Last year, Gov. Rick Perry (R) published his book “Fed Up”, a piece of crap supporting the dogma of tentherism, which claims that just about everything and anything from child labor laws to the Clean Air Act to Medicare violates the Constitution. Things like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are “Unconstitutional” in his opinion. Well it turns out this BS he is spouting is about as popular as the Ryan Bill that also would repeal Medicare, Medicaid, etc as we know it. So what does he do – He pulls a Newt

“After just a few days of embarrassing press, however, Perry now expects the country to believe that his entire book was not intended to be a factual statement”.

Sorry Perry, you wrote the book and up to last week you were signing it. These guys just love to tell lies and then try to unring the bell – sorry the American People are no longer buying it and many are holding our Politicians accountable for their rhetoric now. I hope it is not too late to remove this cancer that has infected this country – the New Radical right. What is with the TP/GOP that they say lies and misleading rhetoric and when challenged they run and hide. We have Bachmann, who by herself has raised Sister Palin to the ranks of a Mensa member, saying her lies and mis-speech is a result of a busy campaign schedule. With these guys it is always somebody else’s fault – To date the TP/GOP has refused to accepted their responsibility for the mess we are in and the latest fact that they caused the first “Credit Rating” downgrade in our history. This was their agenda from the beginning and they did it with their constant “Obstructionism” and a totally dysfunctional 112^th Congress that many say is the worst in US History. Below is a link to how Perry is now trying to distance himself from his own book that is not even 1 year old. Hypocrite.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/08/22/300479/rick-perry-disavows-fed-up/

Tax cuts have become one of the God’s of Fiscal Responsibility with DRACONIAN “Spending Cuts the other. That is as long as the Tax Cuts are for the top 2%. If you are not a member of the 2% crowd the TP/GOP NOW wants to increase your taxes.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/08/22/300832/republicans-to-oppose-tax-cut-for-working-people/

“The AP reports Republicans are now lining up to raise taxes on nearly half of all Americans. In his radio address this weekend, President Obama called for an extension to the payroll tax holiday he signed into law last year, which benefits every working American, lowering the 6.2 percent tax that funds Social Security to 4.2 percent. The tax cut will expire in January, and many of the same Republican lawmakers who fought tooth and nail to preserve the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy are now coming out against an extension of the payroll tax holiday”.

“Why? Social Security payroll taxes mainly benefit middle- and working-class Americans, as the tax only applies to the first $106,800 of a worker’s wages. Thus, no matter how much money someone makes, they will see a maximum benefit of $2,136 from the holiday — a pittance compared to the savings for the wealthy from the Bush income tax cuts”.

“Hensarling, the House’ fourth-ranking Republican, is right — some tax cuts do more than others to “get the economy moving again.” He just has it backwards about which cuts do that. Tax cuts for wealthy, such as those in the Bush tax cuts, are the single “least effective way to spur the economy and reduce unemployment,” according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, because wealthy Americans were more likely to save their money than spend it”.

“Conversely, payroll tax cuts are one of the most efficient ways to stimulate economic growth, because low- and middle-income earners are more likely to spend their extra cash right away. But this analysis and similar ones from Moody’s and other experts has not dissuaded Republicans from their myopic focus on tax cuts for the wealthy only”.

My prayers and best wishes go out to the people of Libya and their fight for Freedom. The major new networks have been very quite this morning and no news has been presented. The rebels face their biggest challenge right now in trying to take over the compound of the Libyan dictator. This may take several attempts but I think that the Libyan People will persevere. President Obama yesterday gave credit where credit was do. He mentioned that not one American Military person has lost their life in supporting the NATO exercise and the cost to date was about $1-2 Billion Dollars. NOT the $20 Billion some right wing idiot posted yesterday on this board.

Look, I do not hate people – I hate some of their ideologies. I will never support any party that wants to repeal our “Civil Rights”. I will never support a party that is anti-gay, racist, sexist and religious intolerant. I will never support a Party that is NOT pro Education, Science, Medical Research or does not believe in Social Programs that help people get back on their feet to become productive citizens again. I will never support a Party that has an “Oligarchy” agenda that creates a “Society” of “those that have and those that NEVER WILL” and does not believe in Women’s Rights, etc, etc. I guess that means I will never support or vote for the New TP/GOP Party since these are your new found values and they are not American Values – not by a long shot.

With all the crap and lies that the TP/GOP has been touting as truth and the American way Ms. Waters said it best.

"I'm not afraid of anybody, This is a tough game. You can't be intimidated. You can't be frightened. And as far as I'm concerned, the 'tea party' can go straight to hell."

Ms. Waters I agree with you and so does many real Americans if the recent polls are to be believed. While President Obama’s numbers go up and down like a yoyo, one thing remains consistent – the numbers of Congress and the TP/GOP are lower and in many cases by double digits.

President Obama in 2012 -

*** Republicans backtrack on Libya:

Can someone pass the insane clown posse a couple of tissues to wipe the EGG of their no longer smug faces?

Imagine it didn't cost us ONE American life, 10 + yearss of dollars borrowed on the Chinese VISA card..years

Correction:

Imagine it didn't cost us ONE American life, 10+ years & a trillion dollars borrowed on the Chinese VISA card!

"Private sector capital and jobs will go to where taxes and spending and regulatory policy are most conducive to growth....the vast majority [of jobs] were equal to or above the national average for weekly wages. These jobs are not low-paying jobs."

So said the DEMOCRATIC head of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Richard Fisher in a speech defending Rick Perry's job creation record in Texas. Nice to hear some clarity on this point, rather than the demeaning garbage spewed by the left.

http://www.dallasfed.org/news/speeches/fisher/2011/fs110817.cfm

_________

Speaking of clarity (or would that be garbage):

The AFL-CIO labor coalition is the latest entrant on the increasingly-crowded 'super PAC' scene.
The new political action committee would allow labor organizations to raise unlimited amounts of money and steer more money to state legislative fights like the one just fought in Wisconsin. These PACs, made possible by last year's Citizens United Supreme Court decision, cannot coordinate with candidates.

"The essential idea is that changes in the law for the first time really allow the labor movement to speak directly to workers, whether they have collective bargaining agreements or not," AFL-CIO political director Michael Podhorzer told the AP. "Before, most political resources went to our own membership."

Gee, and I always thought the Citizens United decision was specifically designed to give evil corporations increasing control over our political process. I mean, that must be true cuz the leftists around here have been telling us that for a long time.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/opposition-to-obama-hardens/2011/08/22/gIQAs2CXXJ_blog.html?hpid=z2
_________

The latest Gallup Poll shows Romney, Perry, Bachmann and Paul within the margin of error against Obama. What really comes across is that when Obama can't even beat Bachmann and Paul, then apparently more and more folks out there have decided they aren't going to vote for Obama under any circumstances. The question is, have those folks reached critical mass yet. Stay tuned.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149114/Obama-Close-Race-Against-Romney-Perry-Bachmann-Paul.aspx
____________

Maxine Waters: "The Tea Party can go straight to hell."

Me: "Maxine dearest, kiss my royal American a$$."

Maxine Waters: "The Tea Party can go straight to hell."

Feisty Redhead: And don't pass GO & do NOT collect $200.00

Last Week's Nontroversies: The Bus, Vacation

This Week's Nontroversy: How much the vacation costs?

Joe in Albany

Things an unemployed breadwinner for a family of four could do with the $50,000 per week Barry is spending on his vacation rental:

This should be a SNAP for your brain since Faux news has inhabited your brain about tax cuts for the middle class.

FYI: Right-wing media attacked President Obama for traveling on buses that reportedly cost $1.1 million each on his bus tour through the Midwest. But Secret Service officials have said the buses will pay for themselves over time and have also said there has been "demonstrated need for [the buses] for some time"; additionally, the buses will be available to the eventual Republican nominee during the 2012 election, as well as future presidents.

Right-Wing Media Seize On Cost Of Buses To Attack Trip As A "Waste [Of] Your Tax Dollars"

Joeey

How about those tax breaks the multimillionaires get which don't affect you at all; unless of course you are one of them?

Things an unemployed breadwinner for a family of four could do with the $50,000 per week Barry is spending on his vacation rental:

It's all fake outrage by the people on the right. You people hate President Obama so much, and you will say anything bad about the President, concerning anything he does.

Anyone with a half of brain knows that you people are full of crap.

Navy, excellent post! And Feisty, you hit the nail on the head!

This story is as much about the current GOP crop of candidates looking ridiculous as anything else. Their comments on Libya are utterly insane - especially Trump's.

What these ding-dongs, and I'm including Huntsman here, who should have known better, fail to recognize in the Libyan case is that a direct, heavy-handed intervention by the United States would have triggered all sorts of problems across the Middle East and North Africa. And as a practical matter, the U.S. has strained its capabilities quite a bit in taking even the role the country did.

President Obama quite wisely engineered an effective solution, not only getting UN and NATO support, but also from the Arab League. The forces that supported the Libyan rebels included aircraft from Oman.

Trump sounded like that senator who was in one of Dick Cheney's secret meetings prior to 9/11 - when he remark, "Hell, son, if you want the oil, just go take it!" In fact, the U.S. attempted to do just that after the first round of the invasion - Bush made an utter ass of himself when he said the Iraqis would pay for the war.

What a dramatic contrast, in fact, between Presidents. Bumbler Bush lied to the world and the nation about Iraq, flipped the bird at the UN and other allies, abandoned the potential for success in Afghanistan, and went thundering off into the sunset chasing Saddam Hussein. President Obama worked diligently and carefully to persuade Britain, France and Italy to take lead roles in a country where their interests are much greater than America's, and with his restraint has won considerable good will in Libya as well as throughout the region.

Wait For It, Republicans Give Us More Gibberish.

How else to explain that the party’s flip flop in favor of increased taxes for the middle class isn’t gaining more attention?

GOP may OK tax increase that Obama hopes to block.

News flash: Congressional Republicans want to RAISE your taxes.

Impossible, right? GOP lawmakers are so virulently anti-tax, surely they will fight to prevent a payroll tax increase on virtually every wage-earner starting Jan. 1, right?

Apparently not.

Many of the same Republicans who fought hammer-and-tong to keep the George W. Bush-era income tax cuts from expiring on schedule are now saying a different "temporary" tax cut should end as planned. By their own definition, that amounts to a tax increase

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_REPUBLICANS_PAYROLL_TAX?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-08-22-04-04-22

The spin should give the dizzy Tea- NUTS whiplash.

Maxine: "the tea Prty can go straight to hell"

Me: "and they can take Me Firsters like Bill with them, becuase there are one hell of a lot more of US than there are of THEM 'out here' in the 'Real America".

Nicely said, Navy.

Just last week Rick Perry, when asked by an audience member about his view on social security, said "have you read my book 'Fed Up', read it", I talk about it extensively there. His view obviously had not changed until....the media started reporting the facts of what is in that book. The book was published nine months ago. Last week Perry was still embracing his own words but this week Americans are expected to believe that the book does not represent Perry's current view. He and his campaign staff are grasping at straws; most people are smarter than Perry and his staff think and those who choose to believe will do so at their own peril. Perry's speaking events and appearances have been met with a good number of protest signs--"keep your hands off my Medicare" is back again only this time, there is legitimate cause for concern. Perry and his far right-wing would like nothing better than to kill social security, medicare, medicaid, disability and unemployment. With republicans, "you're on your own" to quote President Obama.

