. If you’d like to give me your spin on what needs to be done I’ll be glad to listen. Please be a little more creative than most Liberal Progressives with more spending and taxing. It can’t and won’t work.

Dave-2550157

But show a little respect for the man elected to our nation’s highest office.

First of all I'd like to thank you for your service. Our brave service men need to be thanked and helped as much as possible. Even though I do agree with Defense Secretary Panetta's decision today that the pensions need to be reevaluated I believe the current forces need to be grandfathered in as guaranteed.

Now, as far as respecting our elected officials. This is where I have a problem. Our president, congressmen, judges and all other civil servants are there because WE THE PEOPLE honored them with our vote. Their position is NOT a right of nobility, it's a privilege. A privilege we bestowed on them to represent us. The Preamble of the Constitution does not begin with I The President, or I The Congressman, or I The Supreme Court Judges, it's We The People.

Somewhere along the way we have forgotten that we are a Federal Constitutional Republic. We are NOT a democracy, we are NOT a kingdom, we are NOT a dictatorship. Our positions, according to the Constitution, have been flipped on its head. The hierarchy everyone believes in is The Federal government, the State Government and then We The People. This is not only wrong, it's antithetical to a Republic. In a Republic the most respected person is the ultimate minority,,,,the individual. You, me, everyone on this thread and every citizen in our country. The Constitution mandates that We The People are on top of the hierarchy, then the States and THEN the Federal government. We bestow our president to represent us in matters of international diplomacy. We do NOT bestow our servitude to him.

He asked us to honor him with representing us, not us honoring him. To think of it any other way is to admit to serfdom.

I actually thought George Dubya was kinda cute. I had no problem with that or Shrub, actually kind of clever play on words.

Having said that, once again, thank you for your service.

markmich,

Please, spare me your Constitutional drivel. You interpret the Constitution in a way that suits your purpose, and cast aside any interpretation that does not agree with you. The very first line of the Constitution states "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." You interpret that as "promote individual welfare", further supporting your stance. Other people interpret that as "promote the welfare of the general populace." Currently, America is ranked 64th... yes, 64th... in income equality. We are below Iran. Is that what you consider general welfare? Of course you will twist this interpretation to fit your own greedy needs.

And I notice you completely avoided the question. Every day I see you in here, spouting off your hatred of the poor... the 47% who do no pay taxes. Of course that group pays payroll taxes (if they work) and sales tax (on purchases), but those minor facts don't help your point. So you focus your rage and hatred towards this group of struggling individuals, demonizing them every single day. So again, what is your solution? The majority of this group is unemployed, and those with jobs make less than $22k per year. I can't imagine trying to live on that, and I surely would not bring myself to such a level of blind hatred which you obviously embraced... but still I ask, what is your solution?

As for the rest of your ramblings, I agree that jobs are the most important focus. This is why I voted Republican in 2010, because they promised to focus on jobs. It is obvious how well that worked out. I learned from my mistake.

Finally, spare me your Tea Party "regulations" crap. Every single plan the Tea Party has proposed is anti-business. I work in the private sector, I own a business, and the Tea Party strategy is a direct attack on private businesses. They have focused on spending cuts, and the deficit, to such a degree that they are demanding cuts that will cause massive government lay-offs. Additional lay-offs mean high unemployment, which means less consumer spending. Yes, public workers buy consumer goods too. So, by cutting these government programs, you will reduce overall consumer spending with massive lay-offs. Less spending means less customers, less revenue, less profits in the private sector. You, and the Tea Party, are directly attacking the revenue stream of private business. You are actively trying to increase unemployment, thus reducing overall customers and the revenue they provide to private business. This is not a pro-business tactic, it is a direct assault to business profits.

You are so busy focusing on the tiny pin-prick that a tax increase will cause to private businesses, that you ignore the nuclear warhead you are about to detonate on us. You think a tiny tax increase is bad? Just wait until you reduce consumer spending, and the revenue that spending brings into the private sector. How many jobs will get created when revenue drops? Your foolish attack on the government ignores that blatantly obvious fact that government workers also contribute to the economy when they buy consumer goods and services. A reduction in consumer spending will be much worse than a minor tax increase. Leave my private business revenue stream alone. I was successful with regulations in the past, and I will be in the future... but no business will be successful without customers.

Newly-Independent

WOW!!!!

I could tell by your first line, but I had to read your post to be sure. You, my poor little Liberal Progressive, can proudly submissively say you have been indoctrinated into the socialist mindset. Using your propaganda, the social and economic justice for the collective. You would probably admit to being an atheist, agnostic or deist wouldn’t you? But you worship at the altar of your god, the government. Your independence, ambition and free-will has been stripped and all that’s left is a shell of a possibly, once upon a time, productive person. I’ll attempt to pick the high points of your response to try and convert your reasoning to normal, real American, thought.

The very first line of the Constitution states

I’m assuming you mean the Preamble. It’s OK, you Liberal Progressives just think the Constitution is this long winded nuisance that gets in the way of your socialism. But as a teaching pearl, there are names for the different parts of the Constitution. You can impress your poorly public school educated friends.

promote the general welfare (emphasis yours)

Ahhhh, another General Welfare abuser. First of all, you DO realize that the Preamble has no force in law, right? It basically just establishes the “Why” of the Constitution. Look at it as the introduction, or the foreword, to the Constitution. Think of it as “Why is this document in existence”? The typical Liberal Progressive ignorance to the basic structure of the Constitution is why your confusion is lifelong and your logic is so easily manipulated.

More than likely, you incorrectly (as do most Liberal Progressives) define “general” and “welfare” and come up with the Merriam-Webster or Wikipedia (a Liberal Progressive favorite for inaccurate information) definition. So, let’s go with your elementary thinking. General: “involving, applicable to, or affecting the whole”. Welfare: “the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity.” This sounds good, right? Kinda cozy. Something even you Liberal Progressives can wrap your little brains around. Well, there you go again (to quote the Greatest President of the 20^th century, Ronald Reagan).

Had you directed me to the place in the Constitution where “General Welfare” is defined I would have been impressed. But you, as most narrow-minded Liberal Progressives, don’t like to read much. We saw testament to this when NONE of the Democrats read (and barely even wrote) the Health Care Redistribution of Wealth hoax. Let me help you to the

Continued from #101

Had you directed me to the place in the Constitution where “General Welfare” is defined I would have been impressed. But you, as most narrow-minded Liberal Progressives, don’t like to read much. We saw testament to this when NONE of the Democrats read (and barely even wrote) the Health Care Redistribution of Wealth hoax. Let me help you to the correct area of the definition. In Article 1, Section 8: the definition of “general Welfare” exists. It’s sometimes called the “General Welfare Clause”. Another pearl for you to impress your illiterate friends with. It says;

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

Now, don’t get all blurry eyed when you see your favorite Liberal Progressive word “Taxes”, try to concentrate on the topic, “general Welfare”.

This section basically defines what the general Welfare clause is to apply to. I underlined the important concept so you can follow along easier. Since the United States is made up of the States themselves, this clause applies to the States and NOT the People. Throughout the Constitution specific entities are addressed. The People are only addressed twice in the main body of the Constitution. In NO CASE does the general Welfare clause apply to the People specifically. The Constitution DOES define the Rights that are to be bestowed on the people, these are the Amendments. But that’s a whole other class.

WHEW! That was fun wasn’t it? You can tell your comrades you learned something from a TEA Party Patriot. See how easy it is if you just spend a little time and effort trying to learn something on your own? Instead of just listening to the incoherent blathering of the rest of the socialists that usually cohabitate here on the Newsvine, and especially First Thought, you need to learn on your own.

So, now you can see that I DON’T interpret it as “promote individual welfare”. I interpret it as it is intended to be, to the States. I know that is contrary to your Liberal Progressive worship of the Federal government because you are incapable of surviving on your own. This is usually something most real Americans are ashamed of, but we understand your reliance. You can’t help it.

Now, as far as answering your question. I did. The problem is you, and most Liberal Progressives are programmed for instant gratification. You just want the government to take away from those who do work hard and are successful and just give it to you because you want “things”. I don’t believe for a second that you own any kind of business. Maybe you sell some things on eBay or some endeavor like that. If you really owned a business you’d realize the unsustainable intrusion of government. You’d realize the mountain of tax concerns we in business really put up with. The three businesses I sit on the Boards of pay the equivalent of 13 full time salaries for our accounting, payrolls, environmental and other government required regulation compliances. Wouldn’t it be better if we could hire 13 more people with full time salaries, benefits and certainty?

I’ll let you reread the rest of my post a few times. Take your time. Or better yet, maybe break it down by paragraph to each of your friends so you don’t get so easily distracted by your indoctrination. Then you can all sit down and see how we have to recreate our once envied economy so all Americans can be working in long term maintainable jobs again, rather than these wet-dream $timulu$, infrastructure and "Green Initiative" induced short-term “shovel ready” jobs. That worked really well didn’t it?

Oh, by the way. You asked me this,

You think a tiny tax increase is bad?

I think ANY tax increase is bad. Do you HONESTLY believe that any plan this ridiculous “Super Committee” comes up with is going to go to paying down our massive debt? Do you think there will be a clause in the plan that states “all revenues, received either via tax reform or spending cuts, will automatically go to National Debt reduction or Unfunded Liability repayment”? If you do, any further explanation I or anyone else gives you is hopeless. This government will just spend it on earmarks, cronyism or waste, fraud and abuse just like they have been doing for generations.

Remember, even your friends the socialists, Merkel and Sarkozy, are requiring a balanced budget amendment be included in any austerity measures in the EU. Merkel, as well as the G-20, has rejected Barrack Hussein’s ridiculous deficit spending solutions. Their recommendations are very similar to Cut, Cap and Balance. Unfortunately the Hairy Reed led Democrats used their usual defense mechanism and just “tabled it”. Just imagine the benefit our nation would have experienced not having our coveted bond rating lowered because Barrack Hussein and your Liberal Progressives would have just expanded or at least debated any of the Republican proposals. Don’t you find solutions such as “I’ll Veto It” or “DOA” or “Table It” incompetent? The rest of the world did.

If you have any more questions I’ll try and make my answers shorter and use smaller words so you can understand better.

"Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength" -- Eric Hoffer

John B, Des Moines, IA

I agree. Can you believe how rude these Liberal Progressives are?

I guess that "civility" speech Barrack Hussein gave in Arizona was only meant for everyone but the Liberal Progressives.

And from South Carolina, where Perry campaigned yesterday:

South Carolina has shifted from persistently having one of the nation's lowest jobless rates to among the nation' highest since 2002 when Republicans gained control of the Statehouse and Governor's Mansion for the first time.

Everyone who wants to be SC, vote GOP. Everyone else, don't.

And by the way, Governor Perry, if "government doesn't create jobs", what exactly have you been doing for the last 26 years?

From the article: 'the state's science standards "require students to analyze, evaluate, and critique, scientific explanations." And since teachers craft their own lesson plans, "It's likely that other theories, likely creationism, are being discussed in class." Is it constitutional? NBC's Pete Williams reports, if it were true that the state of Texas required its public schools to teach both evolution and creationism, that would almost certainly be unconstitutional.'

Any science teacher in Texas (or anyplace else, for that matter) who teaches that Creationism is a scientific theory is guilty of malpractice. Creationism is not a theory and has no standing in public schools for any reason except for what it actually is -- mythology.

A scientific theory is an explanation of phenomena in the natural world which has substantial evidence and substantial backing from experts in the field to back it. In order to reach the status of "theory" a possible explanation (hypothesis) must be rigorously tested by a significant number of experts. Observations must be measurable and repeatable and, in almost all cases, must have predictive value. There must be no credible evidence that disputes the theory.

The reason why scientists deal in "theories" rather than "facts" in these matters is not because they are not sure. The reason is that theories are subject to modification as additional facts are gathered and more is known about the subject. For example, the Theory of Evolution, proposed by Charles Darwin more than 150 years ago, was promulgated without knowledge of either genetics or DNA. Advances in both of those fields have both modified and strengthened the Theory of Evolution, which stands as one of the cornerstones of the Life Sciences and one of the greatest achievements in the history of mankind.

Those people who brainwash their children by telling them to reject the Theory of Evolution, for which there is overwhelming scientific evidence, in favor of Creationism, which has no evidence to back it, are doing those children an injustice. Why would anyone teach a child that they should reject critical thought and evidence in favor of a myth? Why would you teach a child that facts and evidence are not the criteria by which to measure truth? That would be analogous to telling a jury that evidence is not important -- that anyone can believe whatever they wish based on faith.

I am an independent from Texas and voted for Mr. Obama on last Presidential election but have to admit I am somewhat disappointed with his administration. Not because of it "O"ver doing anything except maybe going too far to appease the lunatic fringe which I will not name here but begins with the name of a favorite summer time beverage.

I truly believe that Mr. Obama was headed for an historic Presidency until his team failed to take seriously the threat that 'lunatic fringe' presented in the last election. The outcome was the House of Representatives no longer representing middle America and come to think of it, does not represent anything for the good of America.

Yes, we do have to address debt but it will never be resolved by cutting spending alone and the vast majority of Americans knows it. Continuation of the great wealth divide where 5% of the population controls 95% of this countries wealth is a recipe for disaster. Yet, here we are not getting anything resolved due to that 'lunatic fringe' refusing on any compromise even if it means the profound harming of America.

I would vote for someone else as President in a heartbeat if the Republican's would give me a candidate with a centrist viewpoint that truly had America's best interest in mind instead of thinking they received their orders from their 'God' which blinds them to any other viewpoints. Such ideology does not allow for compromise. A person willing to compromise is a person that admits their own humility of not having absolute knowledge of anything. And those that believe that they have it all figured out are only fooling themselves.

So Republicans...give me someone I can vote for! I will be there at the polls with a big smile on my face and head held high. But I do have to admit...your current field of candidates are falling far short....especially Rick Perry.

Wow wee, it appears from the postings of the little liberal kiddies that they fear Perry the most. Looks like it's going to be 8 years of what we saw with Bush after Perry is elected President. Well, at least we know what to expect.

markmich,

You are making a very big mistake here.
It is not up to you or anyone else to interpret the constitution!
That's why we have a Supreme Court.

