We all should be sooooooo unemployed. As reported on several news sources this weekend. These people are so out of touch America and then claim to be for the 95% of the people – BS – From a ThinkProgress Article:

“Romney To Quadruple Size Of $12 Million California Home | Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R), who in June told voters that he was “also unemployed,” has applied for a permit to bulldoze his 3,000-square-foot, $12 million home in La Jolla, California, and replace it with one nearly four times its size. According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, the new home will be two stories and more than 11,000 square feet. Romney also owns a $10 million estate in New Hampshire. His campaign declined to comment on the renovation plans”.

By now we have all seen the video captured on a cell phone that one of Bank of America’s “Executives” whispers in the ear of Governor Perry That they will support him. Thank you SCOTUS and the TP/GOP for the “Citizens United” decision and the TP/GOP ratifying it by blocking the “Disclosure Bill”

Special thanks to “B. Honest” who posted the following web site:

http://ampedstatus.org/exclusive-analysis-of-financial-terrorism-in-america-over-1-million-deaths-annually-62-million-people-with-zero-net-worth-as-the-economic-elite-make-off-with-46-trillion/

“EXCLUSIVE: Analysis of Financial Terrorism in America: Over 1 Million Deaths Annually, 62 Million People With Zero Net Worth, As the Economic Elite Make Off With $46 Trillion”

This is a terrifying - detailed analysis of the financial system and how the middle class is becoming the “poor class” while the elite (top 2%) continue to make record gains in the “Economic Divide”. If this continues we will be a two class society – “Those that have and those that NEVER will”.

Remember that Hedge Fund Manager that makes $2,400,000 pre hour? It would take a middle class worker making $50,000 per year to work 47 years (40 hrs per week at 52 weeks per year). Here is another way to look at it. In order to make $2,400,000 the middle class worker would need to work 97,760 hors to the fund managers 1 hour. That is almost “One Hundred Thousand Hours to One. This Hedge Fund Manager would pay about $360,000 in income taxes on that one hour (15% of $2,400,000) our Middle Class worker would pay $600,000 in Income Taxes at 25%. In short to make the same $2,400,000 that the Hedge Fund Manager made in one hour, a middle class worker needs to work (uninterrupted) 47 years and pay more than “One Quarter of a Million Dollars MORE in Income taxes MORE. This is just outright wrong, period and this is what Warren Buffet and other Billionaires are saying. It is time for those that enjoy what this country has to offer to pay a little more – BECAUSE THEY CAN, and it will not hurt their life style one bit. Not one iota will it hurt them to pay a little more.

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/sen-bernie-sanders-leaks-oil-trading-

“WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Oil trading data that exposed the extensive positions speculators held in the run-up to record high prices in 2008 were intentionally leaked by a U.S. senator, sparking broader concern about industry confidentiality as Congress moves on Wall Street reform.

Senator Bernie Sanders, a staunch critic of oil speculators, leaked the information to a major newspaper in a move that has unsettled both regulators and Wall Street alike”.

“In a June 16 e-mail reviewed by Reuters, a senior policy adviser to Sanders discusses how his office received private data with the names and positions of traders and forwarded it exclusively to a Wall Street Journal reporter.

The e-mail, which also attaches two files with the data, was sent to Public Citizen's Tyson Slocum asking him to review it and speak with the newspaper about his observations”.

“In a statement from Sanders provided to Reuters, Sanders said he felt the data needed to be publicly aired”.

"The CFTC has kept this information hidden from the American public for nearly three years," he said. "This is an outrage. The American people have a right to know exactly who caused gas prices to skyrocket in 2008 and who is causing them to spike today."

I have written before how Exxon-Mobile exec’s during the congressional hearings claimed that the “speculators” add about $0.80 (80 cents) to the cost of every gallon of gas we buy at the pump. They add nothing but profit to their pockets and we pay for it. According the information leaked by my Senator in Vermont – (I) Bernie Sanders – this has been going on for very long time. Now it is time for the Justice Department to really look into this.

We as a Nation do not need anymore of this crap above. We need Jobs and a lot of them. President Obama is the only one trying to create Jobs that will also stimulate the economy and create much needed revenues. His 100% paid for Infrastructure Bill was blocked by the repugs last year. In 2011 alone, the TP/GOP has blocked 4 bills that would have created more good paying jobs. Instead we get bills like the Ryan Bill and the CCB that cut hundreds of thousands of jobs. Reduces revenues, increases unemployment, claims for UI, Food Stamps and Medicaid and increases the deficit/debt – NOT decrease like they claim over the next decade(s).

The TP/GOP has us on a path to self-destruction period. They have turned their backs on America and 98% of its citizens. Their agenda is and has been all about Wall Street over Main Street, Big Business over Small Business and record tax cuts for the top 2% and more taxes for he other 98%. The want to destroy the Federal Government as we know it and turn control of our country over to Wall Street, Big Business, Big Oil and the Insurance Companies. This model will fail. History tells us that.

Closing on a more positive note it appears that Khaddafy’s reign is coming to and end. SAIF has captured one of his sons, the forces of good now control the capitol of Libya and nobody knows where Khaddafy is – some reporting he has fled the capitol, and may be in Tunisia. Remember all the flack President Obama got in supporting this NATO exercise – I wonder what they will say now as this plays out. Will his patience be rewarded or chastised by the TP/GOP. Now if they would only take out that clown that engineered the destruction of Pan AM flight 103 that was supposed to be dying of “prostrate cancer” years ago.

http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/HXJVEI/HDFPNV/8XIAET/VYD83D/GAT02/ID/h
”Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi's four decade rule over Libya was crumbling at breakneck speed on Sunday as rebel leaders claimed Gaddafi's compound was surrounded, that his son Saif al-Islam had been captured and his presidential guard had surrendered”.
”Late Sunday, opposition fighters were battling loyalist fighters for control of the symbolically significant Green Square in the heart of the city, previously the scene of near-daily pro-Gaddafi rallies, according to one Tripoli based rebel, as the sound of explosions, gunfire and cries of "God is great" echoed down the telephone line”.
”Another activist said rebels had secured the seaport, where several hundred rebel reinforcements had arrived by boat, and were also in the process of evicting Gaddafi loyalists from the Mitiga airbase on the eastern edge of the city”.
There are conflicting reports on whether it was a brother or one of his sons that was captured.

Hmmmm…. I could swear that FR lefty liberals have been assuring everyone that Social Security was fully solvent for at least 25 years and so there was no need to do anything to reform it now. And yet here is MSDNC.com reporting that the SS disability fund that covers “10 million disabled workers and dependents of disabled workers” (2011 SS Trustees Report) will be, in their word “insolvent” in about six years. And how do the all-Barry-appointed Trustees propose to deal with this problem??

RAID THE SS RETIREMENT FUND!!!!!!!!

MORONS.

Social Security disability on verge of insolvency

WASHINGTON — Laid-off workers and aging baby boomers are flooding Social Security's disability program with benefit claims, pushing the financially strapped system toward the brink of insolvency.

Applications are up nearly 50 percent over a decade ago as people with disabilities lose their jobs and can't find new ones in an economy that has shed nearly 7 million jobs.

The stampede for benefits is adding to a growing backlog of applicants — many wait two years or more before their cases are resolved — and worsening the financial problems of a program that's been running in the red for years.

New congressional estimates say the trust fund that supports Social Security disability will run out of money by 2017, leaving the program unable to pay full benefits, unless Congress acts. About two decades later, Social Security's much larger retirement fund is projected to run dry as well.

Much of the focus in Washington has been on fixing Social Security's retirement system. Proposals range from raising the retirement age to means-testing benefits for wealthy retirees. But the disability system is in much worse shape and its problems defy easy solutions.

The trustees who oversee Social Security are urging Congress to shore up the disability system by reallocating money from the retirement program, just as lawmakers did in 1994. That would provide only short-term relief at the expense of weakening the retirement program.

Well, Mitt Romney, the wealthiest person in this race, is dealing with the news that he is quadrupling the size of his $12 million oceanfront home in La Jolla, CA.

Nothing screams ordinary working stiff quite like this....

Foreclosures are at record rates - people are living in tent cities & then you have Willard who's 12 million dollar home doesn't fit his needs...

It would be funny if not so PITIFUL!

The rebels in Libya have more courage than Mitt Romney will ever have. President Obama was always right. Freedom and democracy has to come from within.

Mitt Romney is just the ticket for republican voters. He’s wrong on everything, he’s rich and couldn’t give a damn about every day working Americans and their families. He is a weak, selfish man, who has NEVER shown leadership skills. The rebels in Libya? That’s courage.

Bits and pieces from around the web on the front runner in the Republican Party. Karl Rove’s man. Rove has always been partial to those who can’t lead.

Quotes from and about Mitt Romney, The Guy Who Doesn’t Have The Instincts to Get Anything Right. Except That He Feels That His $12 Million Mansion in California Is Inadequate”. The Same Guy Who Owns Another $10 Million Estate in New Hampshire. Yet calls Massachusetts his “home state.” Yup, perfect Republican candidate.

“Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney said on the Hugh Hewitt Show Monday that he supports military action in Libya, but criticized the administration's multilateral approach, deferring to European allies and the Arab League before ultimately deciding to use force. Romney also said that he believes Obama should have intervened earlier, but he hasn’t said explicitly that he would have moved unilaterally with military action or what that would have involved.”

“IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.”

“The company he founded, Bain Capital, regularly rerouted investments through Bermuda and the Cayman Islands so that investors could avoid the 35 percent tax rate in the U.S.

In 2006, the investment paid him over $1 million, just a sliver of his $250 million fortune.

Both the arrangements are through P.O. boxes on the islands. Neither has any offices or staff overseas. Romney staffers claim that he has done nothing wrong by utilizing the tax loopholes, pointing out that they are perfectly legal.”

"There's clearly something wrong when you have to use post office boxes to conduct business," Eugene Steuerle, co-director of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center at the Urban Institute, told The LosAngeles Times. "You ideally want a world where setting up shell corporations wouldn't be necessary."

It does, however, undermine Romney’s claim that he got tough on tax evasion while governor. Romney is part and parcel of the hypocrisy that costs the U.S. government trillions of dollars in lost revenues.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who has played a muted role throughout the debt-ceiling melee, wasn’t about to take a stand on the new deficit plan. But he lobbed criticism at President Obama.

“Gov. Romney thinks President Obama’s leadership has been an historic failure. He applauds Leader Boehner for standing firm against raising taxes when our nation can least afford them,” said Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul.

Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign has received donations from 67 Wall Street executives who gave to President Obama in 2008, The Hill reported today. Romney, who has often criticized the Dodd-Frank financial reform law signed by Obama, collected $147,000 from the donors, whose employers include Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, and other banks, equity firms, and hedge-fund managers.

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R), who in June told voters that he was “also unemployed,” has applied for a permit to bulldoze his 3,000-square-foot, $12 million home in La Jolla, California, and replace it with one nearly four times its size. According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, the new home will be two stories and more than 11,000 square feet. Romney also owns a $10 million estate in New Hampshire. His campaign declined to comment on the renovation plans.

Romney tells Politico that the existing $12M mansion is “inadequate for their needs.”

_________________________________________

PERFECT REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE. PERFECT.

Obama's summer reading list:

You've got to give the President credit... at least he can read...

Unlike the majority of the tea baggers - hell they can't even write as evidenced my the signs they LOVE to wave around! lol

PS: Someone sent me a pic over the weekend of the back of a pick-up truck in TX.

On the right side was a giant picture of Pretty Boy Perry & on the left side the caption read: Does this ass make my truck look big? lmao!

Foreclosures are at record rates - people are living in tent cities & then you have Willard who's 12 million dollar home doesn't fit his needs...

But Feisty look at all those jobs he's creating in Spanky's backyard. I wonder how many of those workers are here legally? Seeing as how La Jolla is a short ride to the border. Just a thought.

Why do guys that have it so good want to take such a low paying job in government? Things that make you go hmm.

Was catching up on old posts from over the weekend, and saw the usual “57 states” nonsense again. It’s like Gore saying he invented the internet, and Palin saying she could see Russia from her house. Didn’t happen.

Obama said he had been out campaigning in what turned out to be a 57 state jaunt. Not “all 57 states” or “all 57 different states”- just “57 states”.

See, If I drive from Western Iowa, through Illinois to Eastern Indiana and back non-stop, I can say I drove non-stop across 6 entire states. Not 6 “different” states, but 6 states. My comment would be correct.

S0- when you hear this complete nonsense, please straighten the person spewing it out, would you? I know they will keep it up, but do it anyway. Just for the record.

Oh, and I see this morning where Khaddafy is gone. Would No Jo or Smiff please cite some numbers for us, showing how many of our men/women in uniform were killed or injured in this exercise? I’m sure it has all the earmarks of an ‘epic fail’.

False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil."
~Socrates

Good Morning Feisty

GF,Nothing gets the baggies all juiced more than eloquent, straight talking facts.

Keep up the good work.

Feisty:

The arrogance and hate that the TP/GOP is spitting out into the open is going to destroy this country. The "Impotent Commission" is a stacked deck. THe TP/GOP is now saying the cuts to the DOD would not be a major deal - setting up the stage for a sure fire Hostage situation in November. It is not a question as if there will be one, the only question(s) is what will they take "Hostage" this time and what will it do the this Country?

Another Tea Bag Downgrade?? Who knows

With the the news today on Lybia McCain and Graham are already attacking our President for being too slow and not doing enough -

Hmmm. Social Security will be insolvent by 2017 and how does the Administration suggest strengthening it? Have a payroll tax holiday.

Do you need any more proof that SS and Medicare are simply taxes that are poured into the general fund for government spending? There are no trust funds with assets, simply numbers in an accounting system.

So, now lets see what the true tax rates have been for the last 10 years.

An individual making $100,000 has an effective tax rate 19%

But now we know that 6% can added to this for SS (and 6% for the employers side). For Medicare the rate for employee and employer is 3%.

So, the effective tax rate on 100k is 32% simply for the federal government, and it still spends 40% more than it takes in.

Obamacation

So Obama is "working" out of the Martha Vineyard office this week. In a way, it makes a lot of sense. If your job description is reduced to pretty much bitching and moaning about the privileged rich and their private jets, that’s a pretty good place to go.

Of course, most of the business men, business women, with their business kiddos and business dogs working this week in Martha’s Vineyard Concrete Jungle probably didn’t take a helicopter (accompanied by decoys) to fly to a 747, to fly 500 miles to get on another helicopter (accompanied by more decoys) to take you to a caravan of cars, to take you to a $50,000.00 a week “office” (I wonder if that would that be a Triple Net Lease, or a Full Service Commercial Lease?) .

And that was just Barrack and Bo the Dog.