Rick Perry compares civil rights movement to GOP fight for lower corporate taxes

Besides Muammar Qaddafi, Rick Perry may be having the worst day in politics. His extremist belief that everything from consumer protection to Social Security to federal child labor laws is unconstitutional keep dogging him on the campaign trail.

Now he’s been Caught ON TAPE in South Carolina comparing the civil rights movement to the GOP’s fight for lower corporate taxes and deregulation.

Watch it, courtesy of American Bridge:

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/654345/rick_perry_compares_civil_rights_movement_to_gop_fight_for_lower_corporate_taxes/

He could hardly have picked a worse day to fundamentally misunderstand and misrepresent the struggle for civil rights in America. The opening of the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial is to commemorate the great civil rights leader who died marching for economic justice for poor communities. In Rock Hill, South Carolina, a reporter pointed out to Perry that this year also marks the 50th anniversary of a historic sit-in in the town.

Hey Scary Perry has the whole nation wondering about his broken promise to secede from the USA.

I wonder how does his relate?

WOW:

He could hardly have picked a worse day to fundamentally misunderstand and misrepresent the struggle for civil rights in America.

Good Morning GF!

I wonder if it was intentional - the TX redneck does have a habit of pissing on parades - so to speak...

If only he could manage to get God to trickle down on TX - LORD knows they NEED the rain!

Dbo shows us all, once again, that liberals never passed third grade arithmetic.

There are NOT more of "you" than of "us".

Liberals represent about 20% of the electorate. Conservatives about 40%.

Twenty is half of forty. Forty is greater than the 35% who call themselves "moderate",

No wonder the economy is a mess.

Speaking of bucks and what could be done with them, Joe, Albany- did you see the Sterwart piece on how if you took fully HALF of what the 4-member family people making $20,000 a year have, it would come to $700 BILLION? If you left them alone, and instead took the additonal 3% increase from the top earners via expiring Bush tax cuts, it would come to..........$700 BILLION?

Like Stewart said- 'the problem here is we need to take ALL of what those families of four have, not HALF of it".

And, I bet you, Mr Me First Bill, JAS, No Jo, and many others on here think that's a pretty good idea.

But, why?

The book was published nine months ago. Last week Perry was still embracing his own words but this week Americans are expected to believe that the book does not represent Perry's current view

You REALLY can't make this stuff up! lol

Nicely copied and pasted Navy.

Joe, Albany. Perhaps you can give us your take on Mitt Romney's tearing down a $12 million, 3,000 square foot, beach front property in La Jolla, California, to build an 11,000 sq ft one in its place for who knows how many multi-millions. Please list how many unemployed families of four and what they could do with just the $12 million price of the home being destroyed.

Incidentally, Joe, my view is this: President Obama can spend his "earned" personal money however he chooses and so can Mitt Romney. If you want to complain about one, you must complain about the other as well--otherwise, Joe Albany, disingenuous drivel comes to mind.

"There are NOT more of "you" than of "us"."

No, It's not the math I'm weak on- it's expressing my thoughts correctly. By US and THEM, I mean Millionaires and Billionaires, vs. the rest of 'US'. You know, Peons. (Pee-Ons?, as in trickle-down??)

Reports are becoming more detailed as access is increased. Apparently the leader suppressed all with an iron fist. Under the guise of compassion, and wearing a mask of benefactor, the countries leader instead took every opportunity to repress individual liberties of the citizens. His regime manipulated every aspect of the people’s lives, with the leader’s administrators as totalitarian judges, operating with unquestionable power, completely unchecked by the populous. Ignoring on many occasions the rule of law, the leader and his direct reports suppressed any opposition by blatant hypocrisy, going so far as to labeling their detractors as terrorists. The corruption through favors and pressures bordering on blackmail are still coming to light. With a well developed system of propaganda, and an unprecedented control over the media, the leadership was able to only release information to the populous it benefited from, effectively preventing any negative press, and rewarding those peddling the false information in ways yet to be discovered. The result spanned from fear of speaking out against the obvious, to a love and devotion usually reserved for a deity. It was thru its control of information, as well as unbridled power of the leaders appointed henchmen, that the regime was able to retain power for so long, manipulate so many, and destroy so effectively. In spite of all of this effort, the citizenry is finally making inroads into restoring liberty. There have been some territory gains in the past, and their spirit and sense of national pride seems to continue to overcome the attacks by the regime.

Oh, and there is unrest in Libya as well.

Nicely copied and pasted Navy

Me: "Maxine dearest, kiss my royal American a$$."

I wonder if after President Obama wins his second term next year, if the FR mushrooms will shrivel up & blow away like dust in the wind...

Old Navel Debris,

saying her lies and mis-speech is a result of a busy campaign schedule. With these guys it is always somebody else’s fault –

You are more upset about Bachmann's Elvis flub than Obama's economic stimulus flub .... 9%+ unemployment year after year?

Her flub ruin lives?

Pathetic.

Maybe she needs to blame tsunamis, and Arab Springs, ATM kiosks and everyone else under the sunmore for her flubs, huh?

Funny but sad:

Why are the TP/GOP not asking what we can do with the $2 Billion dollars per week we are spending in Afghan. How about the $40-50 Billion in tax breaksand incentives to Big Oil, etc. How about the $150 Billion per year in Income tax, capital gains/dividends and estate taxes (collectively) that the 2% are getting that they do not need, does not create jobs nor stimulate the economy.

False outrage indeed - I call it being a hypocrite.

Hey TP/GOP what do you think we could use that money above for? How many jobs could we create if we just used a porton of it????

It's not the monsters under your bed that scare you at night - It's the thought of waking up in a world in which the Republicans got even crazier.

The ridiculous "leading from behind" nonsense spewing from Romney et al. shines a blinding light on the fact that these guys don't have a clue about how the military works. There's not a G.I. reading this who believes Generals are leading troops on the front line.

The probable downfall of Khaddafi is almost completely attributable to the intervention of the United States. You can lead without having "Leader" tattooed on your forehead.

Bachmann tells us, “The president was wrong. All we have to know is the president deferred leadership in Libya to France. That's all we need to know.”? In Michelle's world, "That's all we need to know." Mitigating circumstances? A larger strategic goal? A simple humanitarian effort? Nope. France is leading and that's it. Everything. The whole enchilada. How ironic that this woman's claim to fame is her failed "light bulb" legislation, but her light bulb NEVER goes on.

Virtually every word coming from the Republican asylum treats the Libyan action as a failure. Pure insanity. Does anyone remember Wheelus Air Force Base? Located in Tripoli, Libya, the base was closed when Kaddafi took power. Perhaps a base in that locale just might have some value in today's world. It's not like that region is noted for its stability. It may or may not happen. My point is there may be a much larger goal than the narrow-minded, flip-flopping G.O.P. candidates understand.

Nation building? We didn't have to tell them to build a nation or how to build it. Libyans have shown they didn't like the Libya of the past. They want a new Libya. We can help and we don't have to kill them to do it. I'm going out on a limb here, but I don't think that approach has been too successful in the past.

One important caution. It appears that no American lives were lost. It appears that the deciding factor was air power. That may be true, but we have come to believe that air power is ALWAYS the answer ("Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," in the brilliant assessment of the flip-flopping Senator John McCain.) and it is not.

Rick Perry championed, and signed into law, legislation guaranteeing children of illegal immigrants in- state tuition in Texas. I know it does not fit your narrative, but it is a fact.

No Jo, It doesn't fit the narrative. Politicians are not caricatures and all have stood for or done some good things in their tenure. Yes No Jo even Obama has done a few good things :}

Perry's tution plan for undocumented youngsters is actually very similar to the tenents of the national Dream act. Perry also spoke against the Arizona immigration state law and said a system like that isn't what Texas should do and wouldn't work here. He has been fairly moderate in Texas regarding immigration issues so as to not alienate the Latino community. But that was all pre 2011 before his aspirations for National office.

Now unfortunately he has backtracked on these issues. During the state budget negotiations he even called the state legislature back for a special session not to discuss shoring budget shortfalls with revenues but to ensure that the topic of sanctuary cities was discussed. I understand there are times that politicians change their minds, see a different perspective and evolve their thinking but that happens few and far between. One thing that I can't abide is hypocrisy on a politician's part. From my perspective, Perry is hypocritical on issues.

Meanwhile, as Conservatives continue seeking to gin up nontroversies having nothing to do with the important business of the American people, I'd like to thank USN for bringing up the Tenther insanity. Regardless Perry's attempts to deny what he believes, Tentherism is rampant within the Conservative Movement.

There is an alternate universe where everything violates the Tenth Amendment—and much of Congress lives in it. Senator Tom Coburn believes that all federal education programs, from Pell Grants to Title I to student loans, violate the Constitution. [1] Senator Rand Paul thinks that the federal ban on whites-only lunch counters is forbidden.[2] Senator Mike Lee believes that child labor laws, federal disaster relief, food stamps, the Food and Drug Administration, Medicaid, income assistance for the poor, and even Medicare and Social Security violate the Constitution.[3] And, of course, half Congress thinks that health reform is unconstitutional.

Surely it cannot be the case that nearly 100 years worth of major legislation violates the Constitution?

And yet, there is a growing movement on the American right that believes just that.

http://yalelawandpolicy.org/29-2/worse-than-lochner

When I comment on Conservatives wanting to repeal the 20th Century it is that to which I refer.

Yes! Obam/Biden 2012 thanks to the President Libya has a new constitution! ''

''But despite the Lockean tenor of much of the constitution, the inescapable clause lies right in Part 1, Article 1: “Islam is the Religion of the State, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).” Under this constitution, in other words, Islam is law. That makes other phrases such as “there shall be no crime or penalty except by virtue of the law” and “Judges shall be independent, subject to no other authority but law and conscience” a bit more ominous.heritage.org" Hey wait a minute SHARIA LAW? ISLAMIC STATE?

Old Navy's thinkprogress cut in paste today tauts Obama's payroll tax cut.

A SSI tax cut when it is going broke and is one of the defining problems of our financial crisis? A temporary cut only through January that accomplishes absolutely nothing other than to play political games in an election year?

I thought Obama was going to come up with something new. What is new about Obama playing political games with measures that have no chance of working and have failed in the past?

It's funny that last last week, Navy's thinkprogress cut-in-paste was riping the Bush tax cuts that didn't work. Of course they took Bush's 2001 temporary cuts and implied they were the 2003 income tax cuts and used data from 2004.

The 2001 temporary cuts didn't work - temporary cuts never do, especially with uncertainity in the air. The 2003 cuts did work resulting in revenue of 18.5% in 2007.

Funny how thinkprogress twisted it and used 2004 data.

So they now tout what they proved didn't work and dare the repubs to not go along.

Libbies like Old Navy are so easy to tool.

Joe from Albany,

You disgusting right wing slob. Where are your remarks about the loopholes for millionaires and billionaires that pay only 17% average taxes compared to the president spending $ on a vacation? Bush has already spent 3 times the number of days on vacation as Obama, but you are blind and have and probably always will be blind due to TV burnout from too much digestion of FOX News. The right has one goal and we all know what that is~ Too bad they have such a bunch of clowns running for office!

John B, Des Moines, IA

When I comment on Conservatives wanting to repeal the 20th Century it is that to which I refer.

Don't forget the Biblical era; John

Libya has a new constitution because of Obama and Biden? How much mis-information can you post!