If you truly knew YOUR constitution you would know that! (Look at article III section 1)

I am assuming that you are NOT a Supreme Court judge are you?

Everything you have ranted about has already been looked at by the Supreme Courts and their ruling are the laws of our land. Your interpretations of the constitution are all flawed to suit YOUR needs.

The constitution is the basis for each and every Federal law and program we have! YES, I said EVERY one of them is authorized through the constitution!
If you can think of any that aren't I refer you to the Supreme Court to prove your case.

As far as Rick Perry is concerned I would like to point out that Rick's name is listed on the ALEC membership and he also has pledged his allegiance to Grover Norquist by signing his no tax pledge.
Rick is a bought and paid for politician, polished and pimped by big corporations and They are trying to deliver him to Washington D.C.!
Do we really need someone else in Washington D.C. saying "NO"?

Rick Perry was a bad governor for Texas. He did nothing for us. Schools were ranked 44th and now Perry slashed the school budgets. Rick Perry took the money from the Federal government that was supposed to help elderly and low income people afford their electric bills in the 100+ degree temps. and dumped it into the general State budget to help it look better. Look at the facts of the past.
He is just an all around a bad man for President of this great nation!

Practical Libertarian

Wow wee, it appears from the postings of the little liberal kiddies that they fear Perry the most. Looks like it's going to be 8 years of what we saw with Bush after Perry is elected President. Well, at least we know what to expect.

I disagree....I think the posting, and the liberal media are trying to push Perry more to the front than most of the conservatives want him to be. Why? Because he's the most beatable (with the exception of Bachmann). Romney was moving fast on Obama and Ron Paul is a stronger candidate with a stronger track record. Hell, I'd take Gingrich over Perry.

But watch the media focus and realize it's because that's who they want to run against Obama.

The "Waddies" strategy is obvious. Perry will run on "teaites" positions in the primary, then if he wins, He'll run as an establishment candidate in the general.

Are we heading for Armageddon – a Double Dip Recession?

Since I first starting posting over a year ago I have been saying things were going to get worse before it gets better. We still have a lousy job market and the economy is slowing down to a dead stop and may even go into reverse. We have the most toxic political environment I have ever seen and I have been on this planet for a long time.

This recent mess points out that in my opinion there are three things at play here and they all are working against us.

1. European Economy

2. US Economy and Job Market

3. Dysfunctional Government (Political System)

European Economy: We cannot control what happens in Europe (we are not even doing a good job here). Yesterday the market responded to continued economic problems with Italy and Spain. Two countries that are looking more and more like Greece every day and will need to be bailed out. They market opened down on that news and kept declining until we bottomed out at 513 points down.

US Economy and Job Market: People there no jobs and without jobs there is no economy. Major US Companies are sitting on $2.5 Trillion Dollars in cash and any jobs they are creating are being farmed overseas. They claim there is no demand here. Well there is a demand someplace or why would they be creating jobs. Why not manufacture those products here instead of making them in China and then bringing them back here to sell? This is a point President Obama is trying to address with new Trade Agreements which does have a job creation component. When we have jobs people have money in their pocket to spend. They go out and by goods and services (your demand). Businesses need to keep up with the increase in demand so they hire more people and unemployment goes down, the claims for UI, food stamps, Medicaid etc go down. These lower the deficit – a good thing.

Also with a strong job market comes increases in revenues in the form or more income tax dollars coming into the Government coffers, more payroll taxes, every time you buy a gallon of gas – more income to the feds. These revenues effect BOTH the Federal Government and the States as well. This is a win/win scenario. But no, the GOP/TP will not do this because President Obama may get the credit – BS - both parties would share in the credit of moving this country forward.

President Obama has proposed a $50 Billion Dollar Infrastructure Bill that the pundits claim creates 35,000 jobs for each Billion invested. You do the math 35,000 times 50. The GOP/TP blocked this bill in the Senate – why, because the last thing on this planet that they want is to create jobs and stimulate the economy, period. President Obama has been talking from the beginning about how the government can create an environment to create green jobs, high tech jobs. He talked about bringing High Bandwidth communications and High Speed Rail to this country. All good job creating proposals.

Dysfunctional Political System: From the day that President Obama was sworn into office the GOP/TP vowed to make him fail and to never compromise one inch. The GOP/TP has opposed virtually every bill that had anything to do with creating jobs and stimulating the economy. They have opposed every bill that had a revenue generating component. For them it is all about gutting the American Government with DRACONAIN spending cuts only and putting the costs on the backs of Middle America. Look I agree we have a spending problem and everything needs to be on the table from the DOD to Entitlements and Discretionary Spending. Everybody needs to sacrifice something. I have no problem with that.

Virtually every leading economist in this country and out of this country says we need “Spending Cuts” and Increased Revenues. The best revenue creation tool is a targeted Jobs Bill with rules and penalties so that the money is NOT misused as it was during the Stimulus Bill where governors like Perry and T-Paw stole the money from their citizens to shore up their failed budgets trying to make themselves look “Fiscal Responsible” when in fact the opposite is true.

Without re-hashing this over and over the bottom line is that both parties have now had their wake up call. As Chef Ramsey says “wipe the slate clean” and get to work.

While this contrived “Debt Ceiling” may or may not have contributed to this mess it has pointed out that the system is broken. Taking ”Hostages” is not a viable political agenda – it is a terrorist Agenda and has no place in our political system – period. Until we fix a broken “political system” we are not going to even come close to fixing the job market and economy. It just will not happen. Even the American people know the government is going in the wrong direction (spending cuts only model) at least 75% - 80% do.

Vet.,

I don't post often but I read all the vines dealing in politics. I must say you nail it every post.

Same drivel - different day. Get a new post from Think Progress. Still love the "DRACONAIN". The DNC still telling you to use that??

The biggest problem Europe has at this point is that they're tied together by the Euro, but separate in everything else. The Euro was a bad idea that somehow became very popular because everyone expected it to cement together a giant, single economy. The problem is, one currency takes the element of currency fluctuations out of the hands of the independently managed nations.

Germany, France, and some of the smaller countries have strong economies. They didn't become true believers in the deregulatory religion of Rand, Mises, and Hayek and so have performed very well by comparison to a lot of other places since the 2007 crash. Their strong economies would normally cause the value of their currencies to strengthen, and in fact these nations are currently propping up the value of the Euro. Fine for them.

England, Iceland, Ireland, and some others took a significant hit in the 2007 recession because they followed us down the primrose path to a magical future fueled by deregulation. England in particular is also struggling with a stagnant economy made worse by strict government austerity measures imposed by their new, Conservative government. With independent currencies their values would soften somewhat, making imports more expensive and encouraging exports. The result would be a tendency for the economy to strengthen. Unfortunately the Euro is too steady and strong for that to be much help for them.

Then you have nations like Greece, Portugal, and Spain. Their history of heavy deficit spending during good times, insufficient investment in infrastructure and other important public matters, and attempting to create economic activity through becoming tax havens for the rich (any of this sound familiar?) have decimated their governments. Normally the result of this would be a plunging value from their currency. While paying the piper for these sorts of careless governance by wishful thinking are always difficult, a decoupled currency helps. These governments borrowed a lot of money, and their ability to borrow cheaply has evaporated. The value of an independent currency would normally plunge, allowing them to pay off debts with a cheaper, devalued Drachma. Yeah, inflation would be an issue but that's part of the pain.

There's even a history to show the poor judgement of tying the currencies of major countries together. It's called the Gold Standard. Dropping the Gold Standard was critical to making headway against the Great Depression for all the world's major nations, starting with Britain. One more thing the John Birch Tea Party Society got wrong.

REB ## --

Same drivel - different day. Get a new post from Think Progress. Still love the "DRACONAIN". The DNC still telling you to use that??

I normally try not to interfere, but Navy's posts are always loaded with information, well reasoned and insightful. Exactly what do YOU bring to the table, if not "drivel" like the above?

Answer, nothing. You can't even spell draconian.

If you haven't got anything better to say than that, it would be better left unsaid. You just come off looking foolish, petty, and mean. Not to mention so obviously uninformed that you can't even attempt to refute one substantive point that Navy makes.

Empty personal attacks do not make you well-respected here. They make you a troll.

LuvMIFAMILY:

Thank you for the kind words and you and your family have a great and safe weekend.

Working on any Christine O'Donnell stories for today FR? You know, the stories people really want to hear about. She's a witch you know.

AM: I normally try not to interfere, but Navy's posts are always loaded with information.

Only if you have a short memory (as we know you do AM) and you like reruns. This is the same post from him from August 5th.

Source: https://lacasacorp2010.appspot.com/firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/05/7262872-first-thoughts-better-than-expected

Lets try for some new material,okay?

And your point? It's still loaded with information, which is more than I can say for REB's ... or yours.

Chalk another one up to mean, spiteful, petty, and vindictive.

Just another day in the mines for you, JoAnna.

AM, where is our Wisconsin Report? We all can't get enough of hearing about some aldermanic race in Sheboygan, and its national significance.

AM

First off I copied and pasted the DRACONAIN from Navy. I did it again just now and it's still spelled wrong but not my fault. You could look it up as they say.

Second the comments on Job Creation are in my opinion just that - opinions by Navy and not facts. The $50 Billion Dollar Infrastructure Bill that the pundits claim creates 35,000 jobs for each Billion invested is an opinion. Since when do pundits count as experts? You guys spent 1 Trillion on stimulus and we are worse off than where we started and about a Trillion more in debt.

Navy goes on to say that President Obama has been talking from the beginning about how the government can create an environment to create green jobs, high tech jobs. He talked about bringing High Bandwidth communications and High Speed Rail to this country. All good job creating proposals says he.

Practically every week brings a new story of a “green jobs” company declaring bankruptcy. Investor’s Business Daily points out:

Stimulus funds intended to boost the green economy haven't been well spent. The latest example of this is Monday's bankruptcy filing by Evergreen Solar Inc.

The Massachusetts company that the White House once said "is hoping to hire 90 to 100 people" thanks to stimulus money has $485.6 million in debt. Evergreen closed a factory in March, reports the Boston Herald, and cut 800 jobs. A Michigan plant is to be shut down, as well, causing the loss of even more jobs.

Evergreen isn't the only supposed conservation company that can't make it even when fronted with piles of taxpayer money. Green Vehicles of Salinas, Calif., which has burned through more than $500,000 in money "invested" by the city, folded last month without having produced anything of significance. The company promised it would employ about 70 and pay back Salinas taxpayers with $700,000 a year in city taxes.

IBD goes on to note this is par for the course with “green jobs” programs, which have been expensive job-destroying failures around the globe.

History is a guide. Spain's green economy program destroyed 2.2 jobs for every green job it created.

Meanwhile, the Italians put into a single green job the same amount of capital needed to create almost five jobs in the general economy.

None of this gloomy news is difficult to understand. Forcing consumers to buy something they don’t want is extremely expensive. Tell me AM - are you going to ride the "High Speed Rail"?? Are going to buy a Chevy Volt? I think not.

This is in response to only one of his points. I could answer the rest but it would just prove my point over and over again. He posts the same drivel day after day. Not an attack - just the truth.

Over to you.

Rick Perry is a hateful man who doesn't love his state. Or his country. If he did God wouldn't have cursed him and his state with drought. PLUS, again,.. PLUS! The military doesn't respect him. Not in the least. A democrat? Then a republican? NOW a tea bagger? He cannot even make up his simple country mind ; ]]

lols

Cheers

Navy Boy: President Obama has proposed a $50 Billion Dollar Infrastructure Bill that the pundits claim creates 35,000 jobs for each Billion invested. You do the math 35,000 times 50. The GOP/TP blocked this bill in the Senat.

Navy, do you have a Senate bill number for that legislation? Otherwise we'd have to take your word for this, and your word just isn't that dependable.

The economic policies of this administration are a complete failure. On top of that Obama shows zero leadership or ability to unite Americans and all you liberals can talk about are Republican primary candidates.

Enough Americans have and will continue to figure out that this President does not have the skill to lead a nation. The last almost 3 years prove it. The economy will continue to deteriorate as a result of Obama's belief that borrowing and printing money is a solution.

Tony, how 'bout some specifics? Which policies failed and what is the specific failure of those policies? You're so sure of yourself, please educate us.

REB:

You have not disprove one thing. Just more right wing talking points and trying to spin my words - You and your Party are full of crap.

Congratulations you have just made the ignore list as you have become impotent for any discussion about moving this country forward.

So Tony, are you interested in proving your points, or do you prefer to just leave the empty rhetoric?

JoAnna:

AM, where is our Wisconsin Report? We all can't get enough of hearing about some aldermanic race in Sheboygan, and its national significance.

You know perfectly well where it is, JoAnna. You just don't like it.

Talk about sour grapes. You were all about local Wisconsin politics just a month ago.

As for national significance, if it has none, then what was Scott Walker doing on Fox News last month, beaming like the Cheshire Cat, while they were crowing about how Wisconsin was going to show the nation how that job creation thing is done?

He was every conservative's fair-haired boy -- including YOURS -- a month ago.

What the heck happened there, JoAnna?

Strike that. You know perfectly well what did.

But don't run away from him so fast, JoAnna. You just might trip over Spanky and hurt yourself.

Thanks Navy you have been on mine for several weeks now. Sometimes I check you and that's whay I was shocked to see the same crap from August 5th.

Anyway seeing as how you can't refute mine and you only think I didn't refute yours I guess that would make us even in your little mind.

BTW when are you going to respond to Mike question on your service You've been ducking that for weeks too.

@ REB ~ You mistake me. I have no interest in discourse with someone who could be so rude, but at least I managed to make you pretend to be civil for a minute or two.

You guys spent 1 Trillion on stimulus and we are worse off than where we started and about a Trillion more in debt.

I will answer this point because you seem to assume that I am a supporter of how the stimulus was spent. I'm not. Too much went to tax cuts, too much was discretionary with the states -- allowing governors like Rick Perry and Tim Pawlenty to rob from the federal till and them blame Obama because the money is gone -- and not enough went to true job creation. It wasn't really Keynesian by any reasonable measure.