Seems Michele and the girls had so much work to do, they had to go into the “office” a few hours earlier. No rest for the weary, huh?

Well obviously not when you are seeking to combat the epidemic of childhood big butt syndrome and you are encouraging a healthy lifestyle through a comprehensive collaborative community based initiative that you think allows you to tell all sectors of society, including families, schools and communities what to eat, what to do and what to “move” so kids will be more active, eat better and not have to pull their dresses up to their arm pits to fashionably hide their butt (which happens to be the width of the common ax handle) when they grow up.

I’m sure the tax payers don’t mind picking up the tap for the extra security details …. well … the duplicated cost of paragraph #2.

So the first order of business was a national security photo shoot with John Brennan. Lighting was great, depth of field was ok, the background was a little distracting, but the expression was perfect – calm but serious and pensive. Good job.

Next - off to the Bunch of Grapes book shop in Vineyard Haven for the classic “I’m a regular guy / good dad” photo shoot with the girls.

Is it just me, or do most kids really say …….. “Daddy ….when we go on vacation this year ….. can the first thing we do …… is go to the bookstore and buy some books?”

I wondered what books Obama bought the girls last year when he pulled this stunt….. Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Pre-Pubesent Radicals.”

This year we know ….. Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” ……. A dystopian novel about a state controlling its people? Now that really is funny.

Obama whipped out the First Credit Card and remarked to the cashier that he only uses it about 3 times a year.

Imagine only having to pay for something out of your pocket – to whip out the plastic only 3 times a year ……. for photo-ops! I guess I might lie, blame and demagogue my butt off to keep that gig too.

Oh well, then off to the Vineyard Golf Club in Edgartown to work on the important stuff. From the appearance of it, budgets aren’t the only thing this guy struggles with.

For the libbies, of course I know Obama will work this week in Martha’s Vineyard. For gosh sake, the president’s approval ratings are hitting historic lows ….. how is he going to save that job?

Bottom line – The tax payers may have to buy most of the expenses for the vacation, but they aren’t buying the excuses for the vacation, especially the "work" part.

Pay To Play for a Vote or Go Straight to Hell

Voter information has become an industry now instead of voter education. Republican Tea Bags have become so afraid their lies no longer work they are now charging the people to pay to participate in a town hall.

Talk to Ryan? It'll cost you

It’s no secret why members of Congress would shy away from holding open town hall meetings — it’s no fun getting yelled at by angry constituents or having an uncomfortable question become an unfortunate YouTube moment.

By outsourcing the events to third parties that charge an entry fee to raise money, members of Congress can eliminate most of the riffraff while still — in some cases — allowing reporters and TV cameras for a positive local news story.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=F0E997EA-EC57-4E4B-B174-D857948A0787

So if you are a non Christian, non-arugula-eating, and won’t swallow the crap T-baggers want to shove down your throat, you will be charged a poll tax to enter a town to hear a T-bag insist their plan to take over American is right. , Paul Ryan is worse at healthcare Jobs than Commander –in Chief. He has a job killing business. They’re unqualified to assert that liberal values are bad for business, when the demonstrable, factual, obvious evidence contradicts those assertions.

Anti-Americna Hairy Perry, demonstrably wants to be the Commander –in Chief Killer in Chief now is being disregarded by the KOCHTOPUS I favor of this same Paul Ryan to run for president.

Alan, NJ.........It is Social Security for Disabilities, there is a difference, SS for retirees has a least 20 yrs before it runs dry, plenty of time to correct any shortages, if there is a will to work together.

Was catching up on old posts from over the weekend, and saw the usual “57 states” nonsense again. It’s like Gore saying he invented the internet, and Palin saying she could see Russia from her house. Didn’t happen.

_____________________________________

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrsBKGpwi58

@GM

The President let the cat out of the bag when he claimed that SS checks may not go out if there was no way to borrow more money. Why do you cling to the fiction that there is a trust fund?

Al Gore in 2000 talked about a lockbox. It was never implemented. The only source of new funds for SS is the US taxpayer.

GBM:

Alan, NJ.........It is Social Security for Disabilities, there is a difference, SS for retirees has a least 20 yrs before it runs dry, plenty of time to correct any shortages, if there is a will to work together.

Well Feisty said they (TP/GOP) could not read. Just like the $500 Billion Cuts to Medicare that President Obama has proposed in the HCR Law - They (TP/GOP) say he is cutting benefits - BIG LIE - He is cutting out Medicare Advantage which is a scam by the Insurance Companies and provides very little benefit to Medicare other than line the pockets of the Insurance Companies.

These guys just keep on lying over and over - But the people are starting to see through their constant lies and misinformation they put up here every day.

Nothing screams ordinary working stiff quite like this....

Foreclosures are at record rates - people are living in tent cities and then you have Barry Obama pay $50,000 a week for his summer vacation rental, an amount many unemployed people would consider a good annual salary if they could find a job in the Barry economy.

It would be funny if not so PITIFUL!

"Social Security will be insolvent by 2017 and how does the Administration suggest strengthening it?"

Alan - That is SS Disability.

Obama whipped out the First Credit Card and remarked to the cashier that he only uses it about 3 times a year.

While people like this maxed out their cards long ago to feed their families and just want any kind of a job so they can at least try to pay them off:

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/thousands-show-job-fair-jobless-rate-rises/story?id=14336519

Looking forward to your "Jobs Speech" Mr. President. No hurry though. Take your time.

Not often I agree with Jeffery Sachs but....

"Economist Jeffrey Sachs slammed President Obama on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Friday.

"We're almost three years into this administration, and there's never been a plan. And that's what everybody feels. And the president didn't lead. He waited. The quintessential image, sadly, of an administration that I supported and hoped for much better, is the president waiting by the phone to hear what Congress calls to tell him. It doesn't work in this country that way. It's not a matter that it's August. It's a matter that it's August 2011. So we've been drifting for a very long time. And we've been drifting down. And we had a short-term plan that failed. A short-term stimulus that was supposed to get the economy back on track, but it failed. And now we have nothing behind it. And we have no agreements, and we have no leadership. And, frankly, I do think it's pretty odd the president's on vacation right now. Normally I wouldn't care about such things, but the world markets are in deep crisis. It's no joke. This isn't just an up-and-down little blip. This is a very serious situation."

BTW To those that quote economists, the latest survey says that a majority support spending cuts over tax hikes to deal with the deficit.

www.cnbc.com//id/44226011

Hmmm. Social Security will be insolvent by 2017 and how does the Administration suggest strengthening it? Have a payroll tax holiday.

Alan Correction,

Social Security is solvent until 2037.

bob-1805084

Obamacation

So Obama is "working" out of the Martha Vineyard office this week. In a way, it makes a lot of sense. If your job description is reduced to pretty much bitching and moaning about the privileged rich and their private jets, that’s a pretty good place to go.

booby trap

All that shows is the President can eat arugula walk and chew gum in addition to governing all the same time while T-bags scratch you heads,

Joe in Albany,

I too read the same article about SS disability. Since 2008 claims have rising. My daughter in law is a examiner for these claims. The state of MN has a contract from the Feds to examine and approve or deny the claims. Her department has hired workers in the last three years. These claims are from people who can no longer work either temporary or long term. They are the disabled, those with terminal diseases, injuries that prevent them from working. This last category is the most involved and need the most examination of their medical files.

Disability SS is a percentage of your SS benefits based on your income history and the contributions you and your employer have made over time.

This truly is a safety net. So congress does need to act to provide long term stabilization for this part of SS.

@dbo -- Wrong again. In his own words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

@Navy -- hey girl. The first time we agree -- Please keep up the comedy writing. It is hilarious and keeps me laughing all throughout the week. Keep it fresh though. Same old stale material makes laughing at the same lies day in and day out more difficult.

BS – From a ThinkProgress Article:

Great post JS1 you work all weekend on that list?

If the Republicans shoot down a jobs bill they will own the political consequences, they will get little traction in continuing to complain about Obama's unemployment problem if they kill his jobs plan. John Boehner is in an entirely different position than before the midterms, he is in the majority now so he has the exact same political problem as the president with regards to unemployment. He has to step up to the plate and if the tea party blocks him because of the cost, or if they even just make it messy by demanding all sorts of cuts, Republicans will feel the backlash and Obama and Democrats will be off the hook. Democrats should have been rolling out jobs bills at a rate of one a week to force republicans to take some action or go down on record as voting no on jobs for Americans. If the republicans don't work with the president on this jobs bill they got a political loser.

Barry Obama pay $50,000 a week for his summer vacation rental

While people like this maxed out their cards long ago to feed their families and just want any kind of a job so they can at least try to pay them off:

Obama's summer reading list:

57 States

GOD HOW I LOVE the smell of desperation this early in the week! lmao

PS: You all forgot to bitch about the bus!

These guys just keep on lying over and over - But the people are starting to see through their constant lies and misinformation they put up here every day.

I guess the President was lying when he said SS checks could not be guaranteed without more borrowing? If there was a $2.6T trust fund why would SS be affected by the federal government's ability to borrow?

C'mon Navy I really want to hear your answer.

Hmmm. Social Security will be insolvent by 2017 and how does the Administration suggest strengthening it? Have a payroll tax holiday.

Alan Correction,

Social Security is solvent until 2037.

Same question Job1, where is the money? If what you say is true, then we could stop paying SS taxes tomorrow and the the checks would be paid until 2037, right? But, when the government couldn't borrow any more money the President said the checks might not go out. So, where is the money?

For some, this constant back-and-forth, the sniping, the my-side-is-better-than-your-side crap is tiresome. For others - like me - it is downright irritating. Indeed, it makes me very angry.

"Let's cherry pick statistics to support my view." "Oh yeah, take a look at my cherry-picked stats." "Oh yeah, well my dad's tougher than your dad." What a crock of crap!

Our two-party system has given us the country in which we live. Just TWO! There's only two parties that run the show. Just TWO! There's Democrats and there's Republicans. That's it. That's all there is. If you dare to think about a third-party vote, you will be told that you are wasting your vote. Really?

I submit that you have been wasting your vote since you started voting. We didn't get where we are overnight. It has taken a concerted effort on the part of those who own our government - and most assuredly, that's not you or me - to completely gut regulation, to gut oversight, to gut law enforcement and prosecution. In a few more years, they will be able to destroy Social Security, Medicare and what's left of the national safety net.

Cherry pick all the statistics you desire and not one of them will change the truth that we are facing ever-increasing debt, increasing servitude to the wealthy, declining infrastructure, declining education standards, and on and on, ad nauseum.

It flatly does not matter whether we have a Democratic or Republican President, a Democratic or Republican House or Senate. The decline of America is a continuing fact regardless of who is in charge. Each party effectively stalemates the other, and that is precisely how they want it. (For Pete's sake, we even publicly finance their private party elections!) Only one group has profited. ONE! That tiny sliver at the top of the economic pyramid. There is no trickle down. That's a bald-faced lie. Wealth continues to concentrate at the top. There is no statistic that shows otherwise.

Both parties have sold America. BOTH! Both are dependent on the wealthy to hold their offices.

I'm not the only one who gets angry. Why aren't you angry? Take a look at this: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/video-msnbc-dylan-ratigan-meltdown-over-meltdown-031046281.html

That ought to make you choke on your Cheerios.

Great posts to start Monday. I'd like particularly to focus on the oil speculation. With $.80 of EVERY GALLON of gasoline going directly into the pockets of speculators this isn't just a small issue--only an overlooked issue. The market needs to be free to trade within reasonable margins, but this intense level of speculation exceeds that into territory where the wealthy elites are damaging the whole economy in pursuit of their selfish interests. This oligarchic control of one of the most basic commodities of our economy is sapping vitality from everything else.

At this point the fuel bill for every family is 20% higher than it should be or more. That's money the average American can't use to buy consumer goods, pay down their debts, or save for the future.

Just as bad, EVERYTHING WE USE is transported by burning oil. That 20% increase in fuel costs is being felt through inflationary pressures that serve no other purpose but to enrich people who are so wealthy they can, as a group, able to effectively steal from every one of us.

So it's time for Conservative Republicans to stop blocking reasonable regulation of the commodities market. Their religious loyalty to the ideology of deregulation is destroying our economic recovery. They need to do what's right for the United States instead of what's right for the Koch brothers.

URGENT-BREAKING: House won't accept Gaddafi surrender w/out cuts to Medicare & SS, & no revenue increases.

LOL

@David Walker

It flatly does not matter whether we have a Democratic or Republican President, a Democratic or Republican House or Senate. The decline of America is a continuing fact regardless of who is in charge. Each party effectively stalemates the other, and that is precisely how they want it. (For Pete's sake, we even publicly finance their private party elections!) Only one group has profited. ONE! That tiny sliver at the top of the economic pyramid. There is no trickle down. That's a bald-faced lie. Wealth continues to concentrate at the top. There is no statistic that shows otherwise.

I often ponder this these days as I agree there is no difference between the parties. The question is often framed as do you regret voting for President Obama and would Hillary have been better. I think the more interesting question is where would we be today under a President McCain?

Foreign Policy....pretty much the same. We may have bombed Iran a few times by now.

Economy...Pretty sure there would be no stimulus or HCR. Unemployment would have went higher in 2009 as the states cut employees as they ran out of money then. However, having peaked unemployment would be moving in the right direction but probably around 10% rather than the 9.2% of today.

Tax rates...exactly the same

Immigration....I think the Dream Act would have passed under a President McCain and a Democratic congress that didn't spend a year on HCR

Dodds-Franks..I think McCain would have passed this.

DADT...McCain would have kept this policy

Other than that I think things would be pretty much the same.

The BO Comedy Show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4gFdKuMYL8

@Feisty -- and the Senate won't agree to the surrender without tax increases. LOL!

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

Another Tea Bag Downgrade?? Who knows

With the the news today on Lybia McCain and Graham are already attacking our President for being too slow and not doing enough -

Happy Mun-day Navy

Great posts inundated with reality

It's unconscionable the T-bags favorite propaganda channel, the Smear Channel aka FOX NOISE broadcast programs glorifying the turd blossom in GW Bush' s brain and anti-American John Stosssel calling home owner victims freeloaders instead of anything about the developments in Libya.

I know because I flipped channels. The t-bags are waiting for a memo from Limbaugh before they start spinning progress.

They are dizzy.

Another t-bag downgrade.

'And when asked if he were a middle-class voter would he vote for him right now, he hesitated slightly. “Well, I actually would,” he said, “because I believe that we've made good decisions.” '

Telling.

RW: Telling

More like clueless. Either that, or delusional.

Alan, NJ

I often ponder this these days as I agree there is no difference between the parties.

I vehemently disagree. T-bags are remnants of the old republican party. The republican party have never been progressive.