Joe in Albany

Things an unemployed breadwinner for a family of four could do with the $50,000 per week Barry is spending on his vacation rental:

Just think how many more of those things that family of four could do with the 12 million dollars that Mitt Romney is sinking into the new enormous palace he's building for himself because his old palace was no longer enormous enough to suit his "needs."

Face it, Joe, you don't give a damn about poor families. To you, they're deadbeats and leeches on society because they don't pay any federal taxes and who ought to be taxed in order to pay for the tax cuts the GOP wants to give to "job creators" (a.k.a. wealthy parasites).

John B:

How very circumspect of you to refer to "tentherism" as "insanity". I am going to cast off the chains of political correctness and civility in favor of facts. The "Tenthers" are simply stupid.

The Tenth Amendment is part of the United States Constitution. That Constitution allows for further amendments. Clearly, the framers understood that they did not create a perfect document, but rather believed they had created a framework that would require change over time.

Here is a link that explains the amendment process. It is designed for 4th to 7th grade kids. I hope that's not an overreach for you Tenthers and Tea Partiers. http://www.usconstitution.net/constkids4.html

Incidentally, Joe, my view is this: President Obama can spend his "earned" personal money however he chooses and so can Mitt Romney. If you want to complain about one, you must complain about the other as well--otherwise, Joe Albany, disingenuous drivel comes to mind.

__________________________________________________________

Jody, does your rule apply to the FR lefty liberals like Navy and Nasty who were complaining about Romney's house yesterday? Since they didn't also complain about Barry's $50K vacation rental, you must have considered their posts "disingenuous drivel". Hmmmmm.... I guess I missed your post to them yesterday stating your opinion above.

Or do you give them a free pass because they are "on your side"??

LMAO!!!!

I hear that Khadafy when found, will face prosecution by the International Criminal Court who has issued
an arrest warrant for crimes against humanity. I also hear that we are on the way to finding proof that Khadafy and his regime sponsored terrorism….So, I'm guessing here, but I saw images of John McCain and Lindsey Graham meeting with Khadafy in Libya after Bush took him OFF the terrorist list (I wonder if Oil was involved). McCain even tweeted "Late evening with Col. Qadhafi at his "ranch" in Libya – interesting meeting with an interesting man." I wonder, will Palin run around telling everyone that McCain and Graham pal around with Terrorists?

So what do these so-called "Americans" McCain and Graham do, they commended many countries for bringing about "the end of the Khadafy regime" however the United States isn't one of them…. Spoken Like "TRUE AMERICANS"! you just have to beam with Pride at these two so-called Americans!!! And people wonder why the New GOP is making everyday Americans "Sick to their stomachs". Can't give Obama credit for killing OBL... can't give Obama credit for Libya...can't give Obama credit for anything!!! Politics before America!!!

Not surprising that the Republicans would backtrack on Libya… they were wrong on Libya, they were wrong on Iraq and Afghanistan, they are wrong on the economy, they are wrong on taxes after all raise taxes on middle class and don't tax the upper 2% - makes sense?, they were wrong on health care, they were wrong on the debt…. Basically…They're
WRONG for AMERICA…..

Just think how many more of those things that family of four could do with the 12 million dollars that Mitt Romney is sinking into the new enormous palace he's building for himself because his old palace was no longer enormous enough to suit his "needs."

_______________________________________________

Houston: FYI, Jody, Iowa considers your post "disingenuous drivel" since you didn't also criticize Barry for spending $50K per week on his vacation rental (see post #1.24).

LMAO@U!!!!

Yup, the greedy poor people don't pay income taxes.... but, but ......

.....Neither GE, EXXON, SHELL and any other mega corp pay taxes and get a hell of a rebate/incentive...........

Now, that's GREED!

Bill -- you said

"Private sector capital and jobs will go to where taxes and spending and regulatory policy are most conducive to growth....the vast majority [of jobs] were equal to or above the national average for weekly wages. These jobs are not low-paying jobs." I believe there is a net negative in private sector job creation in Texas at this point.

Perry is advocating for "repatriating" profits back without any tax. Outrageous! Wrong on every level.

"Citizens United" is the problem. Griping about only labor forming a "PAC" simply negates your reasoning.

You never answered me on your "Supply Side" theory when it came to the product Wall Street produced, (packaged mortgages) investors clamored for (demand) , and the collapse that followed (socialized loss)...most egregious example of a supply side failure.

When the monsters under your bed scare you, cut the legs off of your bed.

CBS is out with the debt story

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20095704-503544.html

So, Obama has added more to the debt in 2 and a half years than Bush did in eight. At this rate, he would double, in four years, what Bush added in eight.

Obama blames Bush. Obama blames the recession he has done nothing to ameliorate- has, in fact, exacerbated. Obama blames businesses for not hiring.

America, though, blames Obama for his failures and spendthrift ways. He's aboutnto join a lot of other democrats who are currently unemployed, thanks to his policies.

The Mrs. Should start packing. Obama shelved in 2012.

"National debt when Obama took the oath of office: $10.6 Trillion dollars

National debt today: $14.6 Trillion dollars

It took Obama 945 days to spend $4 Trillion dollars we don't have.

I know Libbies, George Bush spent more. $4.9 Trillion, but over two terms and in 2,648 days. Obama will have that beat by the end of his third year."

..........

$10.6 divided by 8 years = $1.325/year (and that's not counting the surplus Bush inherited from Clinton)

$4 Trillion divided by 2.75 years (Obama's time in office) = $1.45/year.

That includes bailing out the banks, fighting the biggest financial disaster since the Great Depression, fighting 2 wars he inherited, and extending Bush's tax cuts (aprox. half the deficit)... oh yeah, Obama's a real reckless spend alright! And BTW, over 2/3's of that debt didn't happen on the "libbies'" watch.... so where were the "outraged conservatives" then?!

You know what is more comedic than posting "xx" in box??? It is that at this time there are at least six people that have clicked on the approval arrow. WTF LOL!!!!!!!!

Now one of the extremist right-wing leaders is clamoring for armed revolt against the "dictator" President Obama.

http://smd12364.newsvine.com/_news/2011/08/23/7447794-gheen-violence-may-be-needed-to-stop-obamas-war-on-white-america

William Gheen of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC joined Janet Mefferd today to make the case that President Obama is now a dictator who plans to create a police state and use undocumented immigrants to wage war on “White America.”

This is absolutely loony. Gheen's remarks subsequently show he is a paranoid, racist, conspiracy theory nutcase.

So watch for it on Faux News, and hear the live interview with Rush Limbaugh!

And PS - Check out American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us - where the authors present data showing the Tea Party is substantially white male, established conservative Republican activists (not the "neophytes" of myth), fundamentalist Christians, and racist.

That includes bailing out the banks, fighting the biggest financial disaster since the Great Depression, fighting 2 wars he inherited, and extending Bush's tax cuts (aprox. half the deficit)... oh yeah, Obama's a real reckless spend alright! And BTW, over 2/3's of that debt didn't happen on the "libbies'" watch.... so where were the "outraged conservatives" then?!

So let me get this straight. TARP has basically been paid back with interest, AIG and GM the biggest recipients who have loans outstanding. (100B - 150B). Obama inherits 2 wars. He escalates one of them with 30,000 more troops. He and a Democratic congress spend 850B on a stimulus. He, and Democratic congress, then extend the Bush tax cuts.

But he is not responsible?

Please confirm this is the argument you are trying to make because I really think you should contact a mental health professional.

no joe, no bo, nj

Dbo shows us all, once again, that liberals never passed third grade arithmetic.

There are NOT more of "you" than of "us".

Liberals represent about 20% of the electorate. Conservatives about 40%.

Twenty is half of forty. Forty is greater than the 35% who call themselves "moderate",

No wonder the economy is a mess.

Well if there's so many of you braniacs out there NJBJ...why haven't you created a few million jobs and solved everything that's wrong in our country? Hummm??? I mean if you guys are the "be all, end all" a few democrats in your way shouldn't stop you from FIXING EVERYTHING.

Mateo - Well said! Maybe JAS1 can comprehend this and report back out to Rush. He will have to come up with some new math!

I'm seeding this to the 'Vine - but if any of you on whatever side of the fence want to seriously discuss Libya, read this analysis:

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/22/top-ten-myths-about-the-libya-war/?hpt=hp_t1

So, No joe, No bo, NJ and your buddy Mateo666

I'm guessing here but you think that Bush, who lied about the reasons for going to war against Iraq wouldn't lie about his debt? Obama, upon entering office said that he was putting the debt for the wars back on the books...and the recession that was well underway when Obama took office was his fault too right?

We know the left has hit a nerve when the right is so unanimous in their attempts to discredit something. The right cannot counter what ThinkProgress publishes, so they have to try to discredit it.

Problem is, when your articles are backed with cites, video, charts, it is pretty solid reporting.

Perhaps the right is too used to Fox, where innuendo, selective video editing, and quotes out of context are the norm.

I'm guessing here but you think that Bush, who lied about the reasons for going to war against Iraq wouldn't lie about his debt? Obama, upon entering office said that he was putting the debt for the wars back on the books...and the recession that was well underway when Obama took office was his fault too right?

OK, and I'm no supporter of Bush but your argument is that Bush cooked the books and his debt was much higher? Any evidence to support this claim?

All Obama has done in the case of war funding is include them in the normal defense appropriations instead of what Bush did which was fund them through Supplemental Appropriations. In either case the money has to come from somewhere and in the main was borrowed.

My point has always been we have had a fiscal disaster, Bush, followed by another fiscal disaster Obama. 11 years and counting.

I don't think either are lying about the size of the national debt.

I keep seeing the same worn out statements about how Obama has increased the deficit by x Trillion dollars and grown the size of government. There was a great editorial in Saturday's paper that pointed out that the growth of new government employees was overwhelmingly people in the military and homeland security. Yes, he did significantly increase the number of border patrol people in Arizona and New Mexico. I guess that was a bad thing, right? It also pointed out that the percentage of government workers to GDP was only a percentage or so different than under Reagan, during that smaller recession we went through.

The bulk of the increase in dollars can mostly be accounted for in the pay, support, and benefits of those previously mentioned new hires, along with increases to the Federal payments to states for Unemployment Insurance benefits, medicare, and increased health care costs (Note: these health care costs had nothing to do with the HCA, which hasn't taken effect yet other than not being able to deny coverage for preexisting conditions and including students up to age 26). And military costs like using drones (putting less American lives at risk) does cost a lot (using people as cannon fodder woul

I keep seeing the same worn out statements about how Obama has increased the deficit by x Trillion dollars and grown the size of government. There was a great editorial in Saturday's paper that pointed out that the growth of new government employees was overwhelmingly people in the military and homeland security. Yes, he did significantly increase the number of border patrol people in Arizona and New Mexico. I guess that was a bad thing, right? It also pointed out that the percentage of government workers to GDP was only a percentage or so different than under Reagan, during that smaller recession we went through.

The bulk of the increase in dollars can mostly be accounted for in the pay, support, and benefits of those previously mentioned new hires, along with increases to the Federal payments to states for Unemployment Insurance benefits, medicare, and increased health care costs (Note: these health care costs had nothing to do with the HCA, which hasn't taken effect yet other than not being able to deny coverage for preexisting conditions and including students up to age 26). And military costs like using drones (putting less American lives at risk) does cost a lot (using people as cannon fodder woul

Alan you keep telling the same lies over and over, you know the only reason the bush tax cuts got extended is because the republicans were holding unemployment for the poor hostage. No tax cuts, no unemployment. Those republicans really care for the American people.