And yes, I do know who's to blame for that. The same economic advisers who got us into this mess in the first place. It was THEIR idea, although President Obama gets the blame for being too weak to stand up and say no to the things that other economists warned were doomed to fail.

Still, for all of that, we are NOT worse off than we started. When stimulus money began to flow into the economy toward the fourth quarter of 2009, unemployment was over 10 percent, having risen steadily from 4.7 percent in December, 2007, as the economy began to melt down. Now it is hovering around 9 percent -- not great, but not worse than it was, or and certainly not worse than it would have been without stimulus. Stop obsessing over words like draconian, and look THAT up.

Unemployment is about to rise again because the stimulus was not the right plan for the job, which, by the way, I said at the time. And there is nothing now in place to break the inevitable further fall. As we finally see from our experience of the past ten years, massive tax cuts don't even begin to do the job. Like everyone else around here, you can't produce any evidence -- even on a bet -- that they do.

But enough from me. This is Navy's thread. You still owe him an apology, but instead of sucking it up and doing the right thing, it seems that disrespect is all you really have in your tank.

He posts the same drivel day after day. Not an attack - just the truth.

YOUR truth, you mean. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

Tony: You talk about the failure of the present President; yet, what have ANY of the Republican candidates done to help the economy? In fact, what has ANY of the GOP/TP done to create jobs? And, maybe the reason that some of these environmental companies who were given stimulus money failed was because no one has money any more to purchase their products. I would LOVE to get solar panels installed at my home, but I can't afford it. I would LOVE to buy a VOLT, but I can't afford it. Is that MY fault or the current administration's fault?? I think President Obama is doing the best job he can do despite the blockages put in front of him....hopefully, after the 2012 elections, he'll have a better chance to get something done!

Tony....sorry, my last post should have been directed at Reb.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply AM. We do agree on several things and will probably continue to disagree on several others. As you say truth is in the eye of the beholder and you won't convince me and I won't convince you. That's what makes it interesting.

It was good to see that you acknowledge who was to blame for the stimulus failure although I think you left Nancy and Harry off the list and they need to be included as it was their ideas that made up much of the plan. BHO left it to them and they and he filled it with all kinds of pay back goodies. Too bad we have to pay for it now and still have this weak economy.

No, I'm sorry but I won't apologize to Navy because I have written nothing that he hasn't written to me and really don't you just love that he posted the exact same thing on August 5 as he did two weeks later?? Must be the Friday post for him. So sorry no apology from me.

Thanks for the discourse and have a good weekend.

Didi-376564

...hopefully, after the 2012 elections, he'll have a better chance to get something done!

You mean just like he did when he had the house and a fillibuster proof senate after Franken was declared the winner in MN and Specter the defector changed parties??

God help us if he gets that kind of chance again. This place will be a giant yard sale!!!

Anna, don't go thru life so angry, loosen up, go get laid!

the facts: trending up- the national debt, gold prices, healthcare costs and unemployment (watch next months number)

trending down - the economy, the dollar, housing values and job creation.

Obama's record after 3 years in office. It will get worse....

the facts: trending up- the national debt, (which has been the case since George W Bush and a wave of new Republicans took office after the 2000 elections) gold prices, (gold is freely traded on the commodities exchanges, just like wheat, oil, and concentrated orange juice--is there a point?) healthcare costs (a situation which is unchanged since the Reagan Administration) and unemployment (watch next months number) (speculation on your part)

trending down - the economy, (not true, the economy has expanded for 26 consecutive months http://www.ism.ws/about/MediaRoom/newsreleasedetail.cfm?ItemNumber=21768 ) the dollar, (at this point a slightly lower dollar is driving improvements in manufacturing. That's a good thing, not a bad thing) housing values (housing values remain a drag on the economy. That's a fact of life since the deregulated banking environment led to massive overbuilding in the housing sector. Unfortunately it'll take time to work that excess inventory out of the market) and job creation. (Made MUCH worse by GOPTP insistence on throwing tens of thousands of government workers and contractors out of their jobs)

So there you go. Most of what's wrong in the economy has been made worse by Conservative Republicans. We should give them an opportunity to double down on their failed ideology?

Three years into this administration with Obama who came into office with all the answers is the issue. I guess you don't remember Obama's talking points. You should be able to as he repeats them over and over with zero results. Interesting that you take Bush to task for deficit spending, and you should. But Obama is on course to out spend Bush in every way. Bottom line is Obama's solution have not worked and will not work. Oh yea, my speculation. Gold will go up and employment will go down....until we get rid of Obama. How are those federal reserve notes working out for you?

How gold trades is not the issue. It is the factors that cause it to increase in value. In this case Obama is helping out a lot. Failed ideoloy is what you have been living through for almost 3 years...reality check.

We were sold "infrastructure spending" and "shovel ready jobs" from Obama a couple of years ago.

Earlier this year he was caught joking about those "jobs" that weren't so "shovel ready" while millions of Americans were losing their jobs, their homes, their marriages, their savings and their livelihoods.

This is no longer funny, and there is zero chance any of us reasonable people believe a word coming out of this President's mouth.

He is callous, hyper-partisan, insulting, and arrogant, all the while living as a multi-millionaire and telling us to be patient.

Sorry Navy and all the other libs, your guy is a liar and a fraud.

What, you think cities, counties, and states have file cabinets jammed with fully engineered and previously bid infrastructure projects just in case money falls out of the sky? If they did it would be fully justified for voters to be angry for wasting that money. "Shovel ready" meant previously identified needs that could have the engineering work done relatively quickly and bids let before a lot of time elapsed. That happened. The only thing that could be more "shovel ready" than that would be the enormous pile of tired, empty rhetoric like your complaint that the projects weren't as ready to go as you wanted.

Jody:

Another outstanding week end round up.

Heres the other way it is this week-

Obama tells folks that the country is "headed in the right direction" on stops on his Midwest campaign tour- that we paid for because he said it wasn't a campaign tour. Too bad more than 70% of the country disagrees with him. I guess he thinks things are headed in the right direction because. . .

Gallup "stand alone" poll shows that only 26% approve of Obama's handling of the economy. What was eye opening in the poll was the revelation that 53% of democrats approve of his handling of the economy, and a whopping 60% approve of his job creation record. This was a revelation of just exactly how delusional democrats really are, when it comes to Obama. . .

For the rest of us, Obama had an explanation for why he has failed on the economy- it was the Arab Spring, the Japanese tsunami, and the fact that republicans don't like his plans. Neither do the majority of Americans, but, what the heck.

In other news, Debbie Wasserman Schultz made no news at all when she announced that democrats don't take PAC money, nor do they accept money from those nasty lobbyists.

Too bad she was lying.

See, the AP did a little checking, and discovered that "no PAC or lobbyist money" was a little bit wring- actually, more than $15 million wrong.
http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_18711333

So, what's the story? That republicans take PAC and lobbyist money- all the while admitting that they take it;

Or, that democrats take PAC and lobbyist money, all the while denying that they take it?

I, personally, am more comfortable with someone who tells the truth, but, then again, I know that the economy is spiraling the drain and Obama has no clue how to fix it.

In other words, I don't suffer from democratic delusional dementia.

The fact that you represent just 26% of the populace ought to give you a pretty clear idea of Obama's chances of reelection.

The Mrs. should start packing.

Jody -- you know what they say, imitation IS the sincerest form of flattery...

Take comfort - the NJ nut job is NO where near your league! lol

Raise your hand if you think NJNB has finally gone off the deep end!

*hand*

Good Morning Jody,

Great wrap up.

It’s clear that people such as Bachmann and Perry are on the crazy train and very dangerous people. How can anyone, I repeat anyone with an ounce of self respect endorse them.

Feisty, yes it is. You'd think No Joe would want to post a stand-alone nutshell of her own that way she'd get her own group of followers.

she'd get her own group of followers

She already has, unfortunately for her they're all heavily medicated & playing checkers in the 'sun room'!

You'd think No Joe would want to post a stand-alone nutshell of her own

Much easier for her to ride someone else's successful coattails - that's the way the tea baggers roll! ;o)

Jody, Iowa

" And that's the way it is".....this week.

Jody, love your updates.

Food for Thought: "Harmony makes small things grow, lack of it makes great things decay." Sallust, Roman historian (86-35 B.C.)

Like the Food Stamp Flow Republican Obstruction Gave the US!!!

No Jo,

You have earned first class passage on the crazy train today.

Great wrap up, Jody, as usual. To stick with the baseball them, you've hit a grand slam home run. No Joe---struck out again.

I had forgotten that Herbert Hoover was from Iowa----that Michele Bachmann is good on mixing up facts, isn't she?

Thanks especially for the "on the ground" reports of the President's visits----that kind of detail is missing in the national media coverage.

Have a great weekend!

Jody--your updates are great! I always look forward to them. I try to keep up with things, but sometimes miss a few, so appreciate the updates. Thank you! Everone have a great weekend!

"We have met the enemy and he is us!" Pogo by Walt Kelly

Thumbs up, Jody. Always look forward to it.

Gee Job1 Can I get a ticket?

Honestly, based on the substance of your posts, I would guess you are what, about 12 years old?

Maybe you should try Nickolodeon, you would probably sound real smart over there.

White Collar,

Sure, you earned a first class ticket.

Tax cuts for the rich hasn't worked. When will it start working? They have had many years.

Hey, Bill, raising taxes under President Clinton had the opposite affect or have you forgotten. Remember the huge deficit and debt left by Reagan and Bush 41. Clinton with Gingrich's help raised taxes and the economy took off, the deficit turned into a surplus. Bush 43 and his anti-tax Grover Nordquist pledge took a surplus and within one year had created over a $1 trillion budget deficit. Bush 43 was Reagan on steroids. While republicans may continue in denial, the facts are obvious: it was the Bush & GOP policies of tax cuts and charge it, that gave us the financial collapse, the massive debt and a Great Recession.

Modern conservatism has no resemblance to its roots of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Nelson Rockefeller, Nixon, Ford. What a shame because it was their conservative policies that were the smart ones. Today, being conservative is simply "I've got mine and I want yours."

Job1:

Tax cuts for the rich hasn't worked. When will it start working? They have had many years.

As soon as Bill declares that there is enough confidence.

Ironically, he's wrong about the mattress. That's exactly what corporations are doing with shareholder money. It's being held in low-interest accounts, rather than being reinvested or returned to shareholders in dividends.

And even when it IS returned to shareholders, like the 2004 repatriation of profits exercise demonstrated, no jobs were created then, either.

It's all just theory, designed to be persuasive, to trick the average guy into giving Bill his cookie, while Bill blames the other guy sitting around the table, whose sole offense is that he wants a cookie of his own, too.

Shhhh--it works perfectly in Bill's make believe world. Don't disillusion him by pointing out the real world doesn't work that way.

I really hope all Republicans are tax-payer subsidized corporations who have access to loop-holes because they sure seem to live, die, and breathe to make sure they get a bigger chunk of the pie.

I can create my own damn jobs. That's why I was educated and that's the American dream. Capitalism means you don't give people a competitive advantage over another because they have lobbyists and paid for politicians and blog posters. Enough.

Bill and the other cutting taxes creates jobs bunch are as crazy as the candidates they have running for president. Trickle down economics didn't work for Reagan, Bush I or Bush II. But you crazy's keep talking about giving more to the rich so it will trickle down to the rest of us. GUY'S IT'S CRAZY TO KEEP TRYING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AND EXPECTING A DIFFERENT RESULT, OR DO THEY CALL THAT INSANE.

I just love the democrats who think that Clinton raising taxes led to the dot.com boom. I'd explain how and why they are wrong, but it is ridiculous to argue with people who believe Obama is doing a bang up job on the economy.

There are a thousand jobs sitting, waiting for a plant to open in South Carolina. Obama is directly responsible for their limbo state.

How much clearer can it get? M

Rather than workers, he is beholden to his union cronies and their big bucks campaign donations.

In other words, he's corrupt.

He's failed on the economy, failed at job creation, and failed on foreign policy.

That some of you are delusional enough to want four more years of this is beyond comprehension.

AM: Ironically, he's wrong about the mattress. That's exactly what corporations are doing with shareholder money. It's being held in low-interest accounts, rather than being reinvested or returned to shareholders in dividends.

And if take a look back in history, we may understand why businesses are over capitalized. From 1993, Hillary on HillaryCare:

The contempt for small business was aptly summarized by Hillary Clinton back in 1993, when she was pushing her plan to nationalize health care. Told that her proposals would devastate small companies, she replied: "I can't be responsible for every undercapitalized small business in America."

Source: http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/21/fact-and-comment-opinions-steve-forbes.html

Would you consider that a reason that these companies are over-capitalized? They fear they will be on the hook for all the new entitlements that Obama has come up with. Add in all the new financial and EPA regulations, and these companies feel they will required to paying a lot of money to he government. And if the money is going to the government, it will not be used to hire more people.

No, we've seen the light. The McCain economic plan (?) was right all along. If only we had Bachmann running the economy. She'd make sure we defaulted and thus created millions of jobs.

Also, I'm happy to say that the GOP Congress has passed all those job creating bills against abortion.

JoAnna, maybe you can explain why you think the EPA is the reason we don't have strong job growth. We understand that the banking sector collapse caused the loses, but you're saying having solvent banks and an environment is what is stopping the economy?

The ACA isn't an entitlement and it reduces the deficit... but it's been a long, long time since anyone on the right ever used a fact regarding it.

it was the Bush & GOP policies of tax cuts and charge it, that gave us the financial collapse, the massive debt and a Great Recession.

Silly me. I always thought easy money from the Fed, Fannie and Freddie lowering their standards on mortgages, greedy consumers who jumped at the chance to buy homes they couldn't afford, excessive risk taking by equally greedy banks had a little something to do with the economic meltdown -- a meltdown that froze up credit throught the world financial system, but actually had the effect of lowering interest rates on U.S. debt instruments. Thanks so much Jody, I know I can always count on your twisted views to set me straight.

BTW, I notice none of the usual leftist attack dogs bothered to explain where Joe Shmo's plant came from. Hint: it didn't come from the jobs fairy.

dante: JoAnna, maybe you can explain why you think the EPA is the reason we don't have strong job growth.