Where has the republican been when comes to the plight of people? they oppossd the New Deal

@Bev

That's because I don't believe what either party says. You still believe the BS from the Democrats. They are not progressive. If they were they would not have extended the Bush tax rates. Actions speak louder than words.

Beverly in Chicago, you said "I vehemently disagree. T-bags are remnants of the old republican party. The republican party has never been progressive."

The Republican party was leading the Civil Rights movements of the 60s, and the Democratic Party (fueled by the Dixiecrats) fought them.

Somewhere, somehow, there has been a seismic shift and Democrats are positioning themselves as the "party of the people" while Republicans seemingly founder trying gain a message.

In my opinion, the real problem is when a party is out of power (whichever party it is) the extremes start making noise.

Otherwise, Rick Perry (the governor of my great state) would never be a viable candidate. But he read the signs of and decided playing to the extreme crowd was his best chance for support.

Frankly, I don't want to vote for any of them. Obama doesn't know what he is doing and is out of touch with people, and the Republicans (with the exception of Romney who is trying to walk a more moderate path) are all close to the lunatic fringe. Again, in my opinion.

Alan, NJ:

I actually see a slight difference between the G.O.P. and the Dems. The Dems slow, however slightly, the power of the moneyed interests. I truly believe the only hope for the United States to pull out of this horrible decline is to elect Democrats and demand - and I mean DEMAND - that they put a stop to this indefensible destruction of our founding precepts.

The only reason Hilary Clinton would have been preferable to Obama is because she is white. (I am exceedingly tired of hearing that bigotry isn't alive and well in some quarters of the Republican Party. That is a fact, and to deny it is totally disingenuous.) However, the G.O.P. hate machine would have found a note on their dog-whistle to hammer Secretary Clinton because she is a female. The G.O.P. hatred of the Clinton's is well-documented and I am not going to be persuaded that there isn't a very pronounced element of misogyny in the party. It's very real. (The G.O.P. could have had it either way; angry black man or bitchy broad.)

Given McCain's incredible run AWAY from being a maverick, I can't even imagine what his presidency would have been like. He's way too quick with the military solution. His military experience was decidedly sub-par, and only his capture gave him status as an expert. (I don't mean to sound flip, but we certainly aren't gong to ask ex-convicts how to run a prison or how to fight crime, are we?) Our military is stretched beyond the breaking point. The quality of today's first-term G.I. isn't what it was when we had a draft.

What can I say about his V-P choice? In moments of candor, even G.O.P. supporters identify Sarah Palin as a joke. The woman is an ignoramus and support from her base is best summarized by, "She shor is purdy!"

McCain's grasp of the economy, by his own admission, is weak. Even now, I don't think any honest analyst can say what would have worked. The new economy is vastly different from the old and the remedies of the past no longer work. In my opinion, the stimulus could have worked, but it required different targeting and probably should have been larger. I also believe the tax cuts have to go, and we must be thinking about a surtax on the wealthy as well as closing loopholes. I don't think McCain would have done that. Lest you imagine otherwise, let me hasten to point out that I also support spending cuts, a serious look at fraud, waste, and abuse, and an overhaul of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. (I think HCR actually could be the answer to the staggering increases in medical care costs.)

As far as the DREAM Act and DADT, I can't imagine what he would have done. DREAM had serious Republican support once upon a time. McCain waffled so badly on DADT it was embarrassing.

Dodd-Franks? Who knows? Those guys have been routinely targeted for vilification. McCain might have had to back down. That guy is no maverick. He wears the Republican brand.

Frankly, right now, I don't see a better candidate than Obama. I suspect you may be a bit too young to remember, but when Reagan took office he asked for some rather far-out solutions. The Dems decided to let him have them knowing he would fail. Well, some of them actually worked. Some failed miserably, like deregulation - a total disaster. I'd like to see Republicans give the same kind of rein to President Obama. Ain't gonna happen. The Republicans are scary stupid.

However, we have to try something new. We could start by telling America that "exceptionalism" means you aren't really, really neat just because you're a U.S. citizen. You have to work at being exceptional.

@David Walker - Excellent post! You are absolutely correct. The division in our house will tear us down. We the people need to get it together and start standing as one... if we have to stand against our elected officials, so be it. If we need to replace every damn one of them, maybe that will send a message to Washington that we are tired of their BS.

I'm not the only one who gets angry. Why aren't you angry? Take a look at this: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/video-msnbc-dylan-ratigan-meltdown-over-meltdown-031046281.html

I have been angry for some time. Some of it has been misdirected, but as you stated, BOTH partys are at fault. This would explain the migration to the independents. I made that jump years ago because I couldn't stand with the republicans who are wishy washy at best. Democrats are stronger in their stand, but I don't follow a liberal viewpoint so I can hardly back them. Any other political choice and it's mediocrity at best. What this boils down to is always selecting the lesser of two evils. Why should we as Americans be forced to choose candidates that are third and fourth rated?

@David Walker

Hey David, I agree with most of your post so these comments are where I want to add a comment or two. Difference between R and D. Maybe, but the Democrats had two years of complete control and in my view f...ed it up. They didn't even repeal the Bush tax rates. And they have their monied embarrassments...Reid, Schummer and Kerry to name 3. (BTW I think Gillebrand is a revelation as a Senator...very impressed), and the Democratic party demonstrated more misogamy during the primary than I have seen anywhere else. I totally agree that a President Clinton would have the same amount of vitriol being flung at her as does a President Obama. (Has he been accused of murder yet?)

The reason, in my mind, Clinton may have been preferable is she had more experience. No matter how her First Lady experience was mocked she call on Bill at any time for advice, plus she was a very good senator. She may have got elected on her name, but she got re-elected on her ability.

I did hear one comment on Dodd-Franks (and this applies to HCR as well). Too much was passed on to the regulators to write. Dodd-franks has been the law of the land for 6 months now and businesses still do not know how it will affect them. This is also true of HCR as the HHS is still putting out insurance requirements and mandatory benefits that must be covered for "free". This is how you create uncertainty.

On your last comment on Obama winning re-election because of weak opposition I couldn't agree more. He has led a politically charmed life so far and it may continue. At least Huntsman is a viable General Election candidate and a debate between him and Obama would be an adult conversation and not talking points and platitudes. (Probably won't happen though).

Fiesty Redhead said: There's rumblings already that they are going to JUST SAY NO as USUAL to the proposed Jobs Plan...

Even though they don't know what's in it!

If the republicans do not work with the plan, it will mean they lose any sort of hope for 2012. They have every right to take the plan, make their changes to it and resubmit it. If they refuse to do so, their base will fall off. I, for one am getting pretty tired of the games. They have no hopeful candidate that shines... and their insistance to get rid of Obama is starting to effect this country as a whole. I realize they want to put the nails in the coffin but at what expense? This left/right war needs to stop.

The GOP are Heck Bent on CORPORATE DOMINATION.!

There are 2 Oil Pumping Companies in IRAQ..!

You KNOW who The OBVOIUS ONE IS == HALIBURTON....!

You Still Buy The LIE it Wasn't ABOUT the OIL........................................................?

The GOP boy BUSH LIED for IRAQ ,.... PAY FOR IT GOP .. OR.. SHUT UP...!

If the republicans do not work with the plan, it will mean they lose any sort of hope for 2012.

Would you look at that?

We actually agree on something! ;o)

This is why I'm perplexed that they're already saying NO...

Wouldn't it be better to at least wait and see what's purposed first?

Talk about 'jumping the shark'!

PS: I also agree that the majority is tired of the 'games' - lets' get something DONE for a change!

How predictable. The failures of the GOPTP are becoming more obvious by the day, they're fielding an entire range of seriously flawed presidential candidates, and suddenly the "Republicans and Democrats are really just about the same thing" conversation starts.

As if. Now the American people plainly see the difference, and it isn't a comfortable feeling for Conservatives.

Move along, move along, nothing to see here, make way, move along, just some naughty children calling each other names, move along.

Hi ya kids.

Another week, another pissing contest on First Read.

So, once again, I would like to take this opportunity to remind you all, left and right, black and white, up and down, that we are all Americans. Barack Obama is our President. Any problems we have were not created over night and any solutions to those problems will not correct them immediately.

Your name calling and mud-slinging and pissing all over each other is not going to do one thing to address out problems. In point of fact they are, in large part, the problem itself.

Here are a few things for your consideration.

1. Barack Obama is our President. He was duly elected and he has the most difficult job in the world. It is a fact that he is intelligent, sincere and trying to do the best he can in an almost impossible situation.

2. The US Government has become completely dysfunctional. It wasn't always this way. People in government used to be able to talk to one another. They used to be able to compromise, in fact Politics used to be called the "Art of Compromise". Without compromise you have dead-lock and that's where we are now.

3. Not a single one of you who read this will understand the point I am trying to make. You're saying to yourselves, "It's not our fault, it's their fault, and if we can just get a few more reasonable people in office we can turn things around." No, you can't, that's the whole problem. You all want are more "party faithful" in office. More people who see things your way and will tell the other side to take the highway. That is not the answer.

"What is the answer Mr. Smartypants?" I hear you say.

4. The answer is not very complicated. It starts with lowering your voices. Listen and discuss, don't accuse and abuse. Work from left and from right towards the middle, the compromise we can ALL live with. It's there, it's doable, but not while you are yelling and name-calling. That's all you ever do on this blog and that's not the solution for anything.

5. This blog is therapy for the horribly politically addicted. It's like putting you all in a massive group session and then just letting you yell at one another until you get it all out of your system.

6. But, it does not help. It's like a steady diet of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. It skews your outlook and destroys your ability to reason and COMPROMISE.

Pogo was right.

America Held Hostage (by ourselves) day 234.

The main story here is what Libya would mean for Obama. Unlike the killing of Bin Laden where one would have to search far and wide to find objection to that, the Libyan quagmire is a completely different story. I think that, while few consider Kaddafi anything but a very bad man, most people feel that Libya's internal strife was and is none of our business. Anyone that thinks this Libya business ends with the demise of Kaddafi will be disappointed as it will be simply the beginning of a headache for Obama and his successors that will persist for years.

I think most people realize that what Obama and his NATO bunch have done is to contribute to instability in the Middle East; hence, if Obama is looking for some popularity bump, ala Bin laden, he'll be sorely disappointed, not that his propaganda wing, aka. Mainstream media won't try.

Finally, as I've said all along, look for Obama's supporters in their last resort of desperation to claim criticism of Obama for failing at everything he's touched to be racially motivated. Once you see that happening, Obama's fate is sealed.

Well, the good news is that the majority of repubs are smarter than Boehner. Of course he won't be able to sell Obama's jobs plan. He doesn't have one! After spending more than the annual defense budget on shovel ready jobs, Obama admitted that,....well, I guess they weren't so shovel ready after all! Considering everything Obama has touched has turned to poison, even the dems would be suicidal to go along with him, unless they live in districts where people actually like the unemployment, deficits, etc.

John Shaddegg of AZ introduced every Congress, while he was there, a bill that did one simple thing--his bill would have made every law identify what constitutional authority existed for it, and yet even when Republicans held the House from 95 to 07 it was unable to be passed. And so I visit a site like this and I see partisans arguing about how evil the other side is and have to conclude it's all a show. The vast majority of you people aren't here for American success, you are here to sling mud.

Take the SS Disability fund news. It is broke NOW, not in 2017. The only way to get to 2017 is by cashing in billions in treasuries the SS Trustees bought. Which is a fair way to do things--it was the SS law anyhow--but it necessarily means the operating deficit will grow. So, rather than look at solving the problem from a constitutional perspective my friends on the left simply argue for more taxes on those with higher incomes. Their fair share, they say. The problem, to me, is manifold.

First, SS and its subsidiary components, were designed to be ponzi-like schemes. Second, the authority for them in the constitution is missing. Third, if you were to mimic this plan privately you would be incarcerated, that is how good it is. Fourth, the law enacting these schemes insured higher federal spending due to the mandate to spend excess fund revenues on treasuries knowing that Congress ALWAYS spends more than it has. Fifth, there is no reason for disability claims to rise unless there is more disability--it seems obvious to me this is but another welfare/unemployment program by default if the reason for the increase is a poor economy.

But, and more important to me in all of this, is how these programs relegate you, as an American, to serf status. You work and pay into a program that the government will decide for you if you qualify, and if so how much you will be allowed to have. This mentality, supported entirely by the left, and unfortunately, partly by the right, is antithetical to Americanism. Our existential threat isn't in Pakistan or Iran or Afghanistan, or even China. It's right here in the USA. Want to find it? Find a mirror.

First Read: The home of the radical and stubborn who still believe anger is superior to thought.

On his 'working vacation' in Martha's Vineyard, obama is quickly writing a book describing how he single handedly removed Quaddafi from power! Timing is important for its release, as he is worried the Libyan rebels will try to take the credit for his hard work! A narcissist's work is never finished!

First Thoughts: What Libya means for Obama:

It means we can get back to the unfinished business of HOW OBAMA FOUND THE AUTHORITY to launch over 120 cruise missles (@ 1.5 + million ea. including delivery) at a Nation which he didn't even pretend was a threat to the U.S.!!!

That's what it means!

MSNB is kidding, right ? Praising Obama for the rebels taking over Libya.

Libya/Qaddafi was "not a vital interest", was "not a War (excuuuuse me....Humanitarian Assistance) the American people wanted, and cost the American taxpayers about $ 1,000,000,000. Yet, this article is completely pro-Obama in "his" role to help the rebels (whom this Administration has no idea of what their "Democratic Government" will be after the Libya takeover). This Administration has no idea of what form of government the rebels are going to introduce. And, this Administration has no idea on what kind of weapons Qaddafi had stored or where.

So, if the rebels turn out worse than Qaddafi, turn against the West (which the rebel leaders have indicated), and sell Libya weapons to Terrorist groups, will Mr. Obama take FULL RESPONSIBILITY ?

Nah, nah, nah.

Hey Justoneguy,

Most Americans don't care about the law. We've slid further towards despotism, and Obama didn't begin the slide, and he wont be the end of it either. But he has helped us slide faster. Where are the cries from the left about this? They don't, they support it. Where are the worriers about negative consequences? They don't, they adore this. There should be no mistake about this though--Khaddaffi, as crappy a human as he was, had for the previous 8 years largely toed the American line, had surrendered his illegal weapons programs and proved it (unlike Saddam).

I'm not sure future despots will conclude the USA is to be trusted to make a deal with. Perhaps we should always oppose despots, like the left pretended to claim (when in fact they often put them into power or support them when they gain power), but this is the real world, not some college lecture series.

Feisty said: PS: I also agree that the majority is tired of the 'games' - lets' get something DONE for a change!