After bush left Afghanistan for his trumped up war for oil in Iraq. The republicans did not want to cut and run in Afghanistan so the only choice was to try with an escalation and leave if it doesn't work.

Republicans never wanted to leave Iraq and last I heard all the troops should be out by November.

The stimulus did work. But was not large enough and half was tax cuts.

You seem to be one that believes that the debt problems all started Jan 2008. President Obama inherited a perfect economy and the republicans weren't filibustering everything they could.

The only people who need mental help are those who think that destroying America for the rich is a smart thing to do.

OBAMA 2012 -- if you love America and hope to retire one day

Joe, Albany, in case you didn't notice, I wasn't on First Thoughts yesterday nor on FR until quite late in the day and even then briefly. Even you must recognize that tearing down a 3,000 sq. ft. home on property worth $12 million to build an even bigger one is worth a poke or two with a stick! Your comment, however, was focused on a family of four and what the $50,000 rental fee could do for them without a word about the audaciousness of Mitt's demolition of a home on property worth $12 million and what that could do for a million and more families of four. It's the hypocrisy of your idea that provoked my response.

Outside of Huntsman, there isn’t a candidate in the field with substantial foreign-policy experience. Yes, when Obama entered office, he didn’t have a resume that would confuse him with Dwight Eisenhower or even George H.W. Bush. But he did serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a credential the current GOP crop lacks.

So what you are saying Mark Murry, is that it's an equal credential. If Obama had little to no foreign policy experience, then it's perfectly acceptable to you and the other liberals that any republican with the same amount would be OK... correct? After all you voted for Obama with none.. meaning that it was a non-issue at that time. It should still be a non-issue now. Or has the lack of foreign policy experience on Obama's part taught you something different in the last couple of years? I'm just curious if this only political posturing or if lack of foreign policy experience is now deemed a no-starter in your mind.

It would be nice if you did respond to this... To clarify your position in this matter.

mateo: That includes bailing out the banks, fighting the biggest financial disaster since the Great Depression, fighting 2 wars he inherited, and extending Bush's tax cuts (aprox. half the deficit)... oh yeah, Obama's a real reckless spend alright! And BTW, over 2/3's of that debt didn't happen on the "libbies'" watch.... so where were the "outraged conservatives" then?!

That's quite a list of excuses.

So, when Obama said the following, he didn't mean it?

“As our interest payments rise, our obligations come due, confidence in our economy erodes and our children and our grandchildren are unable to pursue their dreams because they’re saddled with our debts,” he said. “That’s why today, I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office.”

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aw_uUPSA6xYI

BrianB -- It would be nice to hear all candidates foreign policy plans. : )

Alan you keep telling the same lies over and over, you know the only reason the bush tax cuts got extended is because the republicans were holding unemployment for the poor hostage. No tax cuts, no unemployment. Those republicans really care for the American people.

So, in a lame-duck session with a large majority in the house and 59 votes in the Senate the President couldn't make the case for allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse? He couldn't put the Republicans on the spot that millions would lose their unemployment benefits?

Can this guy make an political argument? He and his supporters are grasping at straws. He is a political dunce and you are too blind to see it. Or, why don't you admit this truth to yourself. He saw the tax rates and the unemployment benefits as another shot at economic stimulus, more deficit spending, to aid his re-election.

You have two choices, he is politically naive, or he knew exactly what he was doing and the consequences of his actions.

To put it simply. The tax rates extension were passed by Congress in 2010 and signed into law by President Obama. At that point they became his tax rates and his deficit spending, just like the unemployment benefits. They were no longer the Bush tax rates.

Joe, Albany, in case you didn't notice, I wasn't on First Thoughts yesterday nor on FR until quite late in the day and even then briefly. Even you must recognize that tearing down a 3,000 sq. ft. home on property worth $12 million to build an even bigger one is worth a poke or two with a stick!

Is this not what those in left are advocating that the rich start spending their wealth to stimulate the economy? How many construction workers will be employed by Mitt's extension? Will there be a multiplier that will benefit other local businesses, material suppliers, coffee shops etc?

Or would you prefer that Mitt hands over the cash to build a new government building?

Don't carry it all.... we will. Give them time. There's many debates to come... lots of advertising... lots of the same political crap that we've grown used to over the years. The same old bitter fighting will be prevelant... and if none of this sickens you... you can claim exceptional status. Personally I'm very tired of it all. Each election cycle is the same.... a battle, then a war... A victor will emerge and 1/2 half of the country will be disappointed.

@AF

I didn't see this before and you obviously didn't read my previous post.

You seem to be one that believes that the debt problems all started Jan 2008. President Obama inherited a perfect economy and the republicans weren't filibustering everything they could.

My point has always been we have had a fiscal disaster, Bush, followed by another fiscal disaster Obama. 11 years and counting.

Alan -- It was a good call during recessionary times. He should increase taxes on capital gains only, cleanly. There is room there for a reasonable argument there in my opinion. Most people understand that a good portion of stimulus went to tax breaks so your point is taken that it added to deficits just as the Bush tax breaks did. Are you for letting them all expire and simply just cleaning up the entire mess with total tax reform?

Beverly in Chicago

Bill, Fairfax VA

Maxine Waters: "The Tea Party can go straight to hell."

Me: "Maxine dearest, kiss my royal American a$$."

Bill,

The first post cut off. This one is just for you. Your ass stinks of tea bag horse s#@^!.

RECAP: This is No JOKE!!! Maxine put it nicely. You're all devils living in a hell state of mind.

WOW! Bev's post above pretty much sums it up at this site doesn't it? Haters everywhere... wishing ill will on their fellow man. Angry... Monsters. I will pray for you.

mateo666 -
Congrats on the most dishonest post of the day so far. You blame Bush for the full $10.6 Trillion dollar debt, then reference Clinton's surplus, as if that completely erased the national debt or something.

Bush inherited a $5.727 Trillion dollar national debt. This amount is after you include the $86.2 billion surplus Clinton ended his Presidency with. Bush then increased it to $10.6 trillion over 8 years.
President Obama inherited that $10.6 trillion national debt and has increased it to $14.6 trillion in 2 1/2 years.

And the most freightning part of your post?
When you compiled ALL of the debt accumulated by ALL previous Presidents into an 8 year window and compared it to Obama's current spending trajectory, Obama is still outpacing them. Talk about scary! Thanks for pointing that out mateo666, even I didn't realize Obama was that bad.

$10.6 divided by 8 years = $1.325/year (and that's not counting the surplus Bush inherited from Clinton)
$4 Trillion divided by 2.75 years (Obama's time in office) = $1.45/year.

So for FACTUAL purposes, let's look at the point you were trying to make with accurate numbers.
Bush added $4.773 Trillion dollars in 8 years.
Obama has added $4.1 Trillion in 2 1/2 years.
Bush - 4.873/8 = $609.1 Billion/Yr
Obama - 4.0/2.5 = $1.60 Trillion/Yr (Almost 3 times the spending pace of Bush)

oh yeah, Obama's a real reckless spend alright!

Indeed!

Bush spent more than any President before him, and by a lot. He was certainly not fiscally responsible and hurt our nation with a crushing debt obligation.
However, as I pointed out above, Obama is on pace to triple Bush's spending. If you don't think that's reckless, than what would be? Throwing stones at Bush in a glass house isn't going to make this problem go away.

BrianB -- I try to be proactive not reactive...not easy but necessary. No "fan" here of wading through BS to get to substance but I keep slogging along. You are correct not everyone will be happy... but I believe in possibilities! Finding things what we all can agree on will help break the partisanship and weed out the defeatists. I'm trying! Country first not politics. Take care and don't be discouraged.

SickOfTheBickering

WOW! Bev's post above pretty much sums it up at this site doesn't it? Haters everywhere... wishing ill will on their fellow man. Angry... Monsters. I will pray for you.

SickOfTheBickering

From the posts you Tea-Nuts make don't dare pray for me. All of the Tea-nut rants sound more like Devil worshipers

a. bone in the President's nose

b. Messiah remarks

c. bury obamcare with Kennedy

d. pray to kill his family

Get thee picture?

Are you for letting them all expire and simply just cleaning up the entire mess with total tax reform?

If we let them simply expire then a lot of low income workers will be paying taxes again. I don't think a lot of people on this board understand how progressive the Bush rates actually were.

I am for complete reform although it will be a massive political task as the lobbyists will be out in force. However, and I am a home owner with a mortgage, but I would get rid of the mortgage deduction benefit. It favors the wealthy the most and why do home owners get a deduction that renters do not? However, can you imagine the outcry because of the current state of real estate.

I do think the President is missing a huge political opportunity here as removing deductions and lowering rates (slightly) should increase revenues while both sides can argue that they lowered tax rates (applies to both personal and business taxes). I am pro market, different from pro business, so I would try and remove all "subsidies" that businesses have managed to insert into the tax code.

At then end of the day I want the country to live within its means and that does mean that entitlements have to be reformed because of the baby boomer demographics, not a left or right issue. This is where I lose it with the left because they claim that entitlements do not have to be reformed but they won't budget for how much taxes will have to be to pay for them. If they put that out there then the country may vote for it, I don't know.

I just want the books to be balanced.

Alan -- Do I want the very poor to contribute to our economy without being taxed? Yes, because I believe this is a positive form of giving a helping hand up and out. Start the tax code at a level that doesn't punish the low-wage earner. Three clean rates (look at the actual effective rate most pay to figure an average), begin it so it is an incentive to move up not remain poor. Cut the strings altogether as it gives the legislators too much power over our lives. No more social engineering by using taxes to control what they think we should do. Can they or do they even have the ability to look at Country first and not lobbyists......hell no at this point. Get rid of them too and let them petition the government the same way we have to, through a letter. At least there will be a record of their outrageous demands. So we agree on much Alan.

Looks like the vacay was as bad an idea as those on the right predicted

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

38% approval in Gallup- a new low, just a week after the other new low.

It's amazing how much junk you accumulate in a short time- I'm thinking the wife should start sorting now, you know, get ruthless with the discards.

The electorate is sure planning to- in just over a year.

When "the speech" was announced, despite the lack of a plan, (I guess he works better under a deadline), I predicted, based on statements from Obama advisors, that we would all be getting lottery tickets as a way of boosting the economy.

Well, I might have been wrong. Obama is looking for advice from Warren Buffet in a desperate attempt to find something, anything, to do.

So, folks, given Buffet's area of expertise, it looks like what we'll actually be getting will be stock tips.

Start freeing up some cash.

JoAnnaSmith1, what an idiot you are!!!

Obama inherited a 1.3 billion deficit a year.

When Obama came in the budget was 3.2 trillion, right now its 3.8 trillion. Thats right!!!!

THATS YOUR SPENDING RIGHT THERE!!! WHY DO YOU PEOPLE WANT TO MIX IN DEFICITS WITH Obama SPENDING. i know it makes Obama look like a big spender!!!

Don't look at the debt, especially with a 1.3 trillion deficit. 600 billion added to the budget thats how much Obama has spent a year. And the 3.8 its starting to come down right now i got a nice graph for you if you want.

Federal government spending has risen under President Obama, mostly because of the $800 billion stimulus designed to offset the massive recession. But the increase in federal spending under Obama is dwarfed by the colossal increase under President Bush.

from 2000 to 2008, under President Bush, Federal spending rose by $1.3 trillion, from $1.9 trillion a year to $3.2 trillion a year.