The coal industry believes is will cost jobs:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/06/obamas-epa-regulations-will-cost-coal-industry-200-billion-cause-electricity-rates-to-skyrocket/

Over regulation of emissions is costing jobs:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/05/us-usa-carbon-congress-idUSTRE7043VX20110105

EPA regulations in are costing jobs in many states:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-politics/post/mcdonnell-protests-epa-regulations-to-obama/2011/03/18/ABMuxKq_blog.html

Energy costs rise with additional EPA regulations:

http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2011/06/11/electricity-rates-will-skyrocket-obama-epa-regulations-to-cost-coal-industry-extra-180-billion/

dante: The ACA isn't an entitlement and it reduces the deficit...

By taxing who by how much?

Have you seen the GDP numbers for the country dante? Around 1%. Did you ever wonder why?

The coal industry believes is will cost jobs:

The coal industry knows a thing or two about costing jobs.

However, their preferred method is to KILL OFF the workers!!

On the bright side at least it get's them out from under unemplyment claims

Why do you progressives continue to state that Clinton raised taxes leading to economic growth. All of you who want to know how tax cuts create jobs, ask Clinton. He CUT taxes. John A why dont you step in here as the resident intellectual or is this one of those moments you dont like? Clinton cut the capital gains tax substantially which spurred investment and government revenue took off. Clinton is an example of tax cuts creating jobs and increasing government revenue not the other way around.

Bill,

Joe Schmo moved his plant overseas where child labor laws don't exist. That is such a stupid point are you saying only rich people can create jobs? The rest of us schmucks are just stupid?? Should we line-up with our shoe shiners and bow down like you? Haven't the rich had a tax break for the last 10 years...where are the jobs Bill? Isn't something supposed to trickle down???? Let me ask you a question why do you insist the middle class bear all the burden for the state of our economy? Not all rich people have good ideas. I don't believe that zuckerburg kid was rich and he's about to go public early next year with a little company called facebook whose IPO valuation is around $100 billion dollars. Didn't Warren Buffet just beg for the govt to start taxing him more last week and basically said he had wayyyyyyyy too much money? How much more proof do you need these tax cuts NEED TO END!!! TAX THE RICH!!! THE COUNTRY IS ONLY AS STRONG AS THE MIDDLE CLASS!!!!!

Yes Ed, that's exactly what he's saying. Bill is a true disciple of Ayn Rand, one of the legion of Conservatives who believe the reverse-marxist view that only the rich have value in society as "producers." The rest of us, those who do the vast majority of all work and largely drive the economy are "leeches" in his view.

The coal industry believes is will cost jobs:

Industry has a long and honored tradition of being wrong regarding the impact of environmental initiatives on employment;

Let’s take a closer look at the last significant legislation tackling air pollution: the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act. It was a far-reaching bill that tightened pollution standards from autos and trucks as well as polluting industries. It created new rules requiring cleaner gasoline and diesel fuel and new standards to reduce toxic air pollutants. It also launched the Acid Rain Program, a cap and trade system limiting the production of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.

The proposals had lots of enemies. To lead the charge, industry lobbies created the Orwellian Clean Air Working Group, which claimed to represent 2000 business and trade associations. They predicted the bill would be the “quiet death for business across the country.” Conservative economist Milton Friedman wrote in the Wall Street Journal that “The Clean Air Act's unduly stringent and extremely costly provisions could seriously threaten this nation's economic expansion.” The National Association of Manufacturers, with newfound concern for the planet, claimed the Act’s provisions would hurt the economy “with no real assurance they would be balanced by a cleaner, healthier environment.”

Thanks to widespread public concern about the environment and grassroots organizing by environmental groups, the law passed anyway. We can now look back at the claims to see that the business lobbyists were wrong. The new law didn’t hurt the economy, and it did help the environment. Corporate America was just crying wolf:

A 1990 study sponsored by the U.S. Business Roundtable (comprised of the CEOs of some of the nation’s largest corporations), claimed there was “...little doubt that a minimum of 200,000 (plus) jobs will be quickly lost, with plants closing in dozens of states. This number could easily exceed 1 million jobs—and even 2 million jobs—at the more extreme assumptions about residual risk.”

Wrong. Studies done since the law passed show that actual job reductions were limited to one to three thousand jobs per year, with environmental jobs increasing by the tens of thousands each year.

http://crywolfproject.org/commentary/regulating-greenhouse-gases-job-killer-quit-crying-wolf

@Bill

I'd like to turn your argument around and ask a question, and then answer it. Where did all that wealth come from? Did some wealth fairy drop a winning lottery ticket in their hands, or lead them to buried treasure? A lot of people will answer, "the wealthy worked for it." Okay, I'll give you that much, but I'd like to make a point.

The wealth of those people and corporations came from the profits generated by the activity of the workers. Money doesn't magically appear; wealth is generated by economic activity, IE work. No corporate CEO can generate $10 or $15 million dollars worth of profit for their compensation by working alone. Great wealth is created by the combined efforts of many people. From a macro perspective, economic activity of the workforce generates wealth. I have no problem with individuals who work for years to help build and grow the value of a corporation earning a disproportionate share of the earnings. But, at some point, we also have to consider those individuals who have obtained a disproportionate share of the wealth also have a larger obligation back to those workers and that society who helped generate it.

Yes, some of the wealth is used to create jobs. But that wealth originated due to the efforts of many people, and those with the wealth obtained it from the collective efforts of many. If a CEO earns $15 million a year, where do you think that money comes from? It comes from the profits generated by the workers.

Viewed in perspective of a corporation, $1,000,000 in CEO compensation represents roughly $1 per hour for a year of about 300 hourly employees, considering their payroll taxes and benefits as well. The push/pull relationship between top corporation officials, shareowners, and workers, is and always has been related to how the profits are shared. Do we give the workers a raise, increase management's compensation, or give more profit to shareowners? Unions were invented with the idea of gaining a larger share for the workers.

I believe there is a huge disconnect between moderate progressives who believe the top rate on income tax should be increased a few percentage points, and those ultra conservatives who want to reduce the top rate even more. Just as in my example with corporations, the same concept applies to society as a whole. The liberal perspective is not that the wealthy don't deserve the wealth they have, but that a little bit more of that profit created by society should be shared by those who helped create it.

I suspect I didn't explain as well as I could have, but the point is that we can easily claim that wealth, being created by the efforts of many workers in our society, creates an additional obligation on the part of the wealthy who benefit the most.

Ed, can you give me examples of the middle class bearing the burden of the economy? Can you explain to me how the rich have gotten all the tax breaks over the last ten years. Bush's tax cuts removed a vast number of people almost all the middle class off the tax roles so what do you mean by the rich getting tax breaks. Since the working comfortably wealthy currently pay up to 50% of their income in federal, state, payroll and obama care taxes now, are you suggesting they pay more?

Let me turn it back on you because no its very clear that its wrong that only rich people create jobs, but is it possibly true that people got rich because they were talented such as Albert Pujols or because they worked hard like your local immigrant that owns 10 dunkin donuts franchises or because of merit, education, ambition like your local doctor, small business owner etc and that the difference between them and the middle class is a result of factors unrelated to how they are taxes? Maybe legal and illegal immigrants willing to take middle class jobs for far less money is killing the middle class or maybe the fact that according to the democratic senator Kay Landriey, 30 million workers dont have the education of skills to obtain middle class jobs with our current technology proficiency gains so our education gap is causing it. Do you really want to punish success or do you want to take some personal responsibility and accountability? Whats great about this country is that nothing is stopping you from opening up your own small business, moving to somewhere else in this country like North Dakota and getting a higher paid job etc.

JoAnna, not sure, but are you suggesting that the recession began in the coal industry and if only we could burn more dirty coal, we would see millions of jobs come back?

I'm curious if that's the point you're making, that we should invest in coal mines and coal power plants for a bright future?

Electricity prices nationwide are flat year over year and down from 2007, so we can't make the argument that electricity prices is whats strangling the economy. On top of that, we don't have a shortage of power plants so we don't have any compelling reason to build any unless your plan is to replace operating hydro dams and nuclear plants with coal. Do they require more workers or something? Is this to stimulate the asthma treatment industry? It sure as hell isn't cheaper to stop using an already build dam to build up a whole new power plant that there isn't any demand for.

Make your point though. Tell me how society, quality of life, and the jobs problem will be solved with allowing coal to be dirtier. I'd like a breakdown of how many jobs it will create and why. Also, I'd like to know who paid you to shrill for them.

A point of record, more coal power plants have been built during this administration than the previous 12 years combined. Now explain your case and how it is that you aren't just trying to give the coal industry just a little bit more in terms of profits so that they can survive a little longer against the plummeting price of alternative energy sources. (Wind parity with coal already achieved and solar parity in 2014 is coming like a bullet)

Of course the GOP is always ready to protect businesses against better businesses. Nuclear power huh? Why not go for the most expensive and dangerous source of energy?

Oh the GOP will scream for their overlords. No, the incandescent bulb is obsolete, we must protect it before consumers save billions. Oh no, better sources of energy are coming, we must save coal and do whatever it takes to prevent any advances or economies of scale that would have other sources compete economically. Oh no, banks must be bailed out and must be protected against anything as draconian as a rational capital requirement after they gamble with the economy. We must fight against hybrids, we must make sure we use as much oil as possible and we must keep the price of said oil high.

We must stop even the slightest suggestion of anyone who thinks that perhaps the industry should develop a way to deal with oil spills before drilling. No, that will be handled by the government and the tax payer who is also subsidizing drilling in the first place. More money to big oil is the only way to keep prices down. As we have seen with prices only up 800% in a decade, there is no reason to increase the fuel efficiency of cars and save the consumer billions. That comes right out of Exxon's pocket you know!

Job creators like Exxon have 83,000 employees and have a revenue larger than the economy of state of Israel. That efficiency! Almost an entire town employed! Geepers, we need to just give them a few quadrillion more and the problem will be solved.

Let me teach you something about economics GOP. When you have mega corporations, they have price control and the net effect of all those profits is a transfer of wealth from the consumer on up to a tiny few. Everyone is forced to pay a high price for basic services and society doesn't actually benefit from all that generated wealth because it sure as hell isn't going into wages and it isn't being invested in anything resembling an efficient business.

Enough. The coal industry isn't going to create even 100,000 jobs in the next decade. There is no conceivable way it could and no reason they would. Pocketing more money because they can pollute more doesn't help anyone and at the end of the day, electricity prices will be exactly what they want them to be because there is NO COMPETITION.

Screw them, if a tiny, tiny wind energy credit already created 40 GW of renewable energy and over 150k jobs, then I see no reason to pollute the air more.

Kirk, the rich were rich because of talent huh? That's how you think the American economy works? I pay 30% of my income in taxes and day traders pay 15% and somehow I'm supposed to compete? The middle class are the people who are affected when you cut education funding, causing a skill gap. The middle class are most affected when consumer prices go up due to the large corporations doing away with competition and setting prices without improving products. The middle class are most affected when their tax money is literally handed to oil companies who have no need or use for more money.

In real capitalism, an educated populace can create jobs and gain prosperity based on talent, skill, and easy access to capital because the market is open and competitive. I don't know how to explain it to you if you don't understand, but when you pay your electricity bill, how many choices do you have? If they raised it 200%, what would you do? If you started your own electricity company and could produce electricity at 1/100th the cost, could you compete with a subsidized company that has the rights to all the power cables that they didn't even build with their own money?

Was that talent at play? The people who are 1% as efficient as you are more talented because they are subsided and can use their price gouging to buy politicians? No, they aren't, they just are the product of a system skewed against innovation coming from anyone outside an establishment. What we really have are 312 million people of whom the skills of almost all are wasted. I guess that's why the department of education is so unpopular to the GOP. That's unnecessary competition after all and how do you message when people know whats going on?

I never said we didnt have an education problem and we certainly havent cut education funding but wildly increased it over all administrations with no discernable benefit. Who blocks the reforms that are needed to better educate the populace but the unions and democrats so dont put that on the administration. Of course you can point to people who didnt make money through talent like winning the lotto but thats not the norm and you know it. I have no problem with tax reform making it easier simpler fairer and progressive but everyone needs to contribute not just the people making over 250k. Day traders pay over 15% if thats their business and if you pay 30% in federal income tax then you are considered wealthy because you would need to be making over 250k for that to be your effective tax rate.

We haven't cut education funding? What on earth, are you kidding me? I guess you don't live in a red state and I guess you don't read. Teacher lay-offs are all the craze. The GOP wants to destroy the entire department of Education, it's in their 2010 manifesto. Seriously, read it.

Capital gains are taxed at 15%. Please get a clue. Seriously, I'm not saying that to be rude, but day traders and people who make most of their money in hedge funds pay less in taxes than the working class and if you don't know that you NEED to. Day traders' income isn't taxed as income. When it comes to billionaires, they don't make their money as salary and therefore they pay a maximum of 15% if they pay that much at all.

As for unions, the bogey man of the GOP, they have nothing to do with the education system. Just like the consumers who are forced to pay seven times the value of an item because of a lack of competition, workers can be paid next to nothing because of a lack of competition. I'm a capitalist. I like competition. Every single GOP policy is arranged to reduce competition. Sorry for being such a capitalist and not a corporate fascist but I do want this country to succeed.

If ever a single GOP economic policy was geared towards making upward mobility possible, I'd be right on board. As it stands they have forsaken 95% of Americans and would be extraordinarily happy shipping whatever job overseas it takes to make sure corporations have a bigger profit and none of it is reinvested here. I've seen them defend tax havens too and we almost defaulted over loopholes. Now its time for you to get real. Learn about something before you talk about it. Start with capital gains.

Dante, it's good to do research before you lecture someone. I am a reformed tax attorney with a mom, sister and wifevwho are teachers. Day traders don't qualifybfor long term cap gains rates becausebthey don't hold their positions for one year. As for hedge funds, I agree its somewhat of a loophole but don't forget it's called a profits interest because they retain an investment in a collection of capital gains so if you believe that the cap gains rate should be lower, then the logic makes sense however I would tax them at ordinary rates because it's their job. You just have to be careful because you don't want to kill the real estate industry that relies on capital investment and the lower rate.