I was unemployed for 6 months between 10 and 11. It didn't feel good at all to look for work every day, and to apply for every job that fell within my skill set and experience. It was terrible to not hear back from anyone because I knew the employers were overwrought with resumes. I fully understand what being out of work is like and it wasn't any fun. This country needs jobs... and there are several avenues that can be taken to get the ball rolling. Without going into history, the leadership needs to step up to the plate and realize it's time to hit a home run. Lets see if it can happen... Only thing I dislike is that the plan is taking so long and we still have to wait.

What does libya mean to Obama? Let me see! AHHHH! He is goin to leave USA and go be president over there? I hope! The lyin sob. I'll not vote for him again. VOTE PERRY! Or Ron Paul. Not because I'm Republican but i don't like Obama anymore and I like Perry's ideas on illegals in TexASS. Is Obama an illegal alien?

Democrats for years have followed this manifesto (note that I cleaned it up a bit):

The folks who are getting free ‘stuff’,
Don't like the folks who are paying for the free ‘stuff’,
Because the folks who are paying for the free ‘stuff’,
Can no longer afford to pay for both the free ‘stuff’ and their own ‘stuff’.

And, The folks who are paying for the free ‘stuff’,
Want the free ‘stuff’ to stop.
And the folks who are getting the free ‘stuff’,
Want even MORE free ‘stuff’ on top of the free ‘stuff’ they're getting already!

Now..... The people who are forcing people to PAY for the free ‘stuff’,
Have told the people who are RECEIVING the free ‘stuff’,
That the people who are PAYING for the free ‘stuff’,
Are being mean, prejudiced and racist.

So .... the people who are GETTING the free ‘stuff’,
Have been convinced they need to HATE the people who are PAYING for the
free ‘stuff’ because they are selfish. And they are promised more free ‘stuff’ if they will vote for
the people who force the people who pay for the free ‘stuff’ to give them even more free ‘stuff’.

And - - - - - that's the Straight ‘stuff’!

And this is why the majority of honest taxpayers won't vote for obama!

Only thing I dislike is that the plan is taking so long and we still have to wait.

There has been plenty of outcry here @ FR about why the President is waiting so long to announce.

At first I agreed but, after giving it much thought, I realized if he were to roll out the jobs plan now (while the Congress critters are enjoying a 5 week taxpayer paid vacation) all it would accomplish is them tearing it apart while hiding out in their respective home states.

As evidenced - they're already screaming NO without even waiting for specifics!

From Festy Redhead:
You've got to give the President credit... at least he can read...
Unlike the majority of the tea baggers

...and she & that other guy (Navy something-or-the-other), the paid posters of First Read, claim that the Tea Party are the ones who spew hatred & insults?

...seems like we now know the real source.

Interesting comment from Governor Rick Perry, "small businessmen and women are frightened about the monetary policy or the lack thereof with this administration." Really Governor? Women are frightened about our monetary policy, over and above the lack of employment and the rising cost of food? It's all about monetary policy. Do you suppose the good governor is projecting his beliefs and overstating the public's concerns regarding monetary policy? I have to believe the main issues with the American people are JOBS...JOBS and JOBS.

What Libya means for Obama?

Nothing good. This administration believes that Libya is somehow going to be more stable when competing factions and tribes that have brutally conflicted with each other for thousands of years are left to their own devices to run the country? Really????

I've already been reading representatives from one rebel faction say the first thing they will do is set up checkpoints to disarm the members of the other factions. And do you actually think the other factions A) are not doing the same thing and B) plan on just handing you their weapons??? As soon as their common enemy is gone they will quickly turn on each other to settle centuries old hatreds and disputes. It will be chaos without...wait for it...troops on the ground.

Perhaps Obama should have chosen a book on that region's history to be on his vacation reading list.

Post #1 No sign of human Intelligence.... Direct from DNC.....

I often ponder this these days as I agree there is no difference between the parties.

Alan, and David,

I agree with most of what both of you have to say. I would also add one point: The recent events in the House are leading to a new trend in government. Before, if your party was not in power, you fought but still found compromise. Now, there is a new trend... no compromise under any circumstances. This will lead us down a very dangerous path.

Too many on the extreme right are so focused on 2012 that they are completely ignoring the long-term problems they create. Political power will always shift, always. Eventually the GOP will be in power again, then the Democrats again, and back and forth. However, now the far-right is creating a new status-quot... do not compromise when you are not in power. What makes them think the left will not use their same tactics against them, when the GOP gains power?

If the GOP wins in 2012, do they not see that the left will do the exact same thing to them? Give them a taste of their own medicine? And if not in 2012, then they following elections. Do they honestly believe they will be able to pass anything with this new mentality?

Beyond 2012, I feel very little will get done in our government. The far right has started a new trend that will turn around and bite them in the ass when they are in power. What goes around, comes around. This is the new norm... just say no, when you are not in power. And when this occurs, you will see a 180 degree flip in the comments on this section. The right will start yelling for compromise, and the left will call to "hold their ground".

Absolutely right Ol Doc. EVERY poll indicates that the American people want Congress to focus on JOBS. NOT overturning Affordable Care, NOT attacking reproductive rights, NOT attacking worker rights, NOT finding some excuse to convene impeachment hearings, NOT destroying the nation's credit rating...NOT EVEN cutting the deficit!!

Republicans promised jobs, instead the economy has slowed from the moment they increased the paralysis of Washington by gaining control of the House of Representatives. Speaker Boehner, Minority Leader McConnell...where are the jobs?

Hi Newly Independent,

You make a few good points, but I think you go off the rails in assigning blame to just one faction. We've had far worse political partisanship in the past--it ebbs and flows historically. And it always appears to someone with a more or less progressive bias that liberals are always willing to compromise. Why? Because they are. This isn't to say compromise is good.

See, for the liberal wanting ever more government every compromise results in more government, or at least more entrenched government, so it's less about compromising over the goal and more about compromising over the speed at which the goal is attained. Put it into concrete terms. Say you want more...welfare. Say you want a 100% increase in welfare expenditures. But through compromise you can only get a 30% increase. Do you stop? Why would you--you got 30% of what you wanted--and so the next go around you will ask for more, and with a little political improvisation get another big bite at the apple.

Its how, for instance, the compromise over civil unions rather than an all-out fight over homosexual marriage always favored the left. Once you give a little, the left will seek a mile. But you can apply this to pretty much any policy debate and the result of the compromise is similar. And, not unexpectedly, it is why conservatives say no to the continued demand by the left for ever more government. A part answer of okay simply gets more government without end.

"...where are the jobs?" — John B, Des Moines, IA

Sitting on a desk somewhere in Senate chambers, tabled by Reid.

interesting our comic relief fiesty and navy complains about romney wanting to quadruple his estate in california as being not for the working man and then goes on minimizing obamas spending $50k/week for his summer vacation rental.

Somehow I think that romney will be supporting the employment of more working men and women with his house expansion than obama will in giving $50k in rent to a rich friend.

Obama would have gotten more mileage from pitching a tent at grants park in chicago. At least there he would have been in closer contact with the "working man" than at martha's vineyard.

There are plenty of film clips of Boehner asking were are the jobs, jobs this, and jobs that, it will be political suicide if they derail a jobs bill. Fiesty and Brianb agree on this so if congress screws this up they are going to get it from all directions, and they will deserve it, only thing now is that it might cost 15 dollars to complain to your rep at a "town hall" meeting. Which makes it kind of hard for someone who is broke and unemployed to get their lawful access to representation. They get $175,000 grand a year, Cadillac health and Dental insurance, 20 weeks paid vacation each year, fully vested lifetime pension for 5 years service, and now 15 bucks a head for the privilege of looking them in the eye. It makes the best union contracts I have ever seen look damn shabby.

Boehner better hope Obama is not all golfed out fro his vacation, because if he is smart he will ask the president if feels like playing a few holes since they both need this jobs bill. They can talk about how they now have the same political problem, and laugh about how Boehner just a short time ago would scream "where are the jobs democrats". They can talk about how they both may very well lose their jobs if they don't get something through Congress.

Social Security was started by FDR and it was COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY. In plain English, that meant you no pay, you no receive.

Now, we have the dependent children of a dead wage earner along with surviving spouses of a retired worker if they are eligible and disabled wage earners.

Take it back to voluntary. Put is where the GOV can't get to it. Straighten this mess out before those of us who paid in because we had to lose it all.

Fiesty and Brianb agree on this

Thanks Forrest - you little 'peacemaker' you! ;o)

No wonder you've been married as long as you have! lol

Seems you like to forget these Obama statements:

"The Republicans can come along for the ride as I fix the economy, but they have to ride in the back seat."

Now it seems the new talking point is "compromise"

"If I can't fix the economy in 3 years I don't deserve a second term"

Now it has changed to "make progress" Can you say "back pedal" Also , what progress?

Can I use you and Brianb as a reference to bolster my credibility with White Collar Auto as having helped negotiate union contracts and agreements between labor and management.

What Libya means to Obama? Sorry, I could care less about Libya....and I'm still not sure if we're on the right side anyway. Khaddafi has been bad, but is the Muslim Brotherhood going to be better? This was an internal matter, up to the people of Libya to do what they felt was right and was none of our business.

Wulf:

Frankly, I don't want to vote for any of them. Obama doesn't know what he is doing and is out of touch with people, and the Republicans (with the exception of Romney who is trying to walk a more moderate path) are all close to the lunatic fringe. Again, in my opinion.

I agree and am frusterated that out of 310 million people...this is the best we can come up with. Of course I'm also skeptical of the press....notice how many stories you see about Perry, Romney, Palin and Bachmann? Notice the lack of stories about Huntsman or Paul?

I like Huntsman....fiscally conservative, socially liberal. Paul I like because of his doctrine of getting the United States out of the world's policeman role.

negotiate union contracts and agreements between labor and management.

Only if I get to be management! lol

Of course you can!

That is the key to the long marriage I am labor, she stays home and manages, manages to keep me working.

How biased can MSNBC and First Read get? Let's see....Perry is overly critical of Bernanke a week ago and they are still reporting it. Maxine Waters, the crooked politician from California, who once said the LA riots were acceptable whose family has made millions in kickbacks, who's should be facing and ethics trial if it weren't impeded by the democratic ethics chairwoman, who once battered the investigator that warned of the demise of Fannie and Freddie, tells American's that are involved with the Tea Party to "Go to hell" and that doesn't get one report?

How about Obama granting amnesty to illegals by instructing the DOJ not to follow through with deportation getting reported late Friday and not being posted on a Monday?

Where is the report about HR4646 that Obama is endorsing that imposes a 1% transaction fee on ALL bank transactions? (cash your $1000 paycheck, pay $10 in taxes....withdraw $100 from an ATM, pay $1 in taxes).

The lack of reporting and the bias is astounding.

Sitting on a desk somewhere in Senate chambers, tabled by Reid.

Which bills would those be, Mike? Titles, bill numbers, whatever you've got. Without that you've got nothing.

Nobody out here has any proof of anything but they still post what they want. That is until the goosestepping censors come in and want to start collapsing the truth.

"Which bills would those be, Mike? Titles, bill numbers, whatever you've got. Without that you've got nothing." - John B, Des Moines, IA

No problem, let's start with the original introduction of the REINS Act and the subsequent re-introduction of the REINS Act. And really, I'm sure you're not stupid enough to expect bill numbers on tabled bills. I mean that's the whole point, to never let them see the light of day.

I'm familiar with that one. In addition to being an unconstitutional violation of the Constitutional separation of powers it's yet another attempt to paralyze the government. All of which HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATING JOBS. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/the_rein_act.html

First down, thrown for a loss. What else have you got?

I see you're taking the liberal tactic of "It's so because I say it's so."

A) Considering it's Congress that passes the laws dictating the who, what, when, where, and how the President and his Cabinet departments can regulate, please, please attempt to explain how this restriction on those regulatory powers would be unconstitutional. That should be a humorous read.

We'll start with this "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

Merriam-Webster -- Legislate : to mandate, establish, or regulate by or as if by legislation

If you somehow manage to explain that away in some fantastical fashion, we can move on to this: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

B) The President is now proposing a reduction of regulation, touting it as job growth beneficial. Are you saying he's lying or are you saying you're lying?

Also, the Senate is still controlled by Dems. Nobody can pass a bill by filibuster so that doesn't do the Republicans any good. If it's so terrible, why table it?

Rainbows + unicorns = Liberal "fact"

The real point is that it has nothing to do with creating jobs, only a means of paralyzing the apparatus of the executive.

I see you don't deny that.

You've entirely walked away from explaining how that will create jobs.

"You've entirely walked away from explaining how that will create jobs."

That was the point of my question, "The President is now proposing a reduction of regulation, touting it as job growth beneficial. Are you saying he's lying or are you saying you're lying?"

Apparently I have to dumb that down for you though.

A) Excessive regulation kills jobs.

...ergo...

B) Limiting excessive regulation saves and creates jobs. (Even your Great One Obama admits this and is now touting this as part of his own job creation initiatives...2 1/2 years after it was proposed by conservatives)

C) The REINS bill limits excessive regulation

...ergo...

D) This bill saves and creates jobs.

"...only a means of paralyzing the apparatus of the executive"

This bill doesn't paralyze anything. Congress is limited to 70 days to either act or not act. Congress may limit or kill the regulations but it will not be "paralyzing". There would be finality within 70 days on any new major regulation. This bill also permits a major regulation to take effect for 90 calendar days without congressional approval if the President determines the rule is necessary because of an imminent threat to health or safety or other emergency, for the enforcement of criminal laws, for national security, or to implement an international trade agreement. Again, not paralyzing.

Now you're equating a review of existing regulations to establish efficacy with a wholesale push to prevent regulation in pursuit of an ideological dedication to the goal of deregulation. It is a false equivalence. The economy was not crashed in 2007 by excessive regulation but rather a lack of regulation. Your answer is now complete. The only thing the GOPTP intends to do to "create jobs" as they promised before the 2010 election is more of the same things that created the mess we're already experiencing.

Thanks for playing.

First, it's not a false equivalency. Obama -- finally -- recognizes that excessive regulation is inefficient and burdensome to business and that this kills jobs. He has proposed regulatory reform to ease this burden. There is a reason conservatives have an "ideological dedication to the goal of deregulation". The conservatives have long recognized that excessive regulation is inefficient and burdensome to business and that this kills jobs. They have also proposed regulatory reform to ease this burden. Just because Obama is new to the concept doesn't make it a false equivalence. Obama and conservatives may be taking two parallel streets to the same destination, but saying one path creates jobs while the other doesn't is just plain partisan rationalization.