From 2009 to 2011, meanwhile, under President Obama, federal spending has risen by $600 billion, from $3.2 trillion a year to $3.8 trillion a year. It has also now begun to decline.

In other words, federal government spending under President Bush increased 2X as much as it has under President Obama.

From the numbers above 1.2 trillion dollars is what Obama has added to the debt. Most economist even ones that served under Bush, have stated that the Obama stimulus bill helped us recover faster from the rescission.

I have a link for you if you want to check the numbers for yourself?

Speaking at a retreat for House Republicans in Baltimore on Jan. 29, 2010, Obama was particularly critical of a question from Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas. Hensarling asked Obama, "You are soon to submit a new budget, Mr. President. Will that new budget, like your old budget, triple the national debt and continue to take us down the path of increasing the cost of government to almost 25 percent of our economy?"

"The fact of the matter is," Obama replied, "is that when we came into office, the deficit was $1.3 trillion -- $1.3 trillion. So when you say that suddenly I've got a monthly deficit that's higher than the annual deficit left by Republicans, that's factually just not true, and you know it's not true. And what is true is that we came in already with a $1.3 trillion deficit before I had passed any law. What is true is, we came in with $8 trillion worth of debt over the next decade."

Stop spreading lies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It isn't so much the back peddling, but the current GOP field has shown a lack of good judgement.

In watching an interview of Huntsman, he seems a better choice than the others. But he is still stuck on the rich "job creators" BS and how they are burdened with taxes and regulations = the rest of the nation is worthless. It is NOT the job creators who drive our economy. It is the rest of the nation who are the consumers and engine of our economy.

And just like Perry and others who criticize "Obamacare," we must ask Huntsman to tell us his solution. It's not enough to just say "no." We have a health care crisis, which is a drag on the economy. The GOP/TP just ignore it as if there isn't a problem with health care in this country. Claiming climate change is a hoax is bad enough, but to act as if we don't need viable solutions for the crap load of problems in our nation is irresponsible and just craziness.

Back to the topic of Libya... The amount spent over six months for the Libyan revolution has been equal to only ONE day's expenditures in Iraq. One friggin' day! I don't want to hear another word from the @#$%&! GOP/TP candidates about the deficit. Uh, no. Zip it.

You know how when your married you argue, but not in front of the kids, you can be mad as hell at each other but you put on a happy face and do what is right for your kids. Well it is about time Repubs and Dems put on a happy face and do what needs to be done for our kids. Shame on us if we can't do better than this for the young people of the nation who depend on us, we owe them more than this.

no joe, no bo, nj, go to fox news and they have a 42% approval rating for Obama...

jajajaja! what happened??? how can fox have higher approval ratings than yours?

Because republicans are warming up to Obama!

Forrest, a sweetie and comedian....I think I like you. ; )

Still not a word about that lunatic criminal Maxine Waters written by any of the hacks at First Read.

Anything about her at Thinkprogress yet Navy? (I still think it's funny that he cut and pastes from a democratic campaign blog like it has any truth in it).

mateo666

"National debt when Obama took the oath of office: $10.6 Trillion dollars

National debt today: $14.6 Trillion dollars

It took Obama 945 days to spend $4 Trillion dollars we don't have.

I know Libbies, George Bush spent more. $4.9 Trillion, but over two terms and in 2,648 days. Obama will have that beat by the end of his third year."

..........

$10.6 divided by 8 years = $1.325/year (and that's not counting the surplus Bush inherited from Clinton)

Matteo thank you for supporting the argument that liberals aren't very good at math or understanding. Go back and read the post you commented on...the TOTAL national debt when Bush left office was $10.6 trillion....When he took office it was $5.7 trillion. (and no...that isn't a $5.7 trillion Clinton surplus so don't go trying to add them together and divide by 8).

Bush (10.6 - 5.7)/8 = $612 billion per year.

Obama (14.6 - 10.6)/2.65 = $1.5 trillion per year.

Obama is spending 2.5 times the rate Bush did.

ITripleDogDareYou!

mateo666 -
Congrats on the most dishonest post of the day so far. You blame Bush for the full $10.6 Trillion dollar debt, then reference Clinton's surplus, as if that completely erased the national debt or something.

Bush inherited a $5.727 Trillion dollar national debt. This amount is after you include the $86.2 billion surplus Clinton ended his Presidency with. Bush then increased it to $10.6 trillion over 8 years.
President Obama inherited that $10.6 trillion national debt and has increased it to $14.6 trillion in 2 1/2 years.

And the most freightning part of your post?
When you compiled ALL of the debt accumulated by ALL previous Presidents into an 8 year window and compared it to Obama's current spending trajectory, Obama is still outpacing them. Talk about scary! Thanks for pointing that out mateo666, even I didn't realize Obama was that bad.

$10.6 divided by 8 years = $1.325/year (and that's not counting the surplus Bush inherited from Clinton)
$4 Trillion divided by 2.75 years (Obama's time in office) = $1.45/year.

So for FACTUAL purposes, let's look at the point you were trying to make with accurate numbers.
Bush added $4.773 Trillion dollars in 8 years.
Obama has added $4.1 Trillion in 2 1/2 years.
Bush - 4.873/8 = $609.1 Billion/Yr
Obama - 4.0/2.5 = $1.60 Trillion/Yr (Almost 3 times the spending pace of Bush)

oh yeah, Obama's a real reckless spend alright!

Indeed!

Bush spent more than any President before him, and by a lot. He was certainly not fiscally responsible and hurt our nation with a crushing debt obligation.
However, as I pointed out above, Obama is on pace to triple Bush's spending. If you don't think that's reckless, than what would be? Throwing stones at Bush in a glass house isn't going to make this problem go away.

Another #@#$%!!! mixing in the deficit Bush left with Obama spending.

BUSH LEFT 3.2 TRILLION BUDGET (THAT'S THE SPENDING) OBAMA AFTER 2.5 YEARS 3.8 (THATS OBAMA SPENDING) DO THE MATH !!!!

BUDGET STARTING TO COME DOWN UNDER OBAMA.

"However, as I pointed out above, Obama is on pace to triple Bush's spending"

OMG!!!! U PEOPLE ARE SO MISINFORMED.....

I will state part of my foreign policy: no more free food, sorry, but it will be a barrel of oil for a bushel of corn, it will be one barrel of oil for a bushel of soybeans, if you don't like that deal then we will make ethanol out of our corn and biodiesel out of our soybeans and you guys can eat your oil. Call us if you get hungry and we will talk again. How can we still be fighting in countries that don't have an air force or a navy and would starve to death in a month if we did not feed them?

Joe-755363, OMG!!! Another idiot!!!

Go and read my last 2 posts and get informed!!!

no joe, no bo, nj

Looks like the vacay was as bad an idea as those on the right predicted

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

38% approval in Gallup- a new low, just a week after the other new low.

Let's see....12.4% of the workforce is union, 4% are illegal aliens, 4% are illiterate, 7% are on foodstamps....so that accounts for 27% of those that would approve of Obama no matter what.

so really...it's about an 11% approval rate.

Republicans backtrack from criticism

BAGGERS continue with brains turned off

XD

Tea Baggers, gotta laugh at that reptilian brain at work. They are pretending to dislike the teachings of Mao, all while following their leaders as if they were Mao himself.

Thinking Republicans moving on now. Along with the thinking Democrats. Good luck with the blood pressure!

Joe-755363, wow you are so smart!!!

Did you figure it out all by yourself?

You get the "IDIOT AWARD" of the day!!!

Breaking News:

5.9 magnitude earthquake rocks DC & entire east coast...

FR crew - drop by & let us know all is okay when you get a chance will ya?

This would be the worst time for an eartquake in DC.

All the pols are on vacation and they would all probably survive.

x

Navy wrote: Why are the TP/GOP not asking what we can do with the $2 Billion dollars per week we are spending in Afghan. How about the $40-50 Billion in tax breaks and incentives to Big Oil, etc. How about the $150 Billion per year in Income tax, capital gains/dividends and estate taxes (collectively) that the 2% are getting that they do not need, does not create jobs nor stimulate the economy.

Even more obvious, by increasing the cap on FICA with-holdings for Social Security by a small increment, Social Security would become solvent immediately. It’s such a no-brainer, but alas we now have the Grand Obstructionist Party to contend with.

David Walker wrote: Bachmann tells us, “The president was wrong. All we have to know is the president deferred leadership in Libya to France. That's all we need to know.”? In Michelle's world, "That's all we need to know." Mitigating circumstances? A larger strategic goal? A simple humanitarian effort? Nope. France is leading and that's it. Everything. The whole enchilada. How ironic that this woman's claim to fame is her failed "light bulb" legislation, but her light bulb NEVER goes on.

Ah, good old Freedom Fries and conservative’s irrational hatred for France. But you make a good point about Bachmann's irrational thought and how it is only fair to say – “Michele Bachmann was wrong. All we have to know is that every single piece of legislation she has sponsored has failed. That’s all we need to know.”

Did you know Bachmann is saying she worked for the IRS so she could learn how to beat them? Even the friendly audience didn't seem to buy it--learning how to evade paying her own taxes maybe, but really! It's time for her to get out the white board and show how much the war in Iraq is costing us every day.

The Tenth Amendment is part of the United States Constitution. That Constitution allows for further amendments. Clearly, the framers understood that they did not create a perfect document, but rather believed they had created a framework that would require change over time.

Great insight David Walker. Whether you choose to call it insanity or stupidity it's especially clear in one of the beliefs of the Tenthers. Most of them believe the federal income tax is unconstitutional. You want twisted logic you'll find it in this one;

Tenthers believe the 16th Amendment to the Constitution is either unconstitutional because it isn't in the original document or somehow the Tenth Amendment supersedes it.

I can't think of a better example of how Conservatives don't exist in a rational world.

I would like to see the capital leveled just to see if the disaster relief they approve for themselves is better than the Joplin Mo. effort. But judging from the pay and benefits of the Congress I think we already know that instead of some stinky crappy FEMA trailers they would have rows of luxury tour buses and RV's. Every time one of these people suggest we lower the minimum wage, cut workers benefits, bust unions, cut benefits for the old and sick, just remember what they think they are personally worth for 30 weeks a year work.

Alex, I tried but it's kind of jumbled up with other peoples quotes and your responses. It's like you are arguing with yourself.

I see the chosen lie of Conservatives on FR today is to pretend Reagan and the Bushes aren't responsible for the majority of our national debt. If any of our Conservatives would like to dispute the facts below and on the link feel free.

Complete Proof of the $12 Trillion Republican Debt

Just below you can see the calculation and the documentation links for the Reagan-Bushes $12 Trillion ($12,049 Billion) national debt as of September 30, 2010. You can download this as an excel spreadsheet by clicking: Download as XLS.
Their debt has 4 parts, but the bulk of it is calculated from 4 inputs (yellow and tan) that you can check with the color coded links to the treasury at the bottom. This will verify the $3.4 Trillion Reagan-Bush debt and the $6.1 Trillion G.W. Bush debt. Together that's $9.5 Trillion. Now some of G.W. Bush's debt is really interest on the Reagan-Bush debt, so he is not as bad as he looks, and Reagan-Bush are lot worse because of all their interest. You can see that in the graph above.
Interest is calculated on the second sheet (tab at bottom). But you know that 17 years of compound interest on 3.4 Trillion is going to add a lot. So a $12 Trillion total is very believable, and if you want to spend 10 minutes you can check it easily.
And if you think Congress did it, you better have a look here. Under Reagan and Bush-I, Congress actually made the debt a tiny bit smaller than what both presidents asked for. And G.W. Bush passed his supply-side tax cuts with a Republican Congress. There is just no wiggle room. The Republicans did it.

http://zfacts.com/p/1170.html

Even more obvious, by increasing the cap on FICA with-holdings for Social Security by a small increment, Social Security would become solvent immediately. It’s such a no-brainer, but alas we now have the Grand Obstructionist Party to contend with.