As for education, do some research. Spending has dramatically increased at astronimical levels. Teachers are being laid off for reasons totally different than money allocated to education. Gov budgets are being eaten up by unfunded pension and health care costs and cap ex.

As for propping the real estate industry by taxing the buying and selling of food more than the buying and selling of credit default swaps and currency derivatives, I disagree. I don't want people to consider buying real estate a better investment that starting a business and we've had enough real estate bubbles pop since the new tax rate to fill up a few centuries.

The inflation rate of home prices is out of line with any rational correlation with the price of inputs. I don't see any reason to promote this quality of life destroying inflation and speculation. The real estate industry should be ruled by demand and supply where demand is governed by potential occupants. It isn't a sustainable industry if demand is just funds trying to find a place to put their money until they move it on. It isn't a theory that such a system falls apart and causes long term damage. It is historical fact and a reliable one at that.

As for capital gains rates, it should be taxed as income, end of story.

As for my income, I'm doing fine. Whats your point? I would like to continue to do fine and for the country to create sustainable competitive industries with a middle class stable enough to buy goods and services from myself or others. I'd like to grow enough to hire as well. I'd also like the tax and subsidy policy to focus on real economic engines instead of whoever has the most lobbying power.

Billionaires need to pay for their capital gains as income because that's what it is. In any case, it's better for the economy if people with money are buying less futures and derivatives and setting up more businesses. It is their right to do that, but we don't need to make it economically stupid to decide to open up a business. Even the real stock market is tiny compared to the derivatives market.

I'm not sure why you brought up your family.... I wont compare my own because such matters are private, but that resume and background doesn't make you an authority on any subject.

Billionaires need to pay for their capital gains as income because that's what it is. In any case, it's better for the economy if people with money are buying less futures and derivatives and setting up more businesses.

Couldn't have said it better. We have a situation artificially created by the tax code in which the wealthy can make money more easily buying assets for liquidation and making wildly speculative investments that end up tanking the livelihoods of others than they can by building strong companies of lasting value. Even Ronald Reagan realized that and insisted that Congress equalize treatment of capital gains. I'm certainly no fan of Reagan, but this is something he got right. As soon as he was gone the wealthy elites who actually run the GOP went to work to reverse a change that refocused business on BUSINESS, instead of just stacking all the financial cards in their own favor.

Dante, yes my background does make me an authority on certain subjects and your attempt at sniping back at me because you were wrong when lecturing me adds nothing to the discussion. You gave incorrect facts regarding the tax code, education and the unions and I gave you a reply with the reasons why I was a credible responder. Sorry that you dont like that. I didnt ask you for your income and could care less so not sure why you brought that up. I wasnt trying to compare families but giving you reasons why I understand these issues and have the experience to back it up.

As for the real estate industry, you totally didnt understand my point. No different than the mortgage interest deduction for individuals, the capital gains rate currently allows investors to invest current cash whether it be, apartment buildings, office complexes, hotels, retail space based on after tax returns that generally yield the investors a mid teens return. If the rate goes up just as if we eliminate the mortgage interest deduction, the value of all US real estate will decrease. I am not editorializing as to whether I advocate one or the other, just saying that as a natural consequence. Whether we should depress real estate values in the current environment, I am not an economist so I wont say.

As for the capital gains rates, I have no problem with tax reform that simplifies the tax code to make it fairer, simpler and progressive while eliminating all social engineering from the code. I agree with you that billionaires that dont work shouldnt get a rate reduction on their income. But let me give you another scenario, how about millionaires? What if I told you that most millionaires are seniors with money saved over a lifetime for retirement and that they receive about $50,000 a year in income mostly dividends and interest? Should they be taxed at 35% too like you want? I dont think our tax code should be using wealth as the progressive rate but income earned. I also think we need to eliminate as you say all the loopholes and deductions and reduce the tax rate accordingly and raise revenue and make it simpler.

John B, I have no idea what you are talking about as most wealthy elites are democrats. The financial industy in NY is run by democrats, same as here in Chicago. Where do you get these notions of Robert Ludlum cabals of "wealthy elites" conspiring together? On the other hand, I agree that we need to eliminate any incentives in the tax code to financially engineer profits rather than it being a good investment.

Well Kirk, once again you've demonstrated the difference between actual facts and the things you state as fact and expect us to just take on your say so. Your "fact" about the political preferences of the wealthy is a lie;

As I pointed out in an earlier post, there’s a weird myth among the commentariat that rich people vote Democratic. There’s another strange thing about that myth: the notion that income class doesn’t matter for voting, or that it’s perverse, has spread even as the actual relationship between income and voting has become much stronger.

Larry Bartels offers us these data, which I also provide in Conscience of a Liberal, on white voting patterns in presidential elections by income:

As you can see, a 4-point difference between top and bottom became a 14-point difference.

Andrew Gelman et al offer us an election-by-election graph; the dots represent an estimate of the effect of income on the tendency to vote Republican, the whiskers the range of statistical uncertainty. Again, a weak link in the earlier period, except when Barry Goldwater was the candidate, and a much stronger link since then.

So the conventional pundit wisdom about the relationship between class and voting is, literally, the opposite of the truth.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/even-more-on-income-and-voting/

Well John B as always you seem to ignore or just use a bit of what is said and embellish or stretch it and you never ever even once acknowledge common ground when it works for you or against you. My guess is that this comes down to the definition of wealthy elite. Do you define the working wealthy successful business owner etc as wealthy elite? I would agree that if you define it as those who make above a certain income threshold as "elite" as generally voting republican then I am on the same page as you. But you then have to acknowledge all the facts and state that the 3% of people who make above 200k a year pay 50% of all income tax right? When I think of elite I think of Buffet, Gates, Pritzkers or the wealthy hedge fund managers in NY like Schwarzmann or lets face it the jewish vote goes primarily democratic so that covers a big portion of Chicago, LA and NY "elite" And please find someone else to cite than Krugman because thats like me citing Rove that would provide you zero credibility to my support no different than Krugman. If your going to use Buffet as a source for your tax comments then he is also the support for your wealthy elite democrat.

When you support a tax increase and make all of these class warfare comments, it helps to put all of the facts on the table. Why not discuss the percentage of government revenue collected by each income level? Why not go back to the Reagan, Clinton and Bush tax cuts and show the increase in government revenue immediately following the cuts along with the increase in job growth and GDP? Why not show the Laffer curve that shows the increase in government revenue and as a percentage of GDP when you cut taxes and what happens when you increase taxes?

...and Kirk does what he always does when confronted with facts...he ignores them and deflects, claiming "these" facts aren't relevant, it's always some "other" facts that aren't represented.

There's really no reason to take this conversation any farther unless you can put up some statistics showing the wealthy are Democrats. Your entire argument is based on this unsupported statement which you maintain to be a fact. Prove it. There's a first time for everything.

John, no one else is reading this, you dont have to write like there is an audience to play to. Write it directly back to me. I didnt ignore or deflect did I? I said it depends on your definition of elite and asked what your definition of it was because mine isnt Krugman's and if thats yours then it doesnt jive with your billionaires comments. Again, look at my comment and I said if you are defining wealthy as those who make over 200k--didnt I say I agreed with you? Are you dense? Did I also say you forgot to mention they also represent 3% of taxpayers but pay in over 50% of the federal income tax revenue? Can I prove that out of the so called 400 billionaires if 201 voted for Obama, no I cant. But your being so disingenous by acting like the wealthy elite dont support Obama and are some cabal of people controlling this country. Of those 400 people I can give you a ton of names we all know are supporting Obama's campaign. Really a first time, is that why you ignored the previous posts where I was correct or asked why you didnt provide information different than my statements?

Oh look, here are the statistics Kirk can't quite manage to find. In terms of political contributions;

New Rich -- 60.5% Republican

Rising Rich -- 69.2% Republican

Old Rich -- 73.8% Republican

From page 7 here; http://pages.uoregon.edu/vburris/oldmoney.pdf

On page 8 you can find political affiliation as judged by identifiable causes and activities of the Forbes 400 (these folks rich enough to meet your definition?);

New Rich -- 52% Republican, 19% Bipartisan, 29% Democratic

Old Rich -- 69% Republican, 12% Bipartisan, 19% Democratic

So there you go, the standard Conservative talking point that the wealthy elites are actually Liberals is a lie.

Kirk, you brought up my income in your own post and based it off my tax rate. You didn't even mention unions, and the difference between long term and short term capital gains rates doesn't excuse your assertion that somehow the tax code is fair when billionares pay a lower tax rate than me. I don't know why you even bring up income disparity like that's an excuse. If 50% of taxes are paid by 3% there is obviously a gross imbalance in income. Now apparently the issue is the Jewsish vote? What a croc. You haven't even pretended to respond to any broader point and have latched onto a single sentence to ignore and deflect.

The over 250k vote was split evenly between Obama and McCain. Fact. If one was to characterize the political leanings of business owners, I would say that Silicon Valley and many IT companies and CEOs lean to the left. Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Steve Jobs for example. The same can be said for the green sector and many new businesses that are based on tapping into the youth, innovation, and optimism. For several reasons, I would say that the auto industry has that leaning now as well as a large chunk of the pharma industry.

From perceptions, I would say that industries that have found themselves entrenched, profit from polluting and are generally creating a product that requires some sort of deregulation to continue are more likely to lean Republican due to how receptive and responsive they are to those positions.

In terms of education, a graduate degree is correlated to high approval for the democratic party.

Now you've gone off the deep end on "increase in revenue."

Revenue from income taxes:

2001:1407.04 billion

2002:1237.37 billion

2003:1156.25 billion

2009:1369.13 billion

2010:1390.46 billion (still in effect)

Lets try Reagan:

1981:407.62 billion

1982:412.77 billion

1983:395.35 billion (Note, a high inflation rate was in effect)

Clinton rose the income tax rates.

In 1993, President Clinton ushered through Congress a large package of tax increases, which included the following:

• An increase in the individual income tax rate to 36 percent and a 10 percent surcharge for the highest earners, thereby effectively creating a top rate of 39.6 percent.
• Repeal of the income cap on Medicare taxes. This provision made the 2.9 percent Medicare payroll tax apply to all wage income. Like the Social Security payroll tax base today, the Medicare tax base was capped at a certain level of wage income prior to 1993.
• A 4.3 cent per gallon increase in transportation fuel taxes.
• An increase in the taxable portion of Social Security benefits.
• A permanent extension of the phase-out of personal exemptions and the phase-down of the deduction for itemized expenses.
• Raising the corporate income tax rate to 35 percent.

1993: 777.01 billion

1994: 840.57 billion

1995: 916.58 billion

1996: 1007.09 billion

ect....

I guarantee you have no idea what you are talking about. Hopefully, instead of spouting out a party line written by corporations who's only goal is a lower tax rate, you can learn a series of facts for yourself and stop being a drone. If not, and you are only capable of being an unwitting shrill for a lobbyist, then I'm afraid, this exercise is less of an exchange of ideas but evidence of your lack of intellectual honesty.

I want you to look at those numbers carefully, the ONLY drops in revenue since 1960 happened during the Reagan and Bush Jr terms. Revenue is supposed to increase every year. Even through post Eisenhower recessions in the past, it increased. How can you say Bush and Reagan's policies increased revenues when they oversaw the only drops in income tax revenue as their tax policies were implemented? I want to understand. Are you just lying?

www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=1970_2015&view=1&expand=&units=b&log=linear&fy=fy12&chart=10-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s#usgs302

Well done, dante...I'm pleased to serve on your team.

Dante, very good at leaving out the numbers that make sense. Go back and add 84-88 for Reagan after the impact of the tax changes and inflation was curbed substantially starting in 84 as I lived it. Now add Clintons years after he reduced the capital gains tax and then take the revenue as a percentage of GDP instead of total revenue because thats how you have to take into account the ups and downs of the economy and then take all of Bush's years too. Now add jobs growth over each of those additional years. Do you really think I am that stupid. Also Clinton offset some of those tax increases with reductions including AMT and depreciation and investment relief. He also changed the foreign tax credit to allow for easier investment by multinationals overseas. I am not going to criticize Clinton as I think he did some good things.

As always both sides can use statistics to support them but you have to put them all on the table you clearly tried to distort yours to fit your conclusions. I cant believe you even attempted to do that. Reagan, Clinton and the beginning of Bush 2 had substantial growth from tax cuts. You can argue they caused problems down the line but you cant argue that they didnt spur investment growth and tax revenue. Dante its the revenue as a percentage of GDP thats relevant because higher revenue with 7% GDP growth doesnt mean much if the revenue is growing slower than growth. Same thing with the reverse. Yes I guarantee I know exactly what I am talking about but thanks for being so pleasant from the beginning.

I am not even sure what your first paragraph was replying to. You seem to forget your posts and what you said previously and then attack me for my reply. Yes you made comments regarding unions and education spending and you are totally wrong on education spending and the union impact on education reform thats where my comment came from. As for income inequality I think thats a different issue than tax policy but I would also disagree that you can make conclusions from the fact that 3% of the taxpayers pay 50% of the tax and assume that somehow the rich are stealing from the poor. I would say the education gap as your own democratic senators have said cause most of it. Stop being an ass to me and if you want to have a discussion, I am all for it but being a condescending dick isnt a discussion.

Dante, remember when I commented that Kirk is good at discarding everyone else's facts but refuses to present anything verifiable himself?

There it is.

Kirk, I only listed income tax revenue. I already said that tax revenue is supposed to grow over time regardless. If tax revenue increases several years after a new tax code is implemented, you aren't counting the effect of the tax code, you're just measuring normal growth from a new, lower baseline. Otherwise we could blame the increase on anything. Perhaps it was the big hair? Maybe it was Andrew Jackson's tax policy coming down the pipeline? If you want to measure the effect of a new tax code on revenue from that new tax, you should measure the effect of implementation, which is of course a reduction in revenue if you cut the rate.