Next, even Barney Frank admits that the root cause of this crash was government overly regulating the housing market by HUD -- starting in 1995 -- mandating (regulating) Fannie/Freddie to make over 50% of their business go to high risk borrowers and more than 25% of their business go to very high risk borrowers in the name of "affordable housing". This meant that starting with this regulation and based on the volume of loans Fannie/Freddie handled, 33% of all US mortgages were to go to high risk borrowers and ~16% were to go to very high risk borrowers. Being the behemoths in the housing market that they were, Fannie and Freddie then strongly encouraged the rest of the market to help them meet this mandate (regulation) any way possible including promoting an egregious erosion of underwriting standards by 1998 and pushing near worthless mortgage backed securities onto the market at a higher volume than anybody, on through the mid-2000s. THAT's what caused the collapse.

I have this copiously documented from educational and government sources prior to the collapse and therefor prior to the subsequent "cover-your-ass" explanations and finger-pointing that you apparently subscribe to.

Oh baloney. Fannie & Freddie held 20% of the subprime market before the 2007 recession...which started in the unregulated derivatives market. A market that Brooksley Born wanted to regulate years ago before Republican Alan Greenspan and Republican Phil Graham made sure that would never happen.

When you refer to Barney Frank I presume you're referring to the quote;

"it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it."

It's a quote I see the Conservative media using widely to imply that Frank admitted Fannie and Freddie crashed the economy. Nothing could be further from the truth. They didn't require liar loans. They didn't require no down payment loans. They didn't require interest only loans. They didn't require loans without income verification. All that was done outside the world of Fannie and Freddie, then repackaged into unregulated derivatives to hide the risk. Again, without the participation of Fannie and Freddie.

Conservatives will never stop telling the lie that Fannie and Freddie crashed the world economy, no matter how many times it's debunked. That says more about the modern Conservative Movement than it does about Fannie and Freddie.

You still haven't honestly answered the original question: What bills have House Republicans passed to aid in creation of jobs?

John B, Des Moines, IA, thank you so much for once again allowing me to completely debunk your misguided theory by documenting how your liberal claim of Bush/deregulation/derivatives being the cause of the financial collapse is again nothing more than a partisan lie. Note that my documentation all comes from pre-meltdown before everybody started covering their butts.

Instead of blindly passing rhetoric as truth, you should open your eyes for once and be blaming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or more realistically HUD for their huge role in this starting back to the Clinton HUD in the mid-'90s. It's hard to believe that any intelligent person would still be following the false trail of deregulation, derivatives, and intentionally underhanded banks, but you are a liberal so I guess that explains it.

Derivatives aren't what caused this. While I do agree that that market needs more transparency and oversight, the derivatives themselves were not the problem. A vast majority of the derivatives market was innocuous and still is. The only tiny, miniscule segment that wasn't was the segment tied to loose lending/underwriting standards advanced by HUD/Fannie/Freddie in their all-out push for "affordable housing". That segment of the derivatives market would have also been innocuous had it not been for HUD/Fannie/Freddie pushing irresponsible underwriting standards and pushing toxic mortgage-backed securities into the market. No BS underwriting standards, no derivatives market collapse. It's as simple as that. Don't believe me? Ask MSNBC.

"When homeowners defaulted, the agencies downgraded billions of dollars of investments at once. That helped spark the financial crisis."

http://news.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?aid=37467621&afid=1

And the first to default were the riskiest mortgage holders before finally extending up to the wealthy. From the New York Times:

"The housing bust that began among the working class in remote subdivisions and quickly progressed to the suburban middle class is striking the upper class in privileged enclaves like this one in Silicon Valley."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/business/economy/09rich.html

Homeowners started defaulting because people who had no business buying houses were in fact buying houses, the market being fed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in their attempt to meet HUD mandates from the '90s. Fannie and Freddie were at the core of every aspect of the whole thing from day one (pre-Bush), forced there by HUD. You see, Fannie and Freddie (the GSEs) were given a mandate to drastically raise the number of loans to groups known to be high risk (low and very low income) by Clinton's HUD in the mid-90s. See the page 3 introduction and the bottom of page 5 which explains how Fannie and Freddie did this. Note phrases like "enhanced their product offerings" and "featured underwriting criteria that depart from industry norms and allow for higher risks". This goes back to 1995-1996. http://www.usc.edu/schools/sppd/lusk/research/pdf/wp_2006-1005.pdf

"In addition, Listokin and Wyly (2000) and Temkin, et al.
(2001) show that the GSEs enhanced their product offerings so as to facilitate more
purchases of loans from targeted communities. These new products often featured
underwriting criteria that depart from industry norms and allow for higher risks."

Table 8 of this next Fannie Mae report (Listokin and Wyly) from 2000 shows what kind of underwriting Fannie and Freddie were promoting. It is virtually a point by point list of the most egregious underwriting "standards" that have been documented and they were in full use and actively advanced by Fannie/Freddie by - at latest - 1998. What you won't see is the names of investment houses and major banks except for B of A. http://foundingbloggers.com/img/grabs/rep_newmortmkts_background.pdf

You see, Fannie and Freddie, until a couple years ago, were not allowed to buy non-conforming loans. To get around this, they worked with non-bank lenders - many of them "mom and pop" shops - to make virtually all loans conform and it was the non-bank lenders (not Wall Street) who originated almost all of the sub-prime loans. If you didn't have a good enough debt-to-income ratio for your loan to conform, a company like Countrywide was allowed to let you claim income that you could not document (liars loan). They would then give you a "conforming" loan with that information (wink-wink) and Fannie/Freddie would gladly buy those loans from Countrywide, package them up, and resell them as mortgage backed securities (MBS) infecting the capital markets, with an implicit guarantee by the government as a government sponsored enterprise (GSE). The new home owner was happy because they could purchase a house that in reality they couldn't afford. Countrywide was happy because they could make boatloads of cash knowing that Fannie/Freddie would always gladly buy their continuous river of junk loans. Fannie/Freddie was happy because they were meeting their HUD mandate, besides almost all the risk was born by the suckers who bought their MBS. In fact Fannie/Freddie kept the lower risk MBS in-house and made sure it was the higher risk ones that were put out to the open market. They were all happy until it collapsed like a house of cards.

Blaming the Countrywides of the world is off base too. If Fannie/Freddie had not created a huge market for those bad loans by buying them all, then Countrywide et al would not have produced them, or would have produced very few of them. Without the GSEs capitalizing the lenders by purchasing the loans, they would have run out of money to loan very quickly.

Now, if you were not a huge entity like Wells Fargo or Chase and the industry titans that are Fannie/Freddie encouraged you to do something, you had better damn well do it or risk non-existance. Did the Countrywides and Norwests make money with it? Yes they did...lots. Would they have been put at a huge competitive disadvantage if they hadn't? Yes they would have. Would it have caused them to ultimately go under or be taken over if they hadn't? Most probably. So yes, when Fannie and Freddie encouraged them to make those loans, the GSEs put a figurative gun to those lenders'/originators' heads.

It wasn't just a few loans either. In the 90s Fannie/Freddie securitized roughly 2/3 of all mortgages, HUD mandates forced Fannie/Freddie to buy the risky loans at a 50% pace by 2000. This means that Fannie/Freddie created a market that demanded that 33% of all loans originated in the whole US mortgage market were necessarily high risk. Not only that but HUD mandates forced Fannie/Freddie to buy "special affordable" loans at a 20% pace by 2000. "Special affordable" loans are very high risk loans made to borrowers with income less than 60% of their area's median income. This means that Fannie/Freddie created a market that demanded that nearly one in seven of all loans originated in the entire mortgage market were necessarily these VERY high risk loans. I'll restate, because of the HUD mandate, 1 in 7 of all home loans made were very high risk by 2000.

Hell, Fannie/Freddie didn't just lead the game either, they practically designed the game. They were the ones who created the giant bundling market and they were the ones actively promoting ridiculously lax underwriting standards to meet HUD's mandates. Had they clamped down on those standards instead of promoting them, Countrywide would not have pushed them to their consumers. And Fannie/Freddie pretty much controlled it all. In the late 90s Fannie/Freddie accounted for nearly two-thirds of the capitalization in the MBS market not the banks or investment houses, and they were making gobs of cash doing it. http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/encyclopedia/Mor-Off/Mortgages-Mortgage-Backed-Securities.html

This continued on through at least fall of 2006 at which time their MBS issuance line of business still were issuing "residential mortgage backed securities (mbs) in amounts that historically have exceeded half of all mbs issued in the United States."

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=944912

In total, Fannie and Freddie were tied to over 70% of all mortgage backed securities (toxic assets) in one way or another. They held ~20% of the MBS in their own portfolio and sold (infecting our markets and banking system) over 50% of the rest of them...the most risky, I'll add.

This kind of leads us to the whole "Bush deregulation", "Republican deregulation" fallacy that you guys tend to assert, which again is a gross misrepresentation.

To attempt to solely blame the Republicans for the deregulation surrounding the meltdown is completely ridiculous. Clinton's Secretary of Treasury Robert Rubin was pushing Congress to repeal of Glass-Steagall as early as 1995, testifying before the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services. http://www.allbusiness.com/government/business-regulations/500983-1.html

"Among Rubin's recommendations for financial modernization were

* Permitting a depository institution insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to affiliate with a securities firm, insurance company or other financial company.

* Repealing section 20 of the Glass-Steagall Act. Section 20 prohibits a bank that is a federal reserve system member from affiliating with a company principally engaged in underwriting or dealing in securities that a national bank cannot underwrite or deal in directly.

* Allowing insured depository institutions to affiliate only with firms that were well capitalized and well managed and had internal controls that adequately managed financial and operational risk, and only if the institutions' safety and soundness were unimpaired.

* Maintaining the Federal Reserve Board's authority to impose consolidated capital standards as a safeguard on bank holding companies whose subsidiary insured depository institutions constitute their principal business."

The Clinton administration's push for deregulation didn't stop there either. In fact in late 1997 and early 1998, Clinton's administration approved the 3-headed merger of Travelers (insurance), Salomon-Smith-Barney (investments), and Citicorp (banking) a full 2 years before it was even legal. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/citicorp-and-travelers-in-155bn-merger-1155012.html That's right, they signed off on the merger over a year and a half before the legislation making it legal even hit the floor for debate!

I can't restate this enough so I'll state it again...the derivatives themselves were not the problem. A vast majority of the derivatives market was innocuous and still is. The only small segment that wasn't was the segment tied to the loose lending standards I documented above. Those derivatives would have also been innocuous had it not been for HUD/Fannie/Freddie pushing irresponsible underwriting standards and pushing toxic MBS into the market. No BS underwriting standards, no derivatives market collapse. Again, it's as simple as that. We don't have high unemployment right now because of the derivatives market, we have high unemployment right now because of the HOUSING MARKET.

Even if you want to blame the derivatives market, again the lack of derivative regulation can be traced back to Clinton's administration. In fact just in April 2010 Clinton was lamenting this decision, pointing the finger at Robert Rubin and Larry Summers (both served as his Secretary of Treasury) and saying he was misinformed by them. The following is a great read from Lawrence H. Summers (Clinton Treasury Secretary), Alan Greenspan (Clinton Fed Appointee), Arthur Levitt (Clinton Chairman SEC), and William J. Rainer (Clinton Chairman CFTC):

"Specifically, with respect to OTC derivatives, the Working Group is unanimously
recommending:
· An exclusion from the CEA for bilateral transactions between sophisticated
counterparties (other than transactions that involve non-financial commodities
with finite supplies);
· An exclusion from the CEA for electronic trading systems for derivatives,
provided that the systems limit participation to sophisticated counterparties
trading for their own accounts and are not used to trade contracts that involve
non-financial commodities with finite supplies;
· The elimination of impediments in current law to the clearing of OTC derivatives,
together with a requirement that any clearing system for OTC derivatives be
regulated by the CFTC, another federal regulator, or a foreign financial regulator
that satisfies appropriate standards;
· A clarification of the Treasury Amendment that clears the way for the CFTC to
address the problems associated with foreign currency "bucket shops" and
excludes all other transactions in Treasury Amendment products from the CEA,
unless they are conducted on an organized exchange;
· A modification of the exclusive jurisdiction clause of the CEA to provide greater
legal certainty to hybrid instruments; and
· A statutory clarification of the inapplicability of the Shad-Johnson Accord to
hybrid instruments that reference securities."

http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/reports/otcact.pdf

Clinton didn't just accept these parameters of derivative deregulation as you can see from the above, Clinton PUSHED for these parameters and these Clinton adminstration parameters were integrated into the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (CMFA). Please note the "Signed by President" date of Dec. 21st, 2000 and the name William Clinton. You should also note that Republicans at least put up token opposition to it (~25%). Democrats meanwhile only mustered a whole 9 votes in opposition (4.5%) http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h106-457

So, the idea that the Republicans somehow pushed bank deregulation and the lack of oversight for the derivatives market on Democrats and the Clinton administration is, again, a blatant fallacy...so you can drop that leftist talking point too.

One other point you guys can drop, that sub-prime lending started it's expansion during the Bush years. I've had multiple liberals try top make the same type of argument as the one below:

"The debt load of sub-prime loans was 9% for F&F up until Bush's deregulation of banking and loans. Then pushed F&F to take on more sub-prime bad loans, during that time the debt load went from 9% in 2000 to 26% in 2006 went it all went bust."

A) As noted above, it was the Clinton administration that deregulated banking and loans.

B) As noted above, it was the Clinton administration HUD that started the push for bad loans.

C) The sub-prime market was virtually non-existent before the HUD mandate in 1995. Sub-prime debt load went from 0% to 9% in the 4 years after that mandate. That it increased at basically the same yearly rate under Bush that it did under Clinton should be no surprise.

Actually sub-primes were quite profitable even back in the '80s, yet financial institutions primarily only used them as bridge loans to tie people over during the process of buying one home and selling another. Outside that construct, they understood that it was high risk/high reward and stayed out of that business. That is until Fannie/Freddie started buying them up as fast as they could. Sub-prime originations were only $35 billion as late as 1994. In 1995 when HUD gave it's mandate and Fannie/Freddie started gobbling up bad loans, that number almost doubled to $65 billion and by 1998, that number was $125 billion. That's not a coincidence.

Plain and simple, Fannie and Freddie were at the core of this meltdown, forced there by HUDs "affordable housing" mandates (home loans to low and very low income people who could afford them). Did the big banks participate? Yes, eventually , but they were merely trying to keep up in the game created by HUD/Fannie/Freddie. This is evidenced by their late entry into the game. However, going back to the original argument, it was over-regulation of the housing market and the "progressive" agenda of affordable housing for all regardless of credit history - not deregulation or derivatives - that caused the collapse.

Actually it's hard to believe that -- with the volume of documentation to the contrary -- anybody could still ascribe to your theory. Like I said, even Barny Frank eventually had to admit that it was a partisan lie, fabricated merely for its finger-pointing potential.

A) The first crisis surrounding banking deregulation was the S&L collapse of the1980s, well before the Clinton Presidency.