But I thought SS was solvent through 2037 (At least that's what Navy and Job1 posted yesterday). If it's solvent, because of the 2.6T trust fund, why do you need to increase the cap? What problem are you trying to fix?

Or, and I just want to read it here, you are saying that currently, 2011, SS is insolvent?

wonder if after President Obama wins his second term next year, if the FR mushrooms will shrivel up & blow away like dust in the wind...

Not a chance. They hung around after 2008 didn't they? They'll have some reason to say that Obama cheated... You know the lame Black Panther story or how the dead in Chicago vote etc.

There is just no wiggle room. The Republicans did it.

Of course they did. Just as they forced the individual mandate into HCR and forced the President to extend the Bush tax rates and to accept cuts for raising the debt ceiling. Damn you evil geniuses.

BTW I think they stole some candy from a baby here in NJ.

Alan NJ and Mike whatever...

Here is the information that you requested... Both CNN and MSNBC had broadcast the first week after President Obama was sworn in that the new administration was ENDING the Bush Administration policy of keeping the costs for both wars OFF the books by use of Emergency Spending Measures. This meant a temporary misconception about "spending" that worked against President Obama, so adding these costs into the figures of the budget seemed like a huge "spending increase" instead of a simple reporting of the truth.

Also in that first couple of weeks of President Obama's Administration he implemented SPENDING CUTS from the Bush Administration's final Fiscal Year (Oct. 1, 2008 through Sept. 30, 2009) budget by $62 BILLION when he cancelled the Bush-ordered presidential helicopter fleet (also shown on MSNBC and CNN) from Boeing and Lockheed-Martin.

I'm sick of doing the work for a bunch of LAZY people who don't seem to get off their a$$es and research this information themselves as they sit back and believe the perpetuated lies rather than to believe the truth.... You call yourselve American's.... yet everything you do and say is in direct opposite of what is good for America as you would rather believe lies than facts!

You may want to check out these sites as well as the CBO and do some investigation on your own!

Hey ScotW430, how did Bush's use of Emergency Spending Measures hide the increase in the deficit or the debt? Come on Big Brain let's hear what Enron type accounting he used to hide the cost?

Do you think that the cost of two wars were somehow paid for by a slush fund? The money was just appropriated differently. Did they do for political reasons? Probably. Did they hide the cost somehow? No, it was still accounted for by the amount that had to be borrowed to fund the adventures.

So he cut 62B. Great..kudos to the President. Then he went and spent 860B and extended the Bush tax rates, another 800B roughly. Maybe I don't believe that we can spend our way out of the mess. If you do, you are entitled to your opinion but unlike Bush I won't question you patriotism, I'll just argue against your contention. Funny how the extremists on both the left and the right call the people who disagree with them un-American. How does it feel to be using the same argument as Bush supporters?

alex cali

Another #@#$%!!! mixing in the d -eficit Bush left with Obama spending.

BUSH LEFT 3.2 TRILLION BUDGET (THAT'S THE SPENDING) AFTER 2.5 YEARS 3.8 (THATS OBAMA SPENDING) DO THE MATH !!!!

First of all, just to keep the facts straight, Bush’s final budget for 2009 was $3.1 Trillion, not $3.2.

Secondly, you are going on the premise that Obama is obligated to spend all 3.1 Trillion of Bush’s final budget every year for eternity. That’s simply not true. For federal govt expenditures in fiscal year 2010, mandatory obligations included about $1.6 Trillion, or about 42% of Obama’s budget. This includes Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and interest payments. Defense was $689 Billion, or about 18% and discretionary/other was $1.5 Trillion or 39% of the overall budget. So Obama directly controls over 57% of the overall budget, how its allocated and whether that money is spent or not. I don’t dispute that some of the discretionary spending and the defense portion are necessary but they are not mandatory obligations that Obama has no control over. He can cut this spending if he wants to.

Thirdly, you argue that Obama is only adding $700 Billion to Bush’s final budget. Well, there in lies my biggest problem with Obama. He is adding $700 Billion directly to our national debt beyond what Bush added. Bush spent excessively and dug a deep hole for our nation. Obama’s response to Bush’s recklessness is to continue this trend at an even faster rate.

BUDGET STARTING TO COME DOWN UNDER

Bush’s final year budget (2009) of 3.1 Trillion and Obama’s current budget is $3.834 Trillion, how do you figure the budget is going down???

OMG!!!! U PEOPLE ARE SO MISINFORMED.....

My information is accurate. I noticed you couldn’t dispute my statistics.

Alan, NJ wrote: But I thought SS was solvent through 2037 (At least that's what Navy and Job1 posted yesterday). If it's solvent, because of the 2.6T trust fund, why do you need to increase the cap? What problem are you trying to fix?

We're trying to fix the problem with lack of Rule of Reason from conservatives (like YOU Alan), who confuse Social Security with the deficit, and think cuts is Social Security is a better way to pay our debt than other more obvious and less harmful solutions. Yes, there is already an IOU in the trust fund box, which needs to be paid back before idiots like Cantor try to increase the age for eligibility.

The truth is conservatives have been against the New Deal from day one, not because of fiscal reasons like solvency, but pure ideological stupidity. It is a shame how the Big Oil masters manipulate low-information voters so easily. Destroy eduction, and it would be all the easier. What a plan.

We're trying to fix the problem with lack of Rule of Reason from conservatives (like YOU Alan), who confuse Social Security with the deficit, and think cuts is Social Security is a better way to pay our debt than other more obvious and less harmful solutions. Yes, there is already an IOU in the trust fund box, which needs to be paid back before idiots like Cantor try to increase the age for eligibility.

From this post I assume you admit that SS is insolvent? Now you want to increase SS taxes to pay for it? Am I correct? If so, I do not deny that this would be a solution. The problem comes over the next few years as the Baby Boomers retire and the total amount of taxes will have to be increased further because of the ration of beneficiaries to taxpayers. It's not a left or right problem its a demographic problem that every western country is facing. If you add the needs of Medicare to this then the tax burden further increased. So we can

Devote more of the budget to pay Social Security benefits. However, to maintain current benefits, the federal budget will have to increase to 25% of GDP by 2045.

To fund this increased budget, taxes would have to increase, further slowing the economy.

Decrease the benefit amount paid to retirees. This is the most likely scenario. This would force able-bodied Boomers to continue working.

The truth is conservatives have been against the New Deal from day one, not because of fiscal reasons like solvency, but pure ideological stupidity. It is a shame how the Big Oil masters manipulate low-information voters so easily. Destroy eduction, and it would be all the easier. What a plan.

You realize that this gibberish and you should get your tin-foil hat checked?

Alan, everyone knows SS is not solvent forever. Like so many right-wingers, you merely refer to the "Handbook for Contrarian Arseholes" rather than any sincerity for a real conversation. You are sucking oxygen from the air. There are more productive things we can all do with our time. Ta Ta.

So, lets look at foriegn policy. When W. was President, he took a jet fighter to an aircraft carrier (I'm guessing that costs more than Obama's bus, I mean how many CEO's could he have given tax cuts too if he had just taken a commercial flight?) But at least W. single handedly took out Saddam Huessien in our low cost, 6-month cake walk in Iraq. W was a definate success in foriegn policy. Now we have this chump Obama....Seals managed to somehow catch Osama Bin Laden, who apparently ACTUALLY was involved in 9/11, despite Obama not taking an F-22 hop over to an aircraft carrier. And look at how he screws up Libya, winning in a battle in 1/10th with ~1/20th the cost of Iraq....that's not how you run a war Libbie! At least he is still giving tax breaks to help CEO's expand their Chinese manufactuing, that will help my small store in Texas to sell cheap crap to poor people. And if you are unemployed it is your own damn fault and you need to take care of yourself...that is just the Christian way and what Jesus would have done.

ITripleDogDareYou!, Another idiot response!!!!

We are coming out of a recession. If history taught us anything is that more spending was needed to get out faster. It takes years to balance a budget. You wanted our president to come in and start making cuts all over the budget? Thats really stupid!

"He can cut this spending if he wants to" he proposed a 3+ trillion cut to entitlements and teaparty terrorist said no!! Because they were trying to protect a 1 trillion raise in taxes over the next 10 years.

I see your way of thinking, Obama inherits a 1.3 billion deficit and after that moment if he doesn't cut 1.3 trillion out of the budget its hes fault? Thats a really dumb way of looking at the big picture.

What would you propose cutting at that moment he came in with 700,000 jobs being lost a month?

Just answer that question man?

George H W Bush left a $290 Billion Dollar deficit for President Clinton to clean up and during his 8 years as President, he managed to leave George W Bush with a
$236 Billion Dollar SURPLUS !!!
290 billion and 8 years to clean up. How in the F#$@ do you suppose Obama is going to do it in 3 years? especially 1.3 trillion deficit? OMG!!! Idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bush inherited a surplus and what did he do?

Yours weren't statics, they are wrong and you know it. Learn to separate deficits and budgets from your statics.

I'm looking for that link to the Obama budget.

Alan, everyone knows SS is not solvent forever. Like so many right-wingers, you merely refer to the "Handbook for Contrarian Arseholes" rather than any sincerity for a real conversation. You are sucking oxygen from the air. There are more productive things we can all do with our time. Ta Ta.

If this is what passes for real conversation in your house you are truly a sad pathetic creature.

BTW I did not say SS was solvent forever, I merely accept what the President says. If you cannot guarantee SS checks without borrowing more money then SS is insolvent now.

ITripleDogDareYou!, i cant find the graph.. i wanted you to see the graph, maybe you'll understand better with pictures.

Look up Obama 2012 budget.......

Alex, for one thing you may want to be a little more civil in a discussion...there are rules on here about that.

Secondly, you said

We are coming out of a recession. If history taught us anything is that more spending was needed to get out faster. It takes years to balance a budget. You wanted our president to come in and start making cuts all over the budget?

Spoken like a true believer in Keynesian economics. What proof do you have that increased government spending aids in coming out of a recession? You could point to the Depression and that the spending on WW2 was what helped America come out of that...but times were very different. Jobs were created through extensive manufacturing for the war. Today that manufacturing is done overseas. There are a lot of viable arguments to why cuts will be as or more beneficial than increased spending. I recommend WH Hutt or Hunter Lewis' books regarding this.

What would you propose cutting at that moment he came in with 700,000 jobs being lost a month?

Foreign aid, foreign spending, maintaining foreign bases, war funding, grants, duplicative agencies, governmental benefits and pensions for starters. (note...cut does not mean obliterate)....discretionary funds.

Cut medicare (the level of benefits) and any benefits to anyone here illegally. Cut wasted departmental funding on regulations.

Drive by observer - I believe you're misquoting John Stewart. It's worse than you remember. The $700 Billion that the Republicans are protecting for the top 2% of wage earners is equal, which is equal to a 3% rise in the top income tax rate for the next decade (raising the rate to what they were paying in the mid-90's, post-Reagan tax cuts) is equal to half of the total wealth of the poorest 50 % of the country, who,in total, control 2.5% of the country's wealth. And that 3% is only coming out of income taxes, not capital gains.