I'll say it once again, only Reagan and Bush oversaw decreases in tax revenue and it was concurrent with their revenue-destroying tax cuts which both ballooned the deficits. You can't really argue otherwise honestly. In both cases, the revenue was FAR, FAR less than projected before the cuts. That it bottomed out and rose means nothing if a trillion dollars in revenue vanished.

In the case of Bush, even the bubble in his second term had far, far lower revenue numbers than projected at the end of the Clinton term. That it peaked at 1.8 trillion is an admission of failure of the tax policy when modest projections called for 2.5 trillion.

If you want to have a discussion, at some point you are going to have to accept a fact and no, calling me names is too juvenile to really waste my time with any further. Grow up, stop towing a bunch of erroneous talking points, prove what you say, and then come back a bit more useful than before.

I am curious though, when was Bush's substantial growth from tax cuts? How are two recessions substantial growth? What would you call par growth or sub-par? How is doubling the unemployment rate substantial in a positive way? Odd that you want to correlate GDP growth with tax policy then we need to correct for it any time it's down.

Bush -3% of revenue as a percent of GDP

Income tax revenue as a percent of GDP

2000 - 14.67%

2001 - 13.68%

2002 - 11.63%

2003 - 10.38%

2004 - 10.51%

...

2008 - 12.55% (WOW!!!) At this rate...

2009 - 9.70% oh never-mind, liquidity induced recession fail.

Reagan

1980 - 13.06%

1981 - 13.04%

1982 - 12.69%

1983 - 11.19%

1984 - 11.12%

...

1988 - 11.91% (WOW!!) Great! Cutting taxes made revenues go down and stay down! Oh wait, what was your argument?

I don't understand, is there a way to look at this data and find a revenue increase? I'm a bit lost, where does it show that revenue increased more than it would have without the tax cut? Income tax rates went up under Clinton, income tax revenue went up under Clinton. Income tax rates went down under Bush and Reagan, income tax revenue went down under Bush and Reagan.

Welcome to basic math. Yes you create a deficit if you don't collect taxes.

Great Dante, you did it again to skew the conclusions you want to make. And your percentages are wrong. Go to deptofnumbers.com (hey John does that make you feel somewhat better and comfortable). You convienently leave out the years relevant that dont support your thesis. First Dante you have to remove employment taxes as that is your contribution to your future government pension and will skew the results as the rate is relatively the same. We are only talking about changes in the income tax rate. Good try though. Furthermore just because revenue went up doesnt mean it went its supposed to grow over time if rates went down, that is just stupid math. Let me see your basic math skills are trying to teach me that if rates go down, revenue still goes up over time mmmm show me how that math works again? It goes up because the economy is doing better, jobs are being created and additional taxable income is being earned increasing government revenue. Remember you are trying to tell me that tax cuts hurt the economy and dont increase jobs. GDP growth during the reagan era, second Clinton term and the most of the Bush term grew substantially with significant job growth (put aside the discussion of what happened in 2008 because I am not a bush fan just putting forth the basic facts. You totally ignored the end of the Clinton era in which the reduction in the capital gains rate (the one you hate) increased tax revenue greater than any time in our history along with unprecedented job growth.

These arent talking points. Go to Laffercurve.com. I dont really care about the partisan politics just get your basic facts correct. Read the Wall Street Journal, get your self educated on finance and business outside of the liberal bias you obviously have. You can try and be condescending and a know it all and its not going to change anything. I am not advocating republican vs democrat as I hated Bush and thought he was a horrible president. I live in Chicago and deal with democrat policies on a daily basis as its the only game in town. Doesnt mean that if I disagree with Obama that I am some right wing person you want to dismiss out of hand. You clearly think you have a grasp on economic facts and behavior based on limited research. Dont lecture me on stuff you dont know based on research that is limited to your conclusions while attempting through condescension to create an aura of invincibility to it.

Ah I do remember your tax rate discussion which clearly was another attempt by you to act like you know what your talking about. Are you still in college with no real life experience I bet understanding basic economic behavior. Its not asking about your income, but you give it away if you try to state that your effective tax rate is 30%, you would be making at least 250 and likely more.

By the way do the research, google Bush tax cut facts like heritage.org etc. Same thing with Reagan era tax cuts and you will find that revenue came in greater than it would have without the tax cuts. The revenue forecasts you use at the end of the Clinton term didnt take into account the internet bubble burst and the economic impact of 9/11 both of which pushed us into a big recession.

If I were in your shoes and even John Bs and you wanted to argue with me, your replys shouldnt be based on tax revenue, job growth GDP growth during those eras because the facts are what they are and you can attempt to cut them your way but that just doesnt work. Instead, you should criticize other aspects of the economic polices of that era as I would be less able to prove you wrong.

The thing is that I didn't change or skew the results. I just listed the results. Your list of places for me to go like the heritage foundation are exactly places that would skew the results. All my data came from the website I posted as a source. It isn't partisan or making a political point.

2000
9951.5
14.67
a

2001
10286.2
13.68
a

2002
10642.3
11.63
a

2003
11142.1
10.38
a

2004
11867.8
10.51
a

2005
12638.4
11.80
a

2006
13398.9
12.83
a

2007
14061.8
13.39
a

2008
14441.4
12.55

1980
2788.1
13.06
a

1981
3126.8
13.04
a

1982
3253.2
12.69
a

1983
3534.6
11.19
a

1984
3930.9
11.12
a

1985
4217.5
11.50
a

1986
4460.1
11.36
a

1987
4736.4
12.31
a

1988
5100.4
11.91
a

There is the whole data. The reduction in the capital gains tax rate did not increase the rate of income tax receipts. The percentages are right. This is income tax revenue as a percentage of GDP. Again, I don't see any increase from the first year. The obvious conclusion is that reducing the income tax rate reduces income tax receipts.

There aren't any qualifiers or asterisks. This is really just the amount of money that the government takes in from income taxes as a percent of GDP. Here is Clinton:

1993
6667.4
11.65
a

1994
7085.2
11.86
a

1995
7414.7
12.36
a

1996
7838.5
12.85
a

1997
8332.4
13.35
a

1998
8793.5
13.96
a

1999
9353.5
13.76
a

2000
9951.5
14.67
a

If you reduce income taxes, you reduce income tax revenue. There nothing wrong with the data and nothing to suggest otherwise. There is no evidence that the Bush tax cuts increased revenue. They did not. At no time during the Bush era did revenue from income taxes reach the 14.67% that occurred the year before he began their implementation.

If you want to include all revenue and not just income taxes (I guess compare income tax revenue to income tax rates was far too unnerving or something) we can use your source, debtofnumbers. Here is their totals for the years:

(Year QR

Debt%

Revenue %

Expenditure %

Deficit %

2008 Q4
75.98%
17.45%
22.15%
-4.70%

2008 Q3
69.64%
17.38%
21.82%
-4.44%

2008 Q2
65.85%
16.72%
22.02%
-5.30%

2008 Q1
66.12%
18.50%
21.22%
-2.72%

2007 Q4
64.75%
18.71%
20.65%
-1.94%

2007 Q3
63.77%
18.77%
20.65%
-1.88%

2007 Q2
63.45%
19.02%
20.72%
-1.70%

2007 Q1
64.32%
19.21%
20.67%
-1.47%

2006 Q4
63.90%
18.96%
20.16%
-1.20%

2006 Q3
63.33%
18.96%
20.57%
-1.60%

2006 Q2
63.16%
18.77%
20.49%
-1.72%

2006 Q1
63.60%
18.80%
20.37%
-1.58%

2005 Q4
63.33%
18.35%
20.42%
-2.07%

2005 Q3
62.32%
18.11%
20.37%
-2.26%

2005 Q2
62.69%
18.06%
20.36%
-2.30%

2005 Q1
62.91%
18.05%
20.38%
-2.34%

2004 Q4
62.65%
17.14%
20.13%
-2.99%

2004 Q3
61.82%
17.13%
20.16%
-3.03%

2004 Q2
61.84%
16.91%
20.18%
-3.27%

2004 Q1
61.53%
16.78%
20.31%
-3.53%

2003 Q4
61.31%
16.85%
20.17%
-3.32%

2003 Q3
60.27%
16.24%
20.25%
-4.01%

2003 Q2
60.57%
17.28%
20.69%
-3.41%

2003 Q1
59.34%
17.33%
20.09%
-2.76%

2002 Q4
59.49%
17.30%
20.03%
-2.72%

2002 Q3
58.20%
17.34%
19.80%
-2.46%

2002 Q2
57.79%
17.53%
19.88%
-2.36%

2002 Q1
57.21%
17.72%
19.67%
-1.96%

2001 Q4
57.30%
19.25%
19.37%
-0.12%

2001 Q3
56.35%
18.39%
19.40%
-1.01%

2001 Q2
55.59%
20.26%
19.10%
1.16%

2001 Q1
56.80%
20.68%
19.11%
1.57%

2000 Q4
55.90%
20.57%
18.81%
1.77%

Again we see the maximum revenue right before Bush took office (over 20%) and a bunch of bouncing off that bottom for the entire two terms (always under 19%). Remember, this is your exact sourced numbers. Reagan does the same thing. Look it up. The argument that income tax cuts increased revenues is just complete nonsense.

www.deptofnumbers.com/misc/debt-revenue-and-expenditures-as-a-fraction-of-gdp/

Anyone who is telling you that revenues increased is lying. If you reject your own numbers and suggestions AGAIN after this, then you're quite the spinster. I have no interest in the unsourced political hacks at the heritage foundation. I'm a numbers man.

If you educate yourself at the heritage foundation, then you aren't educated. My information comes from numbers. I read government reports as they come out and I have the release schedule in my bookmarks. When I get data, I download it into my excel and try to spot trends. You call me liberal, but it isn't liberal, it is simply presenting and parsing raw data and finding out that nothing I hear about the effect of tax cuts is actually true. It would be great if it were and if we payed no taxes, revenue would skyrocket, but that's just not historical fact.

You have yet to prove otherwise, yet to present any data, and you are trying very hard to make this argument about me rather than the data. There is nothing wrong with my sources, nothing wrong or altered about my data, and nothing to suggest tax cuts raise revenue. The end. If you can't prove otherwise, then don't try. Just go on calling people an ass or whatever and stick your fingers in your ears while you feed on heritage foundation's talking points.

It might shock you, but I'm not afraid of the numbers. I just didn't feel like reformatting everything. Are you afraid of them? You seem to be squealing something fierce every time I show them....

Dante, there is enormous evidence otherwise and you didnt show the right numbers and yes I do realize the heritage foundation is more fiscally conservative but that doesnt make the things they advocate wrong. I understand they may skew them to reach the conclusions they want just as you have. You must still be in school which is why you are so adamant but I didnt call you an ass, in fact you were being amazingly condescending as you are clearly unwilling to learn anything. Unfortunately thats a problem with youth. My 26 year old son would argue just like you. Lets start with some basic questions and answers and then you can go back and look at the data as I promise not to fight you on it.

1) Is it true that GDP grew substantially during the Reagan, Clinton and Bush era ending in recessions after Reagan with the first gulf war, ending Clinton's expansion with the burst of the internet bubble and the second bush with the financial crisis?

2) Do you agree that job growth during these eras was huge ending with the above mentioned recessions?

3) Do you agree that taxes were cut during this time including Clinton's era with the capital gains rate?

4) Now go back to your data and only use income tax and eliminate payroll and other taxes because we are talking about the variability associated with the raising or lowering of income tax rates --so far the data you have provided doesnt show that. If it did, we would be talking about revenue somewhere between 7-10% of GDP and trends around 8% of GDP regardless of rate because what happens is that as rates go up, behavior changes to reduce the receipts or less robust economic growth and as rates go down, revenue goes up with the corresponding GDP growth. Check it out.

5) Now go to the laffercurve or any economic behaviorial analysis and you will see how tax rates impact behavior and revenue. There is not one single economist nor data that doesnt think the decrease of the capital gains rates by Clinton didnt dramatically increase revenue so not sure where you got your conclusions from. There have been probably 20 Wall Street Journal articles you can research and learn about it. It helped drive the internet bubble and the stock sales from that era drove federal income tax receipts to an almost all time high of 10% of GDP.

There is so much data that shows that tax cuts increase revenue that it strains credibility that you didnt find it. For example, after 2003 when Bush adopted the tax cuts, federal tax revenue increased 785 billion more than any 4 year period in our history. Individual and corporate receipts were up 40% the stock market increased 20% and $15 trillion of wealth was created. I forget the number of jobs but it was like 3 million of new jobs.

You want to look at things in absolutes without taking into account what the starting point was. You cant compare Reagan's revenue without looking at the growth in the GDP and the immediate recessions before the growth and what got us out of them.

Finally, I assume you will agree that during the Reagan, Clinton and Bush era without accounting for the eventual recessions that generally end any economic cycle, what would you point to if not tax cut stimulus that brought us out of the Carter extremely deep recession much worse than the one we are in now, the Iraq war recession in 90-91. the bursting of the internet bubble recession and recovery? Do you think that if Reagan had kept the high tax rates, we would have the same GDP growth with higher revenue? Do you think the same with Clinton, where an additional 450 billion of revenue over the last 4 years is attributed to the reduced capital gains tax? Do you think the economy would have grown just as fast with would have even higher government revenue if we took the hundreds of billions out of the hands of the earners?

By the way no squealing as I am too old and your attempts to continually put me down are not going to phase me. I applaud your diligence but so far not your critical thinking on this issue. I know I am vigorously supporting my positions but I fully recognize that there are some holes and would definitely be willing to have substantive discussions on those weaknesses but so far you havent spent the time to actually think through what you are concluding you would rather try to beat me with your arrogance and thinking your the smartest guy in the room. Sorry not going to work as you havent come close to proving that yet.

I have spent a lot of time discussing a single element and that isn't because I haven't already brought several different topics into focus, it is because you have narrowed the focus down to the most minute of topics and no matter how much data I show, you always find fault with it.

1) GDP growth wasn't the issue and it can't be until you demonstrate a causal relationship. Reagan oversaw a double-dip recession and a banking crisis. Clinton had growth averaging at or near 4% through his terms with a hick-up during the 1997 Asian financial crisis and Bush oversaw two recessions. That's not a spin, those are just a presentation of the answers to your question. I was fine presenting, as requested, tax revenues as a percent of GDP to correct for ups and downs. I cannot characterize the Bush era as a substantial rise in GDP. Not only was his total rise in GDP below the long-term trend, his maximum annual rate was below the Clinton average.