B) The 80% of the subprime market was not associated with CRA.

C) Less than 20% of subprime loans were held by Fannie and Freddie.

How does any of this relate to the failure of Lehman Brothers, the precipitating event in the meltdown?

This is ground that's been plowed here on a weekly basis for month after month. I can't help that you stubbornly continue to spread the same lies. Brooksley Born tried to impose reasonable regulations on derivatives. Alan Greenspan and Phil Graham engineered a show of propaganda and legislation to prevent that. Republicans are still working to prevent revisions that would stop a recurrence ranging from derivatives regulation to consumer protection.

Fannie and Freddie didn't force ANY company to make bad loans, and the vast majority of bad loans were made without them or CRA. That's fact. What your selling is Conservative mythology.

Representative Maxine Waters (Idiot-CA) had this to add to the Lefts hateful rhetoric
in Congress:

"As far as I'm concerned, the Tea Party can go straight to hell."

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20095373-503544.html

Pleasant woman, that Maxine.

Pleasant woman, that Maxine.

Why does she remind me of you?

Ah, the labor unions. Charming group, those. They take a percentage of every paycheck so their "executives" can earn six figure salaries being union executives, and protecting the rights of certain automakers' employees to toke up in company parking lots during the or work hours.

When they aren't doing worse things

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/581864/201108171839/Union-Thugs-No-Kidding.aspx

The Molly MacGuires are spinning in their graves.

Navy- I'd call 'em "enemies of the people".

I agree with Maxine Waters, "As far as I'm concerned, the Tea Party can go straight to hell."

I'm with Waters on this. The takeover of the Republican Party by the John Birch Society in the guise of the Tea Party has been disastrous for the United States. That's they're less popular with the American people than normally demonized groups like Atheists and Muslims. That's why the disapproval rate for the GOP has reached a historic high of 59%.

Looks like a lot of people would like to see the Tea Party go straight to Hell.

Good ol' contributers -- FR you just cannot help yourself, and just have to denigrate anyone who disagrees. If it were not so tragic it would be funny. Have a nice day, may be time to go out and smell the roses, I hear they look quite striking through the rose-colored glasses available to those who ask.

I just hope they don't take us all with them.

Maxine is at least as pleasant as you JS1.

Excellent post Navy. We can now add to your list:

What do you call a party that signs pledges to not raise taxes, whose candidates raise there hands in support of no new taxes, but turn around and threaten to raise taxes that most impact the poor and middle class?

This article is very interesting in the typical flip-flop taken on by the GOP/TP. They now want to let the payroll tax reduction lapse while demanding for tax decreases on the rich.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44218846/ns/politics/

US Navy - That post ought to be posted everywhere. It eloquently says everything I would want to say. I would also add: What do you call a party that signs pledges to special interest groups when their oath of office says they will serve all the people, not just a special few.

John B:

Let me go a bit further. The Tea Party is not simply a descendant of the John Birch Society. The Tea Party is a group of exceedingly ignorant and very fearful right-wingers who have been with us throughout history.

They have given us the Inquisition, the Crusades, witch hunts, the Taliban, Ayatollah Khomeini, Cotton Mather, Jerry Falwell, Joseph McCarthy, and today we have delusional-types like Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann.

There will always be such people around - people who are woefully ignorant, and frequently, wantonly ignorant.

They truly are the enemy.

Gee NJ what union have you been a member or executive of? My guess is none, because if you did you would know that executive pay is determined by the rank and file membership and is written into the constitution and by-laws of the Local union. In most cases it is what they would have made if they worked as a rank and file member plus a car expense. In any event you could look at the LM2 reports of any local union and see where the dues money goes. Very few Local union officers make a six figure salary, in any event on average union dues are 3%, but union members make an average of 18% more than their non union counterpart, they often have a safer work environment, health care, paid vacation and a real retirement plan so they don't burden society with those costs. You can try and portray it as you wish but union dues are a damn good investment for those that pay them. How do you and Rick Perry propose young people live the American Dream on ten bucks an hour and no benefits. Do you tell them use the emergency room as a clinic so a union members health insurance plan or the government absorbs those costs?

RedDev and Summertime:

Good points and thank you both. I will update my list - thanks again and keep on posting - We need all our voices out there.

You know Forrest I asked you three times what Union you were a member of a couple of weeks ago and all you did was defelect, deflect, deflect.

No. Credibility. What. So. Ever.

Good Morning Navy,

GREAT.

Let's remember one thing and that is the Republican-Tea Baggers are Dumbing down America.

White Collar you will have to take my word for it because I will never tell you because I wish to protect my anonymity, I still work in the industry, I still work as a consultant, I still lecture on certain technical subjects, and still write technical training materials. I have seen stuff go on on this board with regards to peoples privacy that I want no part of. Several people have friended me or whatever it is called from newsvine, I was flattered but do not ever answer those E-mails because I wish to protect my privacy. You say I have no credibility, well again I have to tell you I have belonged to unions my whole working life, I still do of course, I can assure you there are literally a couple of thousand people across the US that feel I have a great deal of credibility with regards to my profession and my union, on both the labor and management side of my industry. If you don't believe me so be it but it is a small world and I am very well known in my Local union, and fairly well known by members of many other locals that belong to our international who I have worked with, trained or who use my materials, but as far as this blog is concerned I want my privacy. I always back you down when you make your wild statements about unions so why should my credibility be questioned when you always wind up admitting I'm right.

Good afternoon, Smiffy,

[Representative Maxine Waters (Idiot-CA) had this to add to the Lefts hateful rhetoric
in Congress]

Sooo...you didn't get anywhere with the "bus" dealie that you made such a big deal of last week (you lost that argument, by the way), so now, after many months of deeming Maxine Waters "insignificant" at her face, you're harping on her "teabaggers can go to hell" comment, like it holds some weight? You can't seem to make up your mind, can you...so you're grasping at straws again...

Oooooh, Mrs. Waters shouldn't have damned the tea baggers to hell unless she wants them as neighbors at her future destination.

Real nice display of classy professionalism as an elected official but then what else is expected for someone under investigation for ethics violations. Speaking of that investigation.......

Apparently Conservatives mean what they say. They really do believe all of us but the ultra-wealthy are leeches

John B: Outstanding post this morning. Very true. The TP/GOP looks at the American People as a disposable asset to be used you up and discarded like a piece of worn out equipment. We are a necessary evil to them because they still needs us to do their work. When they drain our last drop of blood they will kick us to the curb in a heart beat, and will blame us because we did not have more blood for them to suck.

This party has turned it back on America, make no bones about it.

By Republican definition, ending tax cuts is exactly the same as a tax hike -- except when the tax cut benefits the middle class rather than "job creators." There must be some fine print in the oath of allegiance the Repubs took to Grover Norquist that they don't talk about.

Houston -- If i am paying $10 in taxes today because of a previous tax cut which is a decrease and then the tax cut goes away and I am now paying $11 that is an increase in the amount of tax that I am paying when compared to the previous period. Now if you want to keep going back in history to the very beginning before we had an income tax then by definition regardless of what we pay it is an increase.

Thanks folks. Since discovering that the reference to average Americans as "leeches" isn't just hyperbole on the part of Conservative leaders it's led me to wonder if the "creators" are really so important to the economy as to deserve their incomes that have now exceeded 500 times that of the average American. Hmm.

So james--no comment on the Republican position that it's OK to increase taxes on the middle class but not the top 2%?

james-1937467

Houston -- If i am paying $10 in taxes today because of a previous tax cut which is a decrease and then the tax cut goes away and I am now paying $11 that is an increase in the amount of tax that I am paying when compared to the previous period.

I am not disputing that it can be viewed that way. So how do you justify the Republicans demanding a tax INCREASE on the middle class?

John B.

Since discovering that the reference to average Americans as "leeches" isn't just hyperbole on the part of Conservative leaders it's led me to wonder if the "creators" are really so important to the economy as to deserve their incomes that have now exceeded 500 times that of the average American. Hmm.

A "leech" is a blood-sucking parasite that would more aptly be compared to the multimillionaires that suck the life-blood out of the economy and give back little of value in return. The only jobs created by "job creators' such as hedge fund managers are their secretaries.

Obama had control of both houses of Congress for two years and accomplished nothing but putting this country deeper in debt.

If anyone made it a living hell for Barry it was his democratic Congress people. They saw he wasn't a leader and didn't support him for two years...

JD, 400 bills passed the House in the last Congress and died in the Senate through filibuster. So much for your claim that Democrats had total control.

Republicans aren't known as the Grand Obstructionist Party for no reason at all.

Still no Conservatives willing to defend fighting to raise taxes on the vast majority of Americans after fighting to keep giant tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires?

Technical point.

The modern day 'Republican Party' was formed in 1854 to fight the Kansas Nebraska act. It was solely founded for the abolition of slavery. They dominated politics from 1860 - 1932, but lost clout when unable to fight the Great Depression. It espoused racial equality, strong banking system and tariffs to promote domestic growth.

The democratic party was pinnacle 1832 - 1854. It advocated westward expansion, Manifest destiny, greater equality for white men, and opposition to a national bank.

Not saying that's what they are any more. But it's good to know where you party came from and what shaped it.

Democrats have, until Regan, been considered the 'Hawks'. For some reason the role reversed at that point.

Devie - Is their some important and relevant "point" to your post above??? Do tell....thanks.....

What post Frosty? Are you talking about the thread above? Seems pretty self explanatory to me there electionday. You do know what I'm talking about. You can stop trying to fool everyone.

I have a question -- after the conservative Republican Tea Party bleeds the middle class dry, where do they think they will get MORE money? It seems only logical to me (and maybe that's the problem), that if you HELP the middle class to survive -- you would get MORE money from them. Destroying our buying powers won't get you anywhere in the end!! If we're all broke, out of jobs, etc., who will be paying taxes to support them?

Good point, Didi. The CEO class has just about bled the middle class dry. There's nothing left by going back to that well. What's next?

While it would be good news if, in fact, Qaddafi is gone, I'd hold onto the confetti for a little while.

The rebels may be in Tripoli, but that does not mean Qaddafi is, in fact, completely beaten, in the first place, and

Who are these people, anyway? Think the Israelis are jumping for joy that Egypt is in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood?

I remember well all the happiness expressed by the media when that holy man- the Ayatollah Khomeini, engineered the overthrow of the Shah of Iran. That didn't go so well for the rest of the world- let alone the Iranian people.

The only thing to do right now is to wait and see.

Like I said njnb will this be a good thing in the long term? We shall have to wait and see.

Devie:

Yes it is -

nojonob

I remember well all the happiness expressed by the media when that holy man- the Ayatollah Khomeini, engineered the overthrow of the Shah of Iran. That didn't go so well for the rest of the world- let alone the Iranian people.

Yes. And I remember reading that the reason there was a brutal Shah that had to be overthrown was because the Americans and British put him there by engineering a coup that overthrew a home-grown democracy whose policies were unfavorable to Western oil companies. We can only guess what the world would be like now if there had been a democracy in Iran rather than crazy ayatollahs who sparked the extremist Islamic movement the culminated in the 9/11 attacks on the US. Blowback is a real (rhymes with "witch").

Maybe things work out better when the US doesn't meddle in the affairs of other countries, but acts in a supporting role instead as it's done in Libya under Barrack Obama.

Right, Houston. Iran is above all else an illustration of a place where American foreign policy has been wrong for generations. Throughout the Cold War era and sometimes even today we believe that giving weapons to anyone who says they're willing to be our friend is a good idea. In Iran we engineered the overthrow of a legitimate democracy in favor of the Shah. He turned out to be a despot, and eventually the people rose up and overthrew him. Iranians hated us for our support of their oppressor. In our desire to counterbalance an enemy of our own creation we backed a neighboring country--Iraq. Then THAT leader turned out to be a despot and a danger to the entire Middle East.

It remains to be seen if we've learned the most important lesson here...that guns don't buy friends.

I'm with the skeptics on this one.

Moammar wasn't a sweetie by any stretch of the imagination. However, that doesn't mean what comes after will be any better then him and may very well be much much worse. Be happy a dictator is gone, but as an earlier reply said hold the confetti for now. This could actually work out the his detriment as the country, Libya, has a year to shake itself out before election day. If both Egypt and Libya install even cursory sharia following governments it won't bode well for the President.

The talking heads, in general (First Thoughts are pretty passive at the moment), are getting in front of themselves on this one. You guys need to save the spin for when it's needed. He's a year+ out. Opening your mouth too much now will paint you in a corner later.

There is just one word that describes this story

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/collapse-of-gaddafis-defenses-startles-nato/2011/08/22/gIQAzlI2VJ_story.html

That word- ominous.

Cue dramatic music filled with minor chords to heighten the effect of feigned concern.

Houston:

It does look like President Obama's patience has paid off. The problem here in this country is that we have the TP/GOP "economic terrorists" holding this country "Hostage" for their own political gain. Not unsimilar to the Khaddafy agenda. They (TP/GOP) also will not compromise and insist on things being there way or the highway.

Terrorism is terrorism and we have a faction of it in our own political system - They are called the radical right Tea Party. The only difference one uses "guns" the other "Obstructionism"

The NEW government in Egypt is about to wipe out Mubarek's entire family, just as the Bolsheviks did to Czar Nicolai's, before replacing him with a much more brutal tyrant named Josef Stalin. And believe me, the European countries are not embracing Islam...they are trying to cope with a flood of Islamic refugees who cling to their third-world traditions....
This is no Victory.

Mubarek is on trial in a public courtroom, JD. You're entitled to your own opinion, you aren't entitled to your own facts.

Keep pumping that fear of Islam meme, though, it speaks volumes about you.

Justified Defiance

And believe me, the European countries are not embracing Islam...they are trying to cope with a flood of Islamic refugees who cling to their third-world traditions....

The biggest flood of refugees in the Middle East in recent history occurred when 4 million Iraqis fled the hell that George Bush created in their country.

This is no Victory.

You sound like someone who can't stand the fact that Obama has succeeded where Bush failed miserably. Yes, I know that things could still turn out badly in Libya, but maybe not quite as bad as horrible situation in Egypt that exists only in your imagination.

Yeah, Lyn- that Obama is a real miracle worker. All he has to do is give a speech.

Well, I hate to burst your pretty pink bubble, but it's a little more complicated than that, and actually showcases Obama's ineptitude, rather than his magnificent speechifying skills.

See, there's a famine in North Africa and the Middle East- war and weather have contributed to dire food shortages. Guess what? In January of 2010, Obama was warned of this, and the fact that it would cause violent demonstrations that could topple stable governments in the region.

What any president with more than two brain cells would have done was instruct the Department of Agriculture to take the actions necessary to increase production of corn and wheat. Heck, we might even have opened our stores of those, to alleviate the food shortages and inflation in the region.