Are we really that bored that we need to use the republican candidates as our daily jokes?

I know all of them are a joke, but they put their foot in their mouth and choke, so cant we just giggle in silence?

Is it me, or is it that the entire GOP and their presidential field, seem to black holes, that are just eating anything and each other into oblivion. In the 2008 Democratic Primary race, we had a group of democrats with essentially the same sets of values, arguing on nitpicky details. This GOP squad is all over the board in the their beliefs, and willing the throw each other under the bus at every turn. They arent interested in finding the best, strongest GOP candidate, they're all out for themselves. I'd be amazed if any of the candidates could find a VP mate that was anywhere in their hemispheres of thought. Scary.

The 2001 temporary cuts didn't work - temporary cuts never do, especially with uncertainity in the air. The 2003 cuts did work resulting in revenue of 18.5% in 2007.

Um, the 2003 tax cuts were also temporary - they were extended by Obama (his worst mistake, IMHO) and will expire in 2012. But stating revenue as a percentage doesn't mean much - a percentage of what? How does it compare with the revenue before those tax cuts were enacted?

What is clear is that we went from surpluses to deficits, and the deficits boomed, hitting record levels. Moreover, the economy faltered, unemployment rose, and we ended up in the mess we're now in. Conservatives like to pretend that tax revenues somehow magically rose with lower taxes, that clearly didn't happen but they compare the lowest revenue point when it bottomed out after the tax cuts, to later revenue and say "See, it's gone up!" - ignoring the fact that tax revenue is still well below what it was immediately before the tax cuts went into effect.

JoAnnaSmith1

FR: Yes, when Obama entered office, he didn't have a resume that would confuse him with Dwight Eisenhower or even George H.W. Bush. But he did serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee . . .

That is rich. You think Obama served on anything in the Senate? The only thing Obama served on in the Senate was running for President.

You just knew that FR would sing the praises of Obama on Libya. This Leading From Behind nonsense is a perfect doctrine for them to believe in.

...and I'm sure GW would have invaded!

Alan, NJ wrote: I merely accept what the President says. If you cannot guarantee SS checks without borrowing more money then SS is insolvent now.

Okay, I'll take the bait. Guaranteeing SS checks had nothing to do with solvency, rather the millions of checks were being held hostage by the Teabagger idiots who wanted a default. And the debt ceiling had nothing to do with "borrowing more money" since it is debt already incurred by previous spending--including the Bush wars and tax cuts.

The most crazy part about that is the contradiction in calling the president a "Socialist" and at the same time trying to blame him for being against sending out SS checks--Social Security being a program started and protected by his Party. Which one is it, the president is a "Socialist" or the president wanted to stop SS checks from going out? It can't be both!

Joe -- Spoken like a true believer in supply-side voodoo economics. What proof do you have that "starve the beast" austerity aids in coming out of a recession? There are a lot more economists who take a Keynesian view than the other way around--most notably based on data from the last decade of "trickle-down" tax cuts for the rich and deregulation carnage.

A little note to all the neocons crying about Obama taking a vacation...

You're irate over the president taking so many vacation days on the taxpayer's dime (61 thus far), but you thought George W. Bush earned every minute of his leisure time (196 days at the same point in his presidency).

so, STFU.

Alex -

Another idiot response!!!! OMG!!! Idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i wanted you to see the graph, maybe you'll understand better with pictures.

What’s with the childish name calling? I backed up my claims with facts and statistics you cannot refute, hardly an idiot response.

We are coming out of a recession. If history taught us anything is that more spending was needed to get out faster. It takes years to balance a budget. You wanted our president to come in and start making cuts all over the budget? Thats really stupid!

What’s REALLY stupid is spending money we don’t have and borrowing it from countries that don’t have our best interest in mind, just to become beholden to them. I don’t expect Obama to turn around our horrible spending pattern (that Bush accelerated) overnight or in one term, but I also don’t want him to increase our spending exponentially either.

"He can cut this spending if he wants to" he proposed a 3+ trillion cut to entitlements and teaparty terrorist said no!! Because they were trying to protect a 1 trillion raise in taxes over the next 10 years.

Actually, his plan was to cut across the board, not just entitlements. I wasn’t against this plan, I just wanted to see where he would actually cut. Obama never produced a physical plan for these $3 Trillion cuts, he just spoke about it. I guess we’re just supposed to take him for his word. Still, I was very open to it, including the tax increases. I would just prefer the tax increases on those making over $500K. Here in CA, $250K two-income household isn’t “wealthy” in my opinion, even if I’m far from it.

teaparty terrorist

Really? With the 9/11 anniversary less than 3 weeks away, you want to call the Teaparty terrorists? Shameful.

I see your way of thinking, Obama inherits a 1.3 billion deficit and after that moment if he doesn't cut 1.3 trillion out of the budget its hes fault? Thats a really dumb way of looking at the big picture.
I didn’t place that deficit on Obama, I place it on Bush. Please go back and read my statements.

What would you propose cutting at that moment he came in with 700,000 jobs being lost a month? Just answer that question man?

Well, I’m a woman but I’ll take a shot at your loaded question.
First, I would have immediately began withdrawing our troops out of Iraq, sending some home and some to Afghanistan. I would have immediately pushed harder into Afghanistan and taken a harder stance with the Afghan regime to make them commit to our strategies. I would have used our military in strategic actions along the border and within the larger population centers where insurgents were known to be just outside of city centers. While I can only speculate the impact, I believe it would have brought more stability to the region, allowing for troops to leave there sooner than Obama’s plan. I would have had virtually all troops out of Iraq within 6 months. That alone would reduce the defense budget significantly. Secondly, I would have not provided a stimulus package as the Obama administration did. I do believe our unemployment would have spiked along with foreclosures in mid-2009, however it would also have corrected the housing and stock market, leading to a more significant increase in employment and housing sales than what we have seen so far under Obama. Just take a look at Regan’s first two years vs. his third and fourth years as President.

George H W Bush left a $290 Billion Dollar deficit for President Clinton to clean up and during his 8 years as President, he managed to leave George W Bush with a
$236 Billion Dollar SURPLUS !!!

No, the Clinton surplus was actually $86.2 Billion in 2000, per the CBO’s historical budget data. Still, it was heading in the right direction and Bush obliterated it in less than a year.

290 billion and 8 years to clean up. How in the F#$@ do you suppose Obama is going to do it in 3 years? especially 1.3 trillion deficit? OMG!!! Idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don’t expect Obama to wipe that away in 3 years, especially during this economy. But is it too much to ask to have him learn from his predecessor’s mistake? Just because Bush left a $1.3 Trillion deficit, doesn’t mean Obama should keep that spending level and tack on a $1.7 Trillion deficit per year. This insanity has to stop.

Yours weren't statics, they are wrong and you know it. Learn to separate deficits and budgets from your statics.

No, they weren’t statics, they were statistics. I quoted the budget amounts, deficit and national debt correctly. If you feel differently, let me know precisely which statistic you believe was wrong.

ITripleDogDareYou!,

What really gets to me and makes me start with the name calling is the way you guys post your numbers as if Obama has really spent 4+ trillion dollars in 2 1/2 years.

Most people people who do their research well (you) know exactly what im talking about.

First, I would have immediately began withdrawing our troops out of Iraq, sending some home and some to Afghanistan. I would have immediately pushed harder into Afghanistan and taken a harder stance with the Afghan regime to make them commit to our strategies. I would have used our military in strategic actions along the border and within the larger population centers where insurgents were known to be just outside of city centers. While I can only speculate the impact, I believe it would have brought more stability to the region, allowing for troops to leave there sooner than Obama’s plan. I would have had virtually all troops out of Iraq within 6 months. That alone would reduce the defense budget significantly. Secondly, I would have not provided a stimulus package as the Obama administration did. I do believe our unemployment would have spiked along with foreclosures in mid-2009, however it would also have corrected the housing and stock market, leading to a more significant increase in employment and housing sales than what we have seen so far under Obama. Just take a look at Regan’s first two years vs. his third and fourth years as President.

Obama is doing that, but it couldn't have been done as soon as he came in. Can you imagine the reaction from the right if he would have done it? Hes a coward, hes a traitor, he doesn't love America.

And then bring home 150,000 troops to no work?

That last part makes no sense?

Biden was a witness to the teaparty in congress and how they acted. He must have a very good reason for calling them that.

Republicans backtrack on Libya

republicans flip flopping is nothing new. now, admitting the obama was right, yeah, thats new.

What really gets to me and makes me start with the name calling is the way you guys post your numbers as if Obama has really spent 4+ trillion dollars in 2 1/2 years.

Uhmm...because he has?

The "Bush did it" argument really is no defense of Obama. Bush was not a good president and he made a lot of mistakes. Embroiling us in Afghanistan and Iraq being real doozies.

If you look at Bush's last few years of spending (oh, and that was the spending bill approved by the democratic congress so let's not place all the blame on the republican president), and Obama's first two, and what is planned for the next two (if you remember, we raised the debt cap just to get to after the elections...at which time it will need to be raised again)....and then you look at the projected expenditures, tax revenues and liabilities imposed by current law for the next ten years.....our national debt will be around $24 TRILLION.

What is the interest rate that we'll have to pay on $24 trillion? In 2010 we spent 6% of the entire budget on debt service....and that was $200 billion. In ten years we're looking at that debt service to cost us $800 billion....4x as much.

If $800 billion is required just to service debt...and they you add in the increasing costs associated with medicare (see the trustee report).

Medicare expenditures for 2010 = $248 billion. Estimated for 2020 = $400 billion.

That's two parts of the budget and just to maintain those two, we're going to have to come up (or borrow) an additional $750 billion (on top of what we're paying now).

I know Keynes says to spend...but this is just not manageable and is a nasty, downward spiral.

Music please... Jaws? Maybe. No, let's play "Twilight Zone".

As it plays in background... and holding your mouth right as you read this...

We have officially entered the "Rovian Campaign Zone" where what you perceive is not true and and what is true cannot be spoken. The "Rovian Campaign Zone" turns normal casual liars into seething steaming pieces of sss.... politicians that can, in one sentence, toss off anything true and good, and amplify everything false and deceiving. In this zone, news is not news... non-news is news....

"Libya is FREE! (or replace byline here), Obama critics say "(insert insult and non-solution here)"

The "Rovian Campaign Zone" is different from normal zones of the past in that it starts earlier than any of us wants and never seems to end if the opposition wins... it just gets transferred to Congress.

Joe, you're completely ignoring that the Supply Side economics of Republicans has completed a systemic underfunding of the government that guarantees deficits forever. Don't think current Conservatives are planning to fix that, either. Their intent is to give us more of the same with additional tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. The GOPTP "you're just blaming Bush" narrative is a deliberate oversimplification intended to keep us from seeing that FACT. Deficits didn't soar with a Democratic Congress, they began from the very beginnings of the GW Bush Administration and worsened all through the years when he had Republican majorities.

For that matter it didn't start with the second President Bush, either. It started with Ronald Reagan. Republicans down through the intervening decades have taken every opportunity to push the line "we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. In reality we have a BALANCE problem, as Republicans have DECREASED REVENUE AND INCREASED SPENDING every time they've been given the opportunity.