2) The Bush era began with 4.1% unemployment and did not reach that level again. Taking just the positive years alone is a bit dishonest, but even so, it wasn't a job growth rate that could be called substantial. Between the bottom of the tech bubble burst when unemployment hit a maximum of 6.3% (June 2003) and the height of the housing boom when unemployment hit a minimum of 4.4%(Oct 2006) is a total of a 1.9% decrease in the unemployment rate. Of course the term ended with 7.8%(Jan 2009), but even ignoring that, technically a 1.9% drop in unemployment isn't highly substantial or anomalous. 3.6 rise in unemployment rate over term is substantially negative and the worst record in the post war era.

Clinton took over with a 7.3% unemployment rate (Jan 1993) and hit a minimum of 3.9(Dec 2000) and ended with 4.1(Jan 2001). The maximum unemployment was his first day in office. I would call this substantial and without any asterisk or explanation. 3.2% drop over term is highly substantial.

Reagan took over with a 7.5% unemployment rate (Jan 1981) and it peaked at 10.8% (Nov/Dec 1982) and he ended at 5.7% (Jan 1988). I would call the ride down from 1982 to 1988 substantial job growth, however, we also have to take into account the fact of a double recession and that it took until May 1984 for it to hit his previous minimum. The total job growth is represented by a 1.8% drop in unemployment. I would not consider 1.8% over a term to be highly substantial.

3) The Clinton capital gains tax cut occurred in 1997 or midway through his second term. Thus the vast majority of his era was marked by tax increases. More to the point, 2/3 of the job increases occurred before they were implemented. Even, more to the point, Bush's further reduction in capital gains rates did not increase revenue and we still have a higher unemployment rate with all the Bush tax cuts in place than before they 1997. I agree that Bush and Reagan mostly focused on tax cuts.

4) I presented income tax data and sourced it. Then I went to your website and presented the ONLY data they offered on the subject. There was no way to sort or find raw numbers there. Both were consistent. IF you have data that says otherwise or is more relevant, then please present it.

5) Saying the words Wall Street Journal doesn't supplant actually presenting information. I understand that the thoughts behind the theory as presented for trickle down are that gum drops and rainbows come from it, but there are alternate theories and the data still fails to show this increase from the Bush tax cuts or the Reagan tax cuts. But, I repeat, I do understand the trickle down economic theory. I also understand why it is argued so fervently as the response to any and every problem no matter the circumstance or situation.

As for your rhetorical questions, the 1980 recession was mild, the 1983 recession was pretty bad. The policies between the two are questionable. Clinton's revenue increases can be mostly attributed to strong GDP growth which can be attributed to the birth of the internet. Really nothing else.

As for you attacks on my objectivity, education, or debating style, I am most receptive to intelligent fact-based arguments and less impressed with name dropping and news that your wife is a teacher. I am more than willing to change my views based on strong evidence, but keep in mind that my views were based in strong evidence to begin with. I don't think you are critically thinking. My assessment is that someone else has been critically thinking for you and no presentation of data can change your mind because you yourself would have to come to conclusions about it. Economic theory isn't a faith. Stop defending it like one.

My sources aren't liberal or conservative opinion or political sites. I have no need for spin or propaganda. My source is the data itself. If you don't think someone who can offer their own data analysis is critically thinking and needs to consult the heritage foundation for his thoughts, then your definition of the words is what is at issue here.

And finally, the Bush reduction in the capital gains tax rate from 20-15% preceded a drop in capital gains revenues. If you want to demonstrate that a change in tax policy caused a change in revenue, you need to demonstrate a radical change in direction. The drop in revenue under Bush and Regan right as their cuts were implemented fits that burden of correlation. You need to demonstrate, somehow, that revenue was more than expected in any of the cases.

Dante and JohnB:

Was that loud pop I just heard Kirk's head exploding?

You've successfully demonstrated how his RNC rhetorical spin is, in fact, untrue and that may be more than the poor boy can handle - he has been so blind and in obstinate denial of truth for so long... He is probably unable to accept facts.

Oh well...

AM, sorry to be a wet blanket, but, is it not true that one of those democrats ran unopposed? Cause, I'm pretty sure that's what I read.

Not much of a challenge there- considering that democrats managed to get his opponent thrown off the ballot. Sort of a USSR election- where folks could vote for any candidate of any party- providing, of course, it was the Communist party.

I sure hope Obama doesn't catch wind of the sure fire method to hold onto your seat.

No, they were all opposed. The guy you're talking about couldn't even get enough signatures to get on the ballot -- which is what democracy requires him to do, no joe.

But the democrat still had opposition in the election.

Where DO you EVER get your facts, no joe?

And is that ALL you've got today? LoL

Well, that's odd. You should alert the AP.

See, last week, when they reporting the big recall election, they had that particular democrat listed as unopposed, no totals will be reported.

Why would the AP lie, AM?

Anna Molloy:

One of your best and NoJo would not know a fact or the truth if it bit her on the butt. She is known to stretch the truth until it breaks. Even the moderators have called her on it.

She is one of those people totally consumed by hate and her writings show it. She must live a terrible life to be so consumed.

No Jo and facts? Now there is a laugh.

no joe -- Here are the July 19 recall election results for the seat occupied by Democrat Dave Hansen:

http://gab.wi.gov/sites/default/files/page/canvass_summary_7_19_11_recall_election_senate_30__20437.pdf

As you can see, Hansen did NOT run unopposed, but won by a roughly 2-1 margin.

I posted the other two democratic recall results on Wednesday morning, but just in case you missed them, here they are again:

State Senate District 12

158 of 166 wards reporting

x-Jim Holperin, Dem (i) 29,750 (55%)

Kim Simac, GOP 24,069 (45%)

State Senate District 22

All wards reporting

x-Bob Wirch, Dem (i) 25,541 (58%)

Jonathan Steitz, GOP 18,838 (42%)

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_8bf69e79-b326-523d-a4b8-b3609bca1344.html

As even you can plainly see, no joe, neither democrat was unopposed.

There were only three recall elections involving incumbent democrats.

There were, however, several districts where republicans ATTEMPTED to recall democrats, but couldn't get enough signatures. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and suppose that this is what you're referring to.

NoJo it looks like you should just be quiet or find something else to talk about, Anna Molloy is kicking your virtual butt - big time.

No one ran unopposed in Wisconsin elections. Much easier for nojo to tell a lie.

Truth is that there were 9 recall elections and the Democrats won 5 and the republicans won 4.

Your lying spin that one was won unopposed is just another lie in a long list of lies. If you had watched any election results, all ended with the percentage each party got of the vote and who won.

I guess when all you got are lies, that is all you got.

Great post, AM. It was just YESTERDAY in fact that FR Conservatives tried repeatedly to claim Walker's policies were creating an economic miracle that would forever wipe the evil of Liberalism from the face of the Earth.

Welcome to the reality-based community.

[Why would the AP lie, AM?]

HoJo, BloMo, NoGo, SloMo...

You do understand the role of the Associated Press, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press

More to the point, Mickey ... why would no joe lie?

Oh, like we've never seen that before.

And she didn't even bother to give us a phony baloney citation for the lie.

Just straight up.

Simple, one word answer- jobs.

Longer answer- he knows what it takes to create an environment for growth. That includes a friendly tax environment, and the judicious, not profligate, use of regulations.

I doubt highly he'd let any department in Texas prevent a plant from opening, even if keeping it closed would be a boon to one of his campaign contributors.

With an over all approval rating of 26% on his handling of the economy- the biggest issue of this campaign- I don't see Obama getting reelected.

Perry has an economic message, and a good track record. Obama blames a new person, thing, or act of nature every day for his poor track record.

I think most folks will vote for the guy who can do it, rather than the one who blames others for his inability to do it.

Anybody got a pooper scooper . . . I seem to have misplaced mine.

Anybody got a pooper scooper . . . I seem to have misplaced mine.

Here - you're gonna need a shovel for that load! ;o)

Thanks Feisty . . . hope you have a great weekend girl! :o)

Happy Friday, Nash! You are right----people get distracted with bright shiny objects like a bus ordered by the Secret Service for security rather than focus on the facts-- that Congress is on a 5 week vacation but not using the time to hold town meetings (unless one pays to attend).

Rick Perry is a fraud:

This is a governor that talks about how he balanced his budget. What he forgets to tell you is that he used over $6 Billion Dollars of the Federal Stimulus money to do so. Instead of using the money to create jobs he used it to hide a shortfall in the budget, trying to make himself look good at the expense of his people.

All those jobs he says he created – true to a point. What he does not tell you is that many of them came from the good years the Oil Companies have had, and most of the others are low paying jobs. In fact Texas leads the nation in the lowest paying jobs by State. Great State to move too if you want a minimum wage job with no benefits.

In addition, while the national unemployment rate is 9.1 percent and the Texas unemployment rate is 8 percent, some 23 states, including New York, have lower unemployment rates, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Perry often talks about the robust growth of jobs during his tenure. But jobs grew at about the same rate during Democrat Ann Richards' four years as governor. And they grew at a much faster rate during Republican George W. Bush's six years in the office than they have in Perry's 10. Even before the national recession hit in 2008, jobs grew at a slower rate in Texas under Perry than under Bush.

He thinks Medicare and Social Security are unconstitutional along with the HCR

He is anti-Gay, anti-women’s reproductive rights, anti-environment and anti 16^th and 17^th Amendments. For a list of the top ten see the link below.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/06/10/241830/top-10-thing-texas-gov-rick-perry/

*waves to Steeler Fan*

Caught a little bit of your Steelers clobbering the Eagles last night . . . picking up where ya'll left off, eh? lol

(I hope Vince Young finds a niche with the Eagles or somebody . . . that kid got a raw deal here in Tennessee!)

USNavy:

Thanks for all the hard work you do presenting factual information . . . much appreciated!

No Joe wants jobs. Tell that the the GOPTP who has consistantly blocked all "funded" job-creating legislation simply because they'd rather win elections that do what is right for the American people.

I'm frustrated and angry but my anger is not at democrats, it is at the imbecile GOPTP who support Hoover economics. If Government invests additional deficit spending into targeted infrastructure projects, jobs will be created for those projects putting money into local economies and creating more jobs; the deficit and the debt would be reduced. But the GOPTP insists on being penny wise and pound foolish and their loyal sheep followers nod their heads in approval as they fall over the cliff.

Perry has a great record if you want a minimum wage job, or don’t care about clean water, or if you don’t mind becoming a third world nation, where there in no longer a middle class, but instead a class of rich and poor.

Know what's odd, Jody? I distinctly remember an $840 billion stimulous bill that stimulated nothing but the deficit.

So do 74% of the populace. Since you're a democrat, you undoubtedly believe Obama is doing a great job on the economy, and that the stimulous bill never passed.

Or, it passed, but the republicans put a hoodoo on it, so it didn't work.

Or, it worked, but only Obama cult members have the secret code to see it.

Son of stimulous will not pass. No slush fund tom pay off donors this time.

I'm pretty sure that's going to put a crimp in the donor base.

Well, I wasn't going to brag about my Steelers yet, it being the pre-season and all, but since you bring it up, Nash---how 'bout them Steelers?! (or as we say phonetically here in Pittsburgh, how 'bout dem Stillers!).

Looking forward to our clash with the Titans!

Never fear Nash - Feisty's here with the front loader to clear the mess the NJ nut job keeps leaving on your porch!

You enjoy your weekend as well GF!

Are the kidlets back in school yet?

Now how about some kool-aid & *popcorn*?

Hats off to NJ for continuing to give regular opportunities demonstrating that even CONSERVATIVE economists acknowledge the stimulus plan worked. From John McCain's chief economic advisor Mark Zandi;

In this paper, we use the Moody’s Analytics model of the U.S. economy—adjusted to accommodate some recent financial-market policies—to simulate the macroeconomic effects of the government’s total policy response. We find that its effects on real GDP, jobs, and inflation are huge, and probably averted what could have been called Great Depression 2.0. For example, we estimate that, without the government’s response, GDP in 2010 would be about 11.5% lower, payroll employment would be less by some 8½ million jobs, and the nation would now be experiencing deflation.

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf

And, once again, John B.- Mark Zandi is NOT a "conservative" economist.

He's a Keynesian- which means he can read success into failure because it fits his ideology.

I don't care if he support McCain, Abraham Lincoln, or Genghis Kahn. He's a Keynesian, which makes him a believer in fairy tales.

And we all see where that has gotten us.

Feisty,

The kids have been in school since August 1st . . . and yes, some popcorn and koolaid would be just divine, thank you kindly!

Steeler Fan:

I can be kind to the Steelers during pre-season . . . but come opening day . . . I'm putting my game face on . . . lol . . . have a great weekend! Go Titans (and VY)!

P.S. Thanks for keeping the truth front and center John B., folks like you help me sleep at night!

With regard to Zandi, this comes from Wikipedia

Zandi's analysis of the impact of an economic stimulus package on the United States economy was cited by Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein in their report on President Barack Obama's proposed American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan.[4] Zandi uses old-style Keynesian models in the spirit of Nobel Prize winner Lawrence Klein. The utility of such models to gauge the impact of fiscal stimulus has been questioned by Harvard economist Robert J. Barro.

Now, why on earth would he be interested in perpetuating the myth that it worked? I mean, just because his fingerprints are all over it, couldn't possibly cause him to insist it worked, now, could it?

Then why did Conservative John McCain appoint Zandi his chief economic adviser?

Meanwhile your authority, Robert J Barro is one of the founders of the "new classical" economics, the very beliefs that were proved wrong when tax cuts created massive deficits and 30 years of deregulation created a series of increasingly massive economic bubbles culminating in the crash of 2007.

LOL so now no jo is a fan people educated at Harvard. bet she get's dizzy with all that flipping and flopping going on.

John - I can't let you get away with the liberal spin you are foisting off on the rest of an unsuspecting reader. You say I lack reading comprehension - So enlighten me in what I fail to understand.