Obama did not even bother to give a speech.

So, a Tunisian fruit seller set himself ablaze to protest the high cost of food- triggering riots that toppled one of our allies in the region.

Emboldened by this, the Muslim Beotherhood incited the Egyptian people to topple another of our allies.

And the dominos continue to fall.

And the delusional democrats think it is another sign of their deal idol's supreme competence.

Itsmofficial- you people can drug yourselves into believing anything.

no joe - The leaders in the famine areas are preventing the people from getting the food. No matter how much is sent into a country, if it can't be distributed to the people, it doesn't help.

So, how's patience working out compared to the Neoconservative/Bush approach to the Middle East. You remember, the one where Iraq would be secured in "weeks not months" and be a handy jumping off point from which our troops would march through all the unfriendly nations of the region, being greeted as liberators and allowing freedom to "bloom like wildflowers"?

Epic fail for the Conservative approach.

Wow...I can't believe it..."No Joe" gives another endorsement to keeping Gaddafi in power. This would almost be funny if the whole concept weren't so laughable.

Great post, Lyn. If things go well in the Middle East, those on the right will refuse to give credit to President Obama but should anything go wrong it will be his fault.

Be nice if you defined "well", steeler fan.

This it?

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/mubarak-falls-sinai-terror-rises-1.379331

Perhaps "well", in your vernacular, means establishing diplomatic relations with the Muslim Brotherhood- those friendly fellows who want to destroy Israel, and, by the way, establish a caliphate that covers the old Ottoman Empire.

I wonder how the Spaniards feel about that?

I can tell you, our last ally in the region- Israel- doesn't seem to share your enthusiasm for Obama. His "awesome dreaminess" seems lost on them.

nojonobo:

What any president with more than two brain cells would have done was instruct the Department of Agriculture to take the actions necessary to increase production of corn and wheat. Heck, we might even have opened our stores of those, to alleviate the food shortages and inflation in the region.

Comrade nojonobo seems unaware that the United States is not a Communist country. The Dept. of Agriculture cannot dictate crop production to the agribusinesses that control it. You know, free market and all that.

They don't dictate, Houston, they use incentives- the same incentives used to keep production level.

It's called cash.

I thought you and the rest of your liberal friends were experts on the subject? Don't I see you posting about farm subsidies weekly- particularly when lambasting some republican farmermor other?

Don't tell me you are really ignorant on the subject, and just post whatever talking point is fed you! Oh my gosh- you really DON'T know how it works?!?

I thought so.

Well, thumbnail sketch for your edification-

In a (fairly successful) effort to keep prices stable in an industry dependent on weather, the U.S. Government pays farmers to keep supply at equilibrium. They pay to keep fields fallow, allow soil replenishment. They contract to buy surplus supply, and give farmers guidance on which crops are affected by what weather pattern where so they can make best decisions about planting.

See, farmers once had the worst of all possible worlds. In years of great harvest, supply went up- and so, prices went down.good for consumers, but not so good for the farmers, whose costs remained the same whether or not the price changed.

Likewise, in poor yield years, farmers brought less to market- so prices went up. Unfortunately, thanks to the elasticity of food process, farmers made less as consumers purchased less.

The government stepped in through the auspices of the department of Agriculture in the interests of, not just farmers, but also, consumers.

Not to mention the nation itself. No farmers, no food. No food, and all the rest ofthis nonsense is moot.

So, yes, Houston, there IS a Department of Agriculture, and it DOES have the tools required to get more food to areas stricken with food shortages.

I suggest you do a little more reading before you shoot off a post.

Oh, and by the way?

We have not had a free market in food production since 1933.

We have price supports, soil banks, and a government that buys the surplus supply. As an economist who leans toward free market capitalism, I am 100% behind all of this.

Why?

Food. We need it to survive. Farmers. We need them to supply food.

It's called pragmatism.

Look who's again pretending to be an Economist. What WOULD your beloved Mises and Hayek think of you demanding government intervention in the free market? I guess demanding what you think is right takes a back seat to demanding the Obama Administration do exactly the opposite of what they're doing.

Your hypocrisy is showing. Again.

The Austrian school would have little to say. You are confusing it with the Chicago school.

I have found that, ouside of academia, pragmatism is the best school. So, my support for farm programs finds little sympathy within the confines of the Chicago school.

I supported QEI- based on the fact that M3 had failed precipitously. I did not support QEII- so, sometimes I am a monetarist, sometimes not. Get it?

Whatmi prescribed, which is what any other American president would have done, was not new policy- it has been in place since 1933. We currently have, in reserve, more than one year's supply of wheat, corn, soybeans - staples thatmwould have alleviated the food shortages in the Middle East and North Africa. Obama was too dumb to do what any othermpresident would have done- had done, in the past.

You, in your circumstances, with your CV, question me?

Big deal.

@Lyn - Obama gives a speech to college students in Eqypt in June '09. Jan '11, Tunisha & Algeria dictators fall, Feb '11 Eqypt dictator falls, Aug '11 Libya dictator is done, and Syria is hanging on by a thread...

Rolls eyes. Perhaps Obama's speech inspired some of those students in 09, but don't try to credit the Arab Spring/Summer on a speech. As I and others have mentioned before this was caused by a sense of desperation and hopleseness, triggered by that fruit vendor in Tunisia. This wave of kinetic energy has been kept back by US backed dictators and supposed allies for decades until with that last straw it was not able to be held back. Now we are seeing that potential energy rushing forward.

I was against this exercise in Libya and questioned its justification as a humanitarian effort. I don't believe that anyone is calling for keeping Khadafi in power but at least realize that even with the best of intentions the outcome could be messy. Now that it appears to be coming to a close I hope the Libyan people the best and pray that that rag tag group of rebels doesn't form something worse or begin to fight amongst themselves. Very few military takeovers and or rebellions lead to democracies. As the liberal antithesis on the right Ron Paul would say, Why can't we keep ourselves out of other countries affairs?

I asked this question last week, how do my fellow liberal FR posters think Obama should proceed in Libya. Knowing that Obama's reasoning for humanitarian military intervention in Libya was the possible killing of thousands based on Khadafi's rhetoric and threats, why no action against Assad who has killed thousands? Could it be my fellow liberal FR posters are waiting for their talking points on how Obama should proceed. I say diplomacy should be used to get the Arab League to stop that dictator from killing his own people. If they can't or won't, I'm sorry but it is not our problem. It is but another country where atrocities are committed and the World doesn't lift a finger to stop it. The US can no longer be depended to do everything.

NoJo - I am not an economist so thank you for your explanation for the rationale for farm subsidies. It is good to see you have such high regard for the Department of Agriculture. You seem to realize that governmental agencies outside of defense can be and are important and vital.

Oops meant to say Syria - Reposting my question.

I asked this question last week, how do my fellow liberal FR posters think Obama should proceed in SYRIA. Knowing that Obama's reasoning for humanitarian military intervention in Libya was the possible killing of thousands based on Khadafi's rhetoric and threats, why no action against Assad who has killed thousands?

Mark- yes, there are government agencies that do important, vital work.

There are others that should be shut down.

And, at the risk of alienating you, I see the work done by the Department of Agriculture as equally important to national security as the DoD. We need a stable, secure food supply. Without farm programs, food, too, would be a net import, and that would be as unsustainable as being a net energy importer.

Thanks for being a rational voice on the board.

Oh, I've been DISMISSED by NJ! Sorry if there are any typos, I can't stop laughing!

John B, Des Moines, IA

Look who's again pretending to be an Economist. What WOULD your beloved Mises and Hayek think of you demanding government intervention in the free market? I guess demanding what you think is right takes a back seat to demanding the Obama Administration do exactly the opposite of what they're doing.

You know that whatever position Obama takes, nojonobo will take the 180-degree opposite position. If Obama warned people that it would be a very bad idea to repeatedly pound their heads against a brick wall, nojonobo would have a very bad headache.

Yellowdog-Mark D

I asked this question last week, how do my fellow liberal FR posters think Obama should proceed in Libya. Knowing that Obama's reasoning for humanitarian military intervention in Libya was the possible killing of thousands based on Khadafi's rhetoric and threats, why no action against Assad who has killed thousands? Could it be my fellow liberal FR posters are waiting for their talking points on how Obama should proceed.

I don't know if I'd consider you a "fellow liberal poster", since you just seem to have a big chip on your shoulder about President Obama. But I'll give you my opinion: If the opposition in Syria comes close to mounting a successful rebellion as in Egypt and Libya, then the United States and its NATO allies should give it a nudge militarily in favor of the rebels, just as in Libya.

What you're arguing is that you can't do anything until you can do everything. There are rotten dictatorships all over the world that for practical reasons cannot be dislodged by the United States. (Note what happened when the US used brute force to get rid of Saddam Hussein when there was no significant home-grown opposition in support of US action). But where the US can do something to support home-grown pro-democracy movements, I think it should.

Now, what would YOU do? Continue backing dictators in the name of "stability?"

Houston - I do have certain complaints about Obama and how he has handled himself as the leader of the Democratic party. I posted a few to your response in the libya thread.

Every situation and country is different, perhaps that is why Obama didn't do much to support the Iranian Green revolution in 09 despite the popular movement associated with it. I believe he did the right thing there.

In Syria, I would impose sanctions on the Syrian regime as Obama has proposed. I would cut off ALL aid to any middle east ally - Saudi Arabia, Jordan etc that does not fully support sanctions to Syria and that doesn't pledge to begin talks to have Assad step down. If those negotiations are fruitless then the Arab states can learn to live without our dime. I would never support dictators including King Abdullah of Jordan or the Crown prince of Saudi Arabia. The only reason we do is because of our dependence on foreign oil. I saw your post about the Shah of Iran and how the US backing brought blowback to us when the iranians revolted. I agree. We do not need to keep dictators in place in the name of stability.

Yes there are dictators everywhere, look what happened in Rwanda on Clinton's watch. Look at the nightmare in Sudan before the north and south separated. For all of these we simply choose to look the other way because it doesn't affect our so called national interests.

My main complaint is that at least here it seems as if the liberal poster finds no complaints in anything Obama does. Thank you for your response.

Yeah, no, we really should have kept Gaddafi in power, right?

Oh, and if Gaddafi is, in fact, done then we have no idea who is in power yet.

By the way, where do you get this $20 Billion figure?

we have no idea who is in power yet.

Any GUESSES?

“We were waiting for the signal and it happened. All mosques chanted ‘Allah Akbar' all at once. We smelled a good scent, it is the smell of victory. We know it is the time."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/africa-mideast/rebels-celebrate-in-tripolis-green-square-heart-of-gadhafi-regime/article2136488/

Did Team Obama AGREE to GIVE the Taliban oil rich Lybia in exchange for a quiet withdrawal in Afghanistan before the 2012 elections?

You're kidding, right?

Please tell me you're kidding.

People start chanting "God Is Great" in the middle of Tripoli and you speculate it's the Taliban? That's like saying, "2+2=A Bushel Of Potatos."

Are you suggesting that all Muslims are Taliban? Please, tell us how you came to this conclusion.

...and then put down the tinfoil hat and slowly back away.

youre not paranoid madison.

yes. obama is part of the taliban. his ultimate goal is to force you to become muslim.

then he will stand over you as you pray towards mecca and do one of those evil laughs. Muihahahahahahahahaha!

you should be scared to death. terrified, even. i know i would be, if i were you.

Why doesn't Obama DO something PRODUCTIVE?

He could ORDER the EPA to NOT shut down 30 coal fired plants over the next 4 years doubling electricity prices and leading to BROWNOUTS across the Midwest and MORE Manufacturing Plant Closures. ORDER the State Department to APPROVE the CANADIAN PIPELINE, ORDER the DEPARTMENT OF LABOR to OPEN the Boeing Plant in SC, ORDER the DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR to APPROVE 50 DRILLING/EXTRACTION PERMITS pending for 2 1/2 years. Cost to taxpayers? ZERO. Real jobs ACTUALLY CREATED or SAVED? OVER 50,000.

The ABOVE is what a REAL EXECUTIVE would do when his country/ company is in trouble.

Will Obama do this? NO instead he will PROPOSE MORE MASSIVE WASTEFUL SPENDING AND CALL IT A "JOBS BILL" well calling it a "jobs bill" does NOT mean it will create a single long term job just like the "AFFORDABLE CARE ACT" does NOT make HEALTHCARE AFFORDABLE QUITE THE OPPOSITE doesn't Mr. Legalize-Illegal-Immigration-by-Presidential-Fiat-in-Violation-of-Law know this by now?

Are you suggesting that all Muslims are Taliban?

That's exactly what she's saying. It's exactly what the entire Conservative media tells their audience on a daily basis.

Here we go with the liberal media again. Try fox news they give both sides of the issue, both anti democrat & anti Obama. They don't even try to cover any side but their own.

It's funny you mention FOX News...as CNN and MSNBC were showing live pictures of Libyan citizens dancing in the streets of Tripoli the "Fair and Balanced" gang was talking about Casey Anthony.

Perhaps Geraldo should go back to searching for Capone's vault.

Thanks for bringing me a big smile, brundo. Well said.

the enemy of my enemy is my friend. A concept George Bush never got, considering Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, was hated by Iran and Islamic fundamentalists and al-Qaida...and unseating him led to a bloody civil war. I am not surprised Republicans don't recognize "success" in regime change when they see it.

Obama 2012.

Amy---usually I am with you on the "enemy of my enemy is my friend". I'm having a little trouble, though, with the concept in the context of the Bush/Karl Rove feud with Rick Perry in Texas. That might be the exception that proves the rule!

I hear you Steeler Fan!

I also didn't mean to imply in any way that Saddam was our "firend." Karl Rove kinda fits in that same category. Guess Karl and Saddam warrant a new category!

Da Noid

It's funny you mention FOX News...as CNN and MSNBC were showing live pictures of Libyan citizens dancing in the streets of Tripoli the "Fair and Balanced" gang was talking about Casey Anthony.

I hadn't heard that, but I'm not surprised. Like Col. Ghaddaffi, Fox filters out news that doesn't fit with the false reality they are promoting.

Da Noid,

That's not true, Fox is leading with the story in Libya with pictures and video.

Houston,

All the stations spin the stories to their bias, to say Fox is the only one is being disingenuous.

thetotas

All the stations spin the stories to their bias, to say Fox is the only one is being disingenuous.

But Fox is the only "news" organization that won a lawsuit because the judge said they had a right to LIE under the First Amendment. Most of the media bias is baisetoward the right because the corporate media live in fear of being accused of liberal bias, so they make sure they lean the other way. And besides, most of the blow-dried talking airheads like John King on CNN make big enough salaries that they're worried about possible tax increases on the wealthy.