The debt problem comes from Wall-Street supply siders taking over the Republicans. Ike, Nixon and Ford, all good Republicans, brought the debt down 11 out of 16 years. supply siders brought it down 0 out of 20. That's batting 688 versus batting 0. And G.W.H. Bush was no supply sider — he called it voodoo economics. He just got trapped by Reagan's supply-side policies. He passed a tax increase trying to partially undo Reagan's damage, but the supply-side Republicans turned on him, and he was not re-elected.
So supply-sides are far from traditional Republican balanced-budget values. Cheney, a supply-sider, said "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Unfortunately the supply siders have now pretty much captured the Republican party.

http://zfacts.com/p/voodoo.html

Joe-755363

What really gets to me and makes me start with the name calling is the way you guys post your numbers as if Obama has really spent 4+ trillion dollars in 2 1/2 years.

Uhmm...because he has?

The "Bush did it" argument really is no defense of Obama....

Okay, Joe, let's say Obama has spent $4 Trillion. He is President. It's HIS spending.

1) Then don't give us the Democrat congress BS. Bush WAS President. It was HIS spending. His lack of funding.

2) Let's get clear on what Bush left us in terms of "spending momentum"... that is, spending that could not have stopped, whether it was Obama or McCain that was President.

a) The Afghan War was started, escalated, then put on smolder mode by Bush without funding a thing.

b) The Iraq War was started, escalated, won, lost, "serged", then left for the next President without funding a thing.

c) Homeland Security was created, expanded, expanded, and expanded under Bush and Cheney and was never funded... to their "credit" they reduced regulatory agencies to the ineffectual level to "save money".... but, that aside, Homeland Security was never funded.

d) Medicaid was created and implemented without funding.

e) And the biggest debt creator of all... the Bush tax cuts.

The above constitutes the "Bush Train". The deficits and debt that it creates will have Bush's name on it for many years... even after Obama is long gone 4 or 8 years from now.

So, yes, Obama may have spent $4 Trillion. Do you tag him with the unstoppable "Bush Train"? Did you lay the bailouts on him? What about the stimulus? Building the regulatory agencies back up so we don't crash again? Or so we can collect taxes? Or don't have massive spills again? The "cost" of trying to fix health care (even though the CBO says it actually reduces our debt)? The auto bailouts? The various programs that were tried... virtually all with economist approval?

So, yes, we can lump everything together and call it "his". But for people to complain, they need to get specific.... because the "train" is the majority. The economic free-fall took money to stop. And spending on "liberal" issues was near zero.

I guess where I fall off is the "lecture" tone from the GOP. Boehner was here under Bush, wasn't he? Wasn't McConnell here somewhere? Where's their humility about what they contributed to? Have they lost all memory? No, this is all just BS.

The downgrade had the stink of the gop and their rotten tea nuts all over it.

Alex -

What really gets to me and makes me start with the name calling is the way you guys post your numbers as if Obama has really spent 4+ trillion dollars in 2 1/2 years.

Technically, Obama has spent $4 Trillion dollars because 100% of that amount was not mandatory spending. Obama should be responsible for that because he controls it, just like Bush should be responsible for the $4.7 Trillion he added to the debt. Was some of that spending necessary? It’s debatable but I believe at least some of it was. Name calling simply because you disagree with someone will never help you win an argument.

Obama is doing that, but it couldn't have been done as soon as he came in. Can you imagine the reaction from the right if he would have done it? Hes a coward, hes a traitor, he doesn't love America.

I could not disagree with you more on this issue. Obama has not done this, not even close. There are still well over 50,000 troops in Iraq right now, which will remain there indefinitely. He took over a year to bring more troops to Afghanistan, and then less than half of what commanders felt was necessary to properly control the insurgents and stabilize the country. That’s why I would have had the draw-down in Iraq and surge in Afghanistan simultaneous and immediate. Quicker action then would help stabilize things faster so we could get the heck out of the middle east.

Obama’s big win in the election, his approval when he entered office and a filibuster proof majority would have given him all the ammo he needed to pull out of Iraq immediately or within 6-9 months. That also would not have given insurgents warning, preventing them from organizing to try to seize power when we left. Sure Republicans would scream but most Americans want out of Iraq and Obama’s wave when he came into office would have stifled any backlash. Public opinion has been decidedly against the war for several years now. What would the Republicans have run on in 2010, we should get back into an unpopular war we had been in for 7 years? Not exactly a great talking point.

And then bring home 150,000 troops to no work?

Just because you bring them home, doesn’t mean you discard them. With the exception of our Reserves, those soldiers would still be paid for full-time work unless they chose to leave the military. What about using them for border protection, assistance with the National Guard, continued training, etc.

That last part makes no sense?

Is that supposed to be a question? There are other ways of fixing our economy than just having the government spend more money. Look into the historical crashes of the stock market, housing industry, retail, commercial real estate, etc. When no “stimulus” is provided by the government, most markets and industries bounce back to 85-90% of their net worth within 2 years. The stimulus package slowed down our drop temporarily, but it also has slowed our recovery significantly because markets and industries were not able to completely correct themselves. Right now, they still are trying to properly correct themselves before they can truly rebound. Imagine if our housing industry was at 85% of its 2007 net worth.

Biden was a witness to the teaparty in congress and how they acted. He must have a very good reason for calling them that.

So that excuses you for making such a classless and shameful statement in the shadow of the 9/11 anniversary? Are you not responsible for your own statements?
Comparing anyone to terrorists just because you disagree with their ideology reflects more on your inability to control your anger/hate than it does on who you are trying to disparage.

Obama’s big win in the election, his approval when he entered office and a filibuster proof majority would have given him all the ammo he needed to pull out of Iraq immediately or within 6-9 months.

Seriously? And what world do you live in? He could have only done this in a world that had no political and societal pressure, no conscience, no ethics, and no sense of responsibility... Yep, I guess McCain could have done it.

Please read my post 1.133 regarding momentum. After the name calling coming from the GOP for the last three years, you have no room for being appalled at a "terrorism" reference... ever heard a Palin speech? From what I've seen, the GOP rancor was a strategic campaign offensive while the rancor from the left seems to be in defense or just an angry response.

Getting lectured from the right about spending, about ending wars, about immigration enforcement, about fiscal responsibility, about making government work correctly, or too much rancor is enough to make anyone throw up. It really is that simple.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Correction:

Imagine it didn't cost us ONE American life, 10+ years & a trillion dollars borrowed on the Chinese VISA card!

Until we start rebuilding THEIR country of course.

LMarcT -

Seriously? And what world do you live in? He could have only done this in a world that had no political and societal pressure, no conscience, no ethics, and no sense of responsibility...

If you read my complete statement, you would have seen that I reference that public opinion was decidedly against the war (or do you not read polls and think most Americans still approve of our presence in Iraq) and the only real political pressure would have been from the Republicans, who couldn’t do anything other than complain to stop a resolution from happening through a filibuster proof Congress. As for ethics, responsibility and conscience – are you saying that we have a conscientious and ethical responsibility to still be in Iraq? Really? Do you want to open that can of worms???

Yep, I guess McCain could have done it.

I’m afraid McCain would have done similarly what Obama has, although I believe he would have approved the full request for troops in Afghanistan and done so faster than 6 months after the request. It’s reasonable to think that would have made a big impact, such as the surge Obama did much later.

Please read my post 1.133 regarding momentum.

I don’t entirely disagree with your “spending momentum” argument, although I don't think its completely valid in this case. I referenced in my previous posts I believe some of the spending was legitimate and could not just be turned off. I don’t however believe all of it is. Whether it was Bush who began the expenditure or Obama continuing the expenditure, several major expenditures in our discretionary spending need to be eliminated or reduced. Just as Bush is responsible for those expenditures affecting the national debt, Obama should be held to the same standard. Over 57% of Obama’s budget is not mandatory spending (i.e. Medicare, Medicaid, Interest, etc.) and he has direct control of whether this money is spent or not and how its allocated. The “spending momentum” argument only truly works if 80%-100% of spending was mandatory. Only 42% is mandatory. We don’t have to spend the same amount the previous person did. If every President took that stand based on your “spending momentum” argument, our country will go bankrupt.

After the name calling coming from the GOP for the last three years, you have no room for being appalled at a "terrorism" reference... ever heard a Palin speech? From what I've seen, the GOP rancor was a strategic campaign offensive while the rancor from the left seems to be in defense or just an angry response.

As a person directly affected by 9/11, I believe YOU have no room to tell me what I can or cannot be appalled by. I don’t follow Palin and am not a fan of hers but if she called her opposition “terrorists”, I’d have the same reaction. Whether you think labeling people you oppose as “terrorists” is in defense or simply an angry response, both are pathetic excuses. If Alex was a right-winger and said that about Obama or liberals, I would feel the exact same way. There is no excuse for that behavior and justifying it is just as bad.

Getting lectured from the right about spending, about ending wars, about immigration enforcement, about fiscal responsibility, about making government work correctly, or too much rancor is enough to make anyone throw up. It really is that simple.

I’m not sure if you are referring to me directly as the right (even though I'm clearly not on a Republican) or simply espousing generalities, I’ll assume they are generalities.

ITripleDogDareYou!

Alex -

What really gets to me and makes me start with the name calling is the way you guys post your numbers as if Obama has really spent 4+ trillion dollars in 2 1/2 years.

Technically, Obama has spent $4 Trillion dollars because 100% of that amount was not mandatory spending. Obama should be responsible for that because he controls it, just like Bush should be responsible for the $4.7 Trillion he added to the debt. Was some of that spending necessary? It’s debatable but I believe at least some of it was. Name calling simply because you disagree with someone will never help you win an argument.

I like that "Technically" part......

What would you have cut without hurting the recovery?

You seem to forget were in the worst recession since the great depression.

I could not disagree with you more on this issue. Obama has not done this, not even close. There are still well over 50,000 troops in Iraq right now, which will remain there indefinitely. He took over a year to bring more troops to Afghanistan, and then less than half of what commanders felt was necessary to properly control the insurgents and stabilize the country. That’s why I would have had the draw-down in Iraq and surge in Afghanistan simultaneous and immediate. Quicker action then would help stabilize things faster so we could get the heck out of the middle east.

Obama’s big win in the election, his approval when he entered office and a filibuster proof majority would have given him all the ammo he needed to pull out of Iraq immediately or within 6-9 months. That also would not have given insurgents warning, preventing them from organizing to try to seize power when we left. Sure Republicans would scream but most Americans want out of Iraq and Obama’s wave when he came into office would have stifled any backlash. Public opinion has been decidedly against the war for several years now. What would the Republicans have run on in 2010, we should get back into an unpopular war we had been in for 7 years? Not exactly a great talking point.

It sounds so easy.. pull out all troops in 6 to 9 months. YEAH RIGHT!!! You are beginning to sound more like a libertarian than a republican. I don't even think he would have had support from hes party.

And still TEAPARTY TERRORISTS are responsible for the downgrade. They held the country hostage to protect their masters, the rich......

Or would you like me to call them the hobbits?

ITripleDogDareYou!
Did you know that Obama's first budget year started on October 1, 2009. The expenditures which were incurred during the first 8 months of his presidency were already budgeted before he took office. The debt on September 30, 2009, was 11.909 trillion.

TECHNICALLY YOU ARE WRONG!!! It was not 4 trillion. Add in Bush deficits and you are just wrong again.

And still TEAPARTY TERRORISTS are responsible for the downgrade. They held the country hostage to protect their