You harp on the actions of republican Alan Greenspan and his involvement in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 even though this act was pushed by Clinton's President's Working Group. This group consisted of Alan Greenspan, Arthur Levit and Robert Rubin - all three Clinton appointees. I would like to accuse you of a failure in reading comprehension but I suspect your intentions are more sinister. All the names I posted were indeed involved in the sub prime scandal in one way or another yet you continue to deny that. You freaking liberals are going to be the end of this country as we know it if we don't stop you.

NJ, first of all, where are all the jobs that the Republicans promised when they were elected in 2010??? I haven't heard a PEEP out of any of them regarding jobs. They're quick to denigrate our president for at least TRYING to come up with a jobs bill that will put people back to work, but I haven't heard a SINGLE plan from any of them as was promised!

Secondly, for all of you who respond to NJ (me included), you will NEVER change her mind so why waste your breath. She's bolted into her beliefs despite being proven wrong on so many levels! Let's just let her live her dream for now!

So the President sleeps jobs, wakes up jobs and is vacationaing jobs but we have not seen them yet, so tell me what happened with that.

Well Rick, regarding your level of reading comprehension that was John A who accused you of being short in that department. FR readers can draw their own conclusions.

As far as the Commodity Futures Modernization Act being a creation of the Clinton Administration you're still participating in an attempt to rewrite history. First, Alan Greenspan was a Reagan appointee whose first term expired during the Clinton Administration. Republicans demanded that Greenspan be retained as proof that the Fed is an apolitical body and that Clinton was listening to the concerns of "serious people" in the realm of business and economics.

Work began within the Presidents Working Group, but majority Republicans in Congress made sure the eventual legislation went well beyond the recommendations of the PWA and in particular forbade the regulation of OTC derivatives;

During the House and Senate committee hearings on these bills, Committee Chairs and Ranking Members described a tight legislative schedule for the bills because of the election year’s short Congressional schedule. Sponsors had delayed introduction of the bills as they vainly awaited agreement between the CFTC and SEC on how to regulate the single stock futures contemplated by the PWG Report. That issue dominated the hearings.^[54]

On September 14, 2000, the SEC and CFTC announced they had agreed on a joint regulation approach for “security futures.” Senior Treasury Department officials hailed the “historic agreement” as eliminating “the major obstacles to forming a consensus bill.” ^[55] At the same time, Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), the Chair of the Senate Banking Committee, was quoted as insisting that any bill brought to the Senate Floor would need to be expanded to include prohibitions on SEC regulation of the swaps market.^[56]

Democratic members of Congress later described a period in late September through early October during which they were excluded from negotiations over reconciling the three committee versions of H.R. 4541, followed by involvement in reaching an acceptable compromise that left some Republicans unhappy with the final version of the bill and some Democrats upset over the “process”, particularly the involvement of Sen. Gramm and House Republican leadership in the negotiations.[57

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000

There you have it. The fatal flaws that brought down the world economy were the work of Republicans...particularly Phil Graham, the same Graham of Graham-Leach-Bliley, whose wife went on to make a ton of bucks by capitalizing on the revised, toothless regulations.

Who , exactly , was ever calling for "W" to be impeached over his vacationing? Calls for his impeachment were based on his dereliction of duty, his lack of due diligence, and his wilfull negligence.

Look up "figure of speech", and humorless...

If I'd said "court marshaled", "Drawn and quartered", "pilloried", "taken to task", etc...

Point being that where you stand on Presidential vacays depends on where you sit politically. Hope that clars things up in the reading comprehension dept.

Look up disingenuous...............you claimed something which was demonstrably false. Why is it that when you are called on your lies, you almost always claim that you were "joking", or were engaging in rhetorical figures of speech?

Dangerfield

The crowd who defended "W"'s many vacays are the ones criticizing the current President's vacations, while those who defend President Obama's trips now, wanted "W" to be impeached over his.

Different pair of shoes. Bush took three times more vacation than Obama at this point in his presidency. Also, Obama wasn't hasn't been so busy partying that he's ignored memos like the one Bush got on his first vacation in August 2001: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the US." Bush was the president who ignored Bin Laden. Obama was the president who got him.

BTW: Paul is correct and Dangerfield is wrong. Nobody called for Bush's impeachment just because he took incredibly long vacations. The Bush impeachment talk was mostly because he lied the country into the disastrous war in Iraq and some of it because of the Valerie Plame CIA scandal that got one of Dick Cheney's flunkies a felony conviction.

Couldn't we please put the vacation nonsense to rest. Every President is entitled to take time to himself/herself and family. We've seen the pictures of every President aging while in office and understand the stress they are under---let's give them a break and allow leisure activities and vacations-regardless of the party.

Again for the humorless and self-righteous, the point was that both sides get apoplectic over the same issues (in this case Presidential vacations) when...

...The shoe is on the other foot

That's a figure of speech too

That was (obviously) MY point, but carry on...:)

dangerfield

Again for the humorless and self-righteous, the point was that both sides get apoplectic over the same issues (in this case Presidential vacations) when...

Few people are as good at getting all self-righteous and apoplectic as Dangerfield. The above is a good example, although his rhetoric can be rather violent when he really gets his groove.

Gee, Houston! Wasn't taking to you, but if the "shoe" fits..lol

Everything we write is there for all to see, interpret and judge for ourselves, and matters little to few besides the author and maybe a couple of others motivated by previous exchanges. like the one below...:)

_______________________________________________________________

"Professor Marmaduke Montague. What have you done with the body? I am going to call the police. What I'll call them is none of your business. What number is this, anyway?' Rosten, 'Crestview 829.' Voice, 'Aha, so you admit it! Why, if you were a man you'd come over and knock my teeth out.' Rosten 'I -' Voice, 'And if you were half a man you'd knock half my teeth out.' Rosten, 'Who -?' 'And if you were a woman we could dance the night away in wild abandon."

http://www.anecdotage.com/index.php?aid=13485

You mean he cannot be in DC because everybody is on vacation until after Labor Day. And if they were there they would just "Obstruct" anything he tried to do or hold it "Hostage" to maybe get new toilets in the mens room. Get your fact straight.

#14.2 - YES and you just keep proving my points for me.

Ray W, well you get half a point for reasonable. Our President can't introduce spending programs because Congress is on a 5-week vacation, the House controls the purse strings. They left Aug 3 and won't be back until after Labor Day.

Fact: big, targeted spending programs is what every economist, right and left, and Wall Street says we need NOW. Take off the blinders, Ray. If we spend money on specific programs that create jobs, those jobs pump money into the economy and create even more jobs. The deficit and the debt would be reduced because of increased local, state and federal revenues resulting from the spending. It's simple economics but apparently like science, too many conservatives don't believe in it.

And how many did BUSH have????????

Madison From NY..

I promised myself today that I would just post a little, leave early and spend time with...nevermind.

Who cares how many fundraisers anyone has, will have or had. How does it impact the national economy, job creation or the debt. It's an inane comment and has no relevance to ant intelligent political conversation.

Name a single job that an immigrant, legal or illegal has stolen for "those hardworking US citizens". You mean the menial jobs that were available to ALL Americans but we refuse to take. That's right...look at the stats... majority of Americans do NOT want those jobs...Cite and incidence, please, where huge amounts of Americans have been forced out of jobs by immigrants. It's a GOP talking point and an urban myth.

Better idea, we have sooooooo much extra cash now, I say let's use it to round up all the illegals in this country, including their American born children who are citizens, and send them back to...wherever.

It accomplishes what...that we spend billions more...

Let's not offer a path to citizenship for these people, fine them, register them, put them on a list to become citizens. Let them pay SS and taxes and become productive. Wait, that would be the sensible thing to do and even George W endorsed it.

Wow...back door amnesty...making people safe, productive citizens not living in fear and giving them the opportunity to improve their lives and the culture of this country. Every wave of immigrants has done just that. Why not these?

Does the term Melting Pot mean anything to you. We are all the children of immigrants.

10-20 million illegal aliens presently roam the U.S.

For every 100 illegal aliens who find jobs in the U.S., 65 American workers are displaced.

Obama could CREATE 6.5 to 13 MILLION JOBS FOR CITIZENS by DEPORTING ILLEGAL ALIENS.

http://www.citizensforlaws.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=76&Itemid=101

If you are unemployed or know someone who needs a job, remember this in 2012:

OBAMA SUPPORTS ILLEGAL ALIENS over UNEMPLOYED CITIZENS

Where does Obama get off granting "back door amnesty" to illegals

Now make up your minds.

The President has initiated policy to target "dangerous" [to America] aliens for deportation. He is NOT concentrating on aliens in our military or in school as a cost reduction step, a money saver.

Now, you yell and holler for budget reductions and reduced government spending, then when implemented you yell and holler for additional (costly)programs; you yell and holler for reduced government, then when implemented you yell and holler for the government to do more...

You right wingnut/t-baggers/obstructionists/Republicans are UNBELIEVABLE! And you want voter support come Nov. 2012 for such illogical flip-flop politics?

NAH!

Believe we will keep what we have, thank you.

Madison From NY..

Ten to 20 million illegals living in the US...

How did you come upon that number....do a count...take a census...how? They're in hiding. Seems curious we know how many....you made that up, right...or took it from some ridiculous right wing literature. Try Google..impartial.

If Obama could create 6.5 to 13 million jobs we would have full employment in this country for the first time...a freaking miracle.

.....and those would be those those high paying jobs that people would be able to support their families on, right...not minimum wage, cradle to grave.

Hate is a horrible thing to waste, isn't it?

In the absence of a will by the politicians in Congress to pass even the partial measure of the Dream Act, let alone full scale immigration reform, hooray to the Obama administration for doing what it can.

Great post, Ira.

The lefitst Obama turned the moderate Bush's recession into a depression

What have Obama and Bush proven?

1. Big centralized command and control Government does not work
2. Throwing more and more money at problems does not work and just drives us into unsustainable debt
3. Passing more and more regulations and hiring more and more bureaucrats kills small business, the economy and jobs

Hard working citizens need elected officials who will reverse these mistakes

Madison From NY..

Part 2..

First, define depression. You used the term, now define it in technical terms please. When you actually learn it's meaning, keep it out of your posts, cause you sounf like an idiot using it.

Second, define centralized command and control government. That's a Libertarian term adopted by the TP. Used in all their literature. Ron Paul has been saying that for years. Easy to find....Google is amazing isn't it?

Third...oh never mind...it's just too stupid to answer.

Madison from NY: State's rights doesn't work. The framers knew what they were doing. Rick Perry, who'd like to dismantle the federal government (read his book) in favor of the great minds in places like Texas, Arizona and Kansas, are not going to get anywhere with that argument. We're not going to emulate Europe. These are the UNITED States, no matter how much in your limited vocabulary, that looks like big bad "socialism" to you. (But you're free to send back to the federal government any and all money you feel you don't deserve.)

So your buddy Bush goes to Texas with a ranch bigger than MV and spends 60% of his term there. He retreats to Bush texas land the day after Katrina or better yet goes to Camp David. Why do Americans think that a President should be working 365/24/7. He already is. Wake up America - he can go anywhere and he is still working!!!! Studipity is the new American capstone!

quitsa:

It is the same old Republican double standard;

just ignore it.

rlb: Ok, so which is it. Is Obama hard at work turning us into Europe or is he not at work enough... make up your mind--you're a bit confused. Poor thing...you just keep wringing your hands like that and the world is just going to keep passing you by.

Houston:

Right on. It has no reason to be in a science class. Most schools do have a religious studies class if you want to take it and learn about World Religions, or you can go to a private school, go to your church once in a while with your parents, etc. Nothing wrong with learningabout various religions and then making up your mind what is right for you. I support that 100% - just not is science class. That is like making Home Ec. part of a Chemistry Class. Both a valid classes they just do not belong together.

It's not being discussed. AT ALL. Perry lied through his teeth. I was born and raised in Texas, went through public school here and both my boys as well. creationism IS NOT, I repeat IS NOT taught/discussed in school in Texas. Unless of course they are holding secret jesus classes in the janitors closet. Which would not surprise me.

Im going to out non a limb here and conclude yup did not vote to elect Perry governor.

Three times.

Seems to me you don't speak for the majority of Texans, who could have dumped him by voting for Hutchinson in the primary, or White in the general.

I'll go further and assume you were one of the voters who inflicted the disaster that is the Obama presidency on this nation.

Thanks for nothing.

Once again No Joe demonstrates her unique ability to turn any post about any subject into an anti-Obama rant.

nojonobo

I'll go further and assume you were one of the voters who inflicted the disaster that is the Obama presidency on this nation.

And I'll surmise that you are one of the idiots who inflicted the Bush pestilence on the nation from which it is still suffering.

Oh no jo, you make me laugh.

It is a fact that Rick Perry is not all that popular with the folks who know him best, including those in his own home town!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/16/rick-perrys-hometown-paint-creek-haskell-county_n_928552.html

I am thinking that nojo is one of those that voted for bush twice and brought the disaster of a huge war debt while giving tax breaks to the richest in hopes of destroying our country with Norquist.

Thanks for nothing. Actually I wish bush has done nothing, but actually he did quite a lot in hurting the people of our country while protecting the rich at all cost.

Luv....you mean Texas, a city in California right?

How are things going in Libya? Remember the "kinetic military action"- that would take "days, not weeks"?

Funny, the media seemed to think Obama said that in regard to the news coverage, so they did what they always do-

They complied with their idol's wishes.

We're still there, by the way. It's been more than five months, Quaddaffi is still running the show, and there does not seem to be a way out- or a goal, even.

You guys are nothing if not predictable.

If all else fails, change the subject quick. If I throw out some more lies maybe nobody will notice the last batch.

Hows that for predictable.

Quaddaffi is still running the show, and there does not seem to be a way out- or a goal, even.

You know maybe if you pulled your head out of your a@@ for a change you might learn something!

Embattled Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi may be preparing to flee the country within days, according to NBC News.

U.S. officials told NBC that intelligence reports suggest Gaddafi is in the process of making plans to evacuate from Libya with his family. The reports indicate he may be headed to Tunisia, where it is possible he will be granted exile

But, back to the topic...