Yeah, cause we were totally BFFs with Gaddafi, right?

DaNoid:

How soon they forget PanAm Flight 103 and the total disrespect this A$$ has shown our President every time he comes to this country.

Amazing - now the righties are defending Khaddafy just like they did another dictator over there.

I wouldn't call a government run by a mentally unbalanced tyrant "stable." Especially a tyrant who approved the bombing of the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie that killed more the 200 Americans. BTW: The terrorist who engineered the Lockerbie attack who the Scottish government released for "humanitarian" reasons based on a bogus medical prognosis is now living like a king in Libya. Maybe he'll get what's coming to him now that Ghaddafi seems to be on the way out.

Glo-850104

Please don't tell me that Obama wants credit for this. He's blamed everyone and everything for his failures and then tries to take credit for something NATO did.

Uh, NATO wouldn't have done anything without the backing of the United States, which provided most of the firepower in the early days of the war. The Republicans have been blaming Obama for getting involved in Libya, so it seems only fair that he get a good share of the credit (along with France and Britain).

Of course, the lion's share of the credit goes to the Libyans who've put their lives on the line. But with vilifying Arabs being so fashionable among Republicans, you won't see Repubs giving the Libyans much credit, either.

2012 can't come soon enough.

What a sad excuse for a Pres

You are right - President Obama in 2012

You are a sad excuse for an American who is the Party that refuses to take responsibility for the mess we are in and is blaming everybody else for what they did? Who is the party that has blocked virtuall every job bill? Who is the Party that thinks taking America "Hostage" for their own political agenda is a good idea? And then says they are going to do it again. Who is destroying Educational Programs to help improve Education.

You really need to read more other than the radical right dogma

Just another mushroom

Hello? During the Arab Spring some Republicans urged President Obama to invade Libya. Remember all that criticism about "dithering?"

Well, the President didn't send ground troops into Libya, he coordinated with Arab leaders to support the rebels, and it looks like this approach a) removed Qaddafi and b) cost the US next to nothing. No American Troops were lost in Libya! I don't think Republicans have any idea what "success" in a foreign policy is!

You must know by now that Obama will take credit for anything that will possibly means a vote. That what politicans do. All politicans.

Obama will focus, like a laser, on this issue. It draws attention away from the economy. He will get a lot of help in that regard. Just look at all the Rick Perry storties over the last few days. Interesting that Perry used the wrong "words". Obama uses the "wrong" policies. What gets more attention?

Obama is the new "Goldfinger". He has done more for gold prices than anybody could dream. I said it before, I moved my investments into gold when he was elected and he proved me right. It looks like more money will be printed. Gold prices are going even higher. He just will not encourage, let or allow the private sector to bring us out of this recession. This administration will continue to place road blocks to burden the free enterprise system. If Obama now became pro-business he would lose his socialist base and when the economy improved he would have to admit he was wrong. But, he has a plan....

Hello? During the Arab Spring some Republicans urged President Obama to invade Libya. Remember all that criticism about "dithering?"

Don't forget that the GOP was also in favor of the US setting up a "No-Fly Zone"...but that was before they were against it.

Besides the fact that George Bush spent more on education than any other President and it did little to nothing to improve our educational system, should tell you there's more to the problem than a lack of funds.

I heard that the new GOP plan to bring unemployment down to 0%, is by killing anyone who doesn't have a job.

Then they're going to celebrate by blowing up the moon.

Amy, how inconvenient of you to point out that Conservative positions aren't consistent, that they focus mostly on being in opposition to President Obama.

The Republic can survive a Barack Obama.... It is less likely to survive a multitude of Idiots such as those who made him their president....

Yep, Obama was against raising the debt ceiling before he was in favor of it.

Tony C-2383666

And Republicans were for raising the debt ceiling before they were against it, what's your point?

Tony C., stop it. You know the reasons for this and you know the context. To continue pushing this point is just silly on your part.

Righties cannot stand that President Obama is having success where their man Bush failed!!!!!

I could not believe what I was hearing this morning!

The guest this morning on Morning Joe were opining about the fate of Moammar Gadhafi and what this means for Libya going forward…blah, blah, blah.

Ed Rendell asserted upon his arrival a half hour into the show that he had not once heard the President’s name uttered during the discussion. Imagine that!

If this overthrow had gone badly, everyone of those know nothing pundits would have been calling for the President to resign or at the very least talking about how he can’t possibly get re-elected since he “bungled” the Libya operation.

The only thing I agree with Sarah Palin about is the “Lametream Media”.They spend an inordinate amount of time talking about her non-candidacy and the optics of the President taking a vacation while there is an economic crisis. Well, by some accounts the economic crisis may last 5-10 years so does that mean no future holders of the office of POTUS should take a vacation?

Just askin’

Anyway, the Lamestream Media shall remain so until someone with some integrity corrects the next GOP presidential when they utter the phrase “The President took a bad economy and made it worse”. That is a bold-faced lie and Romney and others need to be

called out every time they say it.

Just sayin’

fielden...

a lot of these guys dont understand that 'campaigning in all 57 states' was a lame joke.

the way they comprehend words, it's a stretch to assume they know the reasons and context behind anything.

Amy, it was a response to post 11.5 you made my point.

By the way, yes Republicans were wrong in the past for raising the debt ceiling.

I know you will not understand that we will pay the price for this debt and the continued deficit spending. The debt, printing of money and borrowing 40 cents of every dollar spent in Washington will not last for very much longer. The "working class" and those that Obama calls "rich" can not carry he "dependent class". The tax the rich talking point sounds good for now.....

Amy - All Senate democrats voted against the debt ceiling raise in 2006 including barry. So I guess you can say the democrats were against it before they were for it! So what's your point??

In the past Dems and repubs have voted against raising the debt ceiling. They make sure there is enough votes to pass it then the remaining no votes are in protest. Just a game to these overpaid creeps making major decisions for the rest of us.

Exactly so, Bluebird Sister. It's the same as when members of Congress vote against a resolution but in favor of the bill, or against a bill but in favor of funding. It's a common way for lawmakers to be able to claim to be on both sides of an issue.

Very true. The collapse of 2007 was really the failure of our current American mode of management. CEOs are being paid like kings to malnourish the countries that they run, doing almost anything to pad their stock options for the current quarter by favoring short term profits at the expense of long term viability. They want to make up for their own concentration on the short game and incompetence through never ending demands for wage cuts and increasing largesse from the government. The people Conservatives idolize as "creators" are in reality slowly destroying the American economic miracle.

at least he can accomplish a mission for less than 4,000 billion dollars.

you have to admit, its better to be lied to by somebody competent.

Joseph E. Parent

And how much is this Libyan adventure of Obama's costing us?? Over 20,000 fighter bomber sorties flown so far. Add in the munitions expended, the civilian casualties, the aid well be handing over to the victors. Cha-Ching. Whats a few more billion amongst friends??

Compared to the hundreds of billions Bush blew on transforming Iraq into a hell hole, the cost of the assistance to the Libyan rebels is a pittance.

BTW: It's amusing to see how some wingnuts are rushing to deny Obama any credit for what looks like significant progress in Libya, while others are still blaming him for getting involved in the first place. I'd say they can't have it both ways, but the wingnuts would probably disagree vehemently with that assessment.

I don't understand...I thought all you Righties would be happy...I mean, deficits are fine if you're blowing stuff up, right?

Isn't that why y'all scream your heads off any time anyone even things of cutting the defense budgets?

I hope this never happens. But if you look around the world there are plenty of people that hate America and would destroy this country given the opportunity. You know that check you care so much about? It will stop coming either way, if we are bankrupt or if we reduce our defenses enough.

Obama didn't get anyone. Seal Team 6 and the CIA got Osama....If we're going to give Obama credit, then the phone he was on gets as much credit.

Well, one thing we all know: you deserve even less credit if you voted for George W."where is Osama bin Laden? It really doesn't matter"Bush.

Justified Defiance:

Are you really that ignorant?

Of course the SEALS killed UBL.

We all know the "mission accomplished" banner was because GWB personally took out Saddam Hussein.

Yeah. Right.

Please name one modern day Commander-In-Chief that took out one of our enemies.

This is not some Lawrence of Arabia movie JD. This is real life with real bad guys.

You just don't get it do you?

President Obama should feel vindicated about the Libyan outcome.

I remember 90 days in Repulicans and Democrates talked about defunding the effort and some Republicans even called for impeachment. Did you forget that little dust-up?

The President did not back down. He told them to go somewhere and sit down and STFU!

Now there.

Also too.

Sheila, are you blonde or do you color your artificial intelligence?--- You obviously have never been outside of the mall parking lot, much less a foreign country--- your rant is beyond "ignorant" ---Obama sat on the where abouts of bin laden for a MONTH before he issued the kill order...Luckily GITMO was not closed down, like Obama pledged to do or bin laden would most likely still be with us...

It's taking at least two years to recover from the neglect and incompetency of eight years of Republican mis-rule. Programs like Social Security require forsight and planning, they don't exactly turn on a dime.

Unlike the State of Maine, which Democrats turned into a welfare state and has been that way ever since.

New Hampshire is the only state in New England that isn't totally broke, both economically and politically.

VT - broke

Mass. - broke

CT & R.I. - totally f*cked

Justified - Yes, Bush is blamed and also, Obama is blamed. Who has been blamed by the downgrade of our bond rating? Never mind it was because of an uncooperative Congress eg the Tea Party in the House. It will go down in history as Obama's fault, but has Iraq and Afghanistan will go down in history as Bush's fault.

Yes---Unfortunately, we now have another reason the Obama presidency is historic.

For the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY the United States' credit rating has been downgraded!
BHO and only BHO signed the bill in to law that caused the downgrade and market crash---that one can't be blamed on Bush.

For the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY the United States' credit rating has been downgraded!
BHO and only BHO signed the bill in to law that caused the downgrade and market crash---that one can't be blamed on Bush.

Yeah, just imagine what would have happened if we defaulted instead...like the Tea Partying Freshmen Congressmen wanted.

The reason the stock market crashed and the credit rating dropped because the US didn't cut spending and take real action to get the budget balanced. Yet some of the posts on this site are blaming tea party representatives because they demanded REAL action be taken to address the issues---I am not a tea party supporter but maybe I should become one as they seem to be the only people in Congress who get it.

So JD, why did Republicans walk away from a plan that would have delivered $4T in deficit reduction?

Sorry, any way you paint it it's still the Tea Party Downgrade. There's no way to wriggle out from under that one.

John are you always this confused & mislead like a lost sheep? No need to "wiggle" Johnny...Facts are Facts...Over 870 days, what have the Dems offered? NOTHING!
Now this brilliant "super committee" is going to save the economy? LOL!

If President Obama and the Democrat Party hadn’t blocked the GOP’s Cut, Cap, & Balance plan, America would still have our AAA rating...that's a fact....S&P even WARNED of it, back in April. DUH!

This is what happens when an inexperienced chief executive stubbornly refuses to make serious spending cuts. And so, America gets another heaping mouthful of Hopenchange while Obama celebrates a lavish birthday celebration & Congress goes on vacation.

I'll let the facts speak for themselves as to which Party is more fiscally responsible...

Oh, you're interested in FACTS...here are some facts;

Republicans used the filibuster to stop over 400 bills that passed the House in the last Congress.

Republicans discussed shutting the government down from the moment it became apparent they'd do well in the 2010 elections.

S&P's warning was about legislative gridlock preventing the government from raising the debt ceiling, exactly what the Republicans delivered. As they planned.

Republicans walked away from a $4T deficit cutting deal because it required a minor tax increase on people making over $250,000/yr -- something 2/3 of Americans favor.

Boehner said he got "98% of what I wanted" and McConnell said the debt ceiling was a "hostage worth taking."

S&P stated that their fears of intractable players within the government had been realized.

Tea Party downgrade

Obama will forever be known as "the downgrade King" The House did their job....twice. First bill was a great, comprehensive piece of legislation. Cut the spending, cap the spending as a percentage of GDP, and, most importantly, start the machinery to create a balanced budget amendment to our constitution. (Like 40 states have in their state constitutions). When it reached the Senate.....Harry Reid tabled it. No discussion. Harry Reid didn't like it, so all that work was wasted. All that time was wasted, because ONE old senator didn't like it.

This was an Obama- led financial fiasco which led to the Obama downgrade. No way he is going to pass the blame for this one. he will now be known as President Oblameo. (Must be Bush's fault)

Get real, Republicans walked out of negotiations 3 times. Cut, cap, and balance was dead even before arrival because it required a virtually complete dismantle of the social safety net.

Walking out of negotiations and forcing through a smoke and mirrors plan with no chance of passage is no way to run a government--and S&P responded to that. Such is the incompetence and radicalism of the Tea Party.

As if being black caused the republicans to obstruct and filibuster any bills for jobs or to turn around the economy. Or are you admitting that this whole obstruction was about not having a black president again for 100 years. How dare the majority of this country question white supremacy? The republicans will show us who is boss and they will refuse to work with a black man. Sound familiar?

From the day President Obama was elected, it was all about making him and our country fail because we voted for him.

If maybe the republicans had done anything to act like they love America more than the rich perhaps one could believe them. So far all they do is lie and lie and pretend that they had nothing to do with the debt and if we would cut, cut everything for the people our country would be just fine without raising taxes on the richest in America.

If you love America

Obama 2012

Americans First 3238795:

read this book abotu the TRUTH of Dems and repubs and then you will change your entire view

The book:

Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black and White by David Barton

Playing the race card and the blame Bush game is old and out of gas.

Most of the World and a lot of Americans, including the "grown ups" in our Government realize that Obama is a rank amateur. Some of the life long members of the diplomatic corps are finally taking action to stop the disastrous credibility bleeding going on.

dragynwolfe... David Barton?! You're going to hold up David Barton as setting the record straight?! Don't make me laugh!

Peggy Noonan, is that you? "Obama is a loser." Now the rightwing are borrowing catch phrases from high schoolers.

Sorry, Peggy, Obama is still cool. Have you seen the Republcan line up against him? What a bunch of doofuses.

O.K. Amy, He's "Cool" a complete,abbysmal failure on the scale to go down in history as the worst President ever...but he's "cool". Happy now?

john mcgraw.

"The Worst President Ever title belongs to George W.Bush.

Now there.

Also too.

US citizen:

"This man has screwed up his Presidency so bad it will be a hundred years before a black man will be president again."

Your last sentence spotlights the very goal from the time of his election for you conservatives. Your focused efforts, not his, have nearly brought this country to its knees...despicable and unworthy of U.S. citizenship...the whole lot of you.

According to a Dumb Dem 250,000 is a million dollars, Their math is as good their comprehension skills?

you are vastly overcharging if you want two cents for that.

Very true...good point dan..i had forgotten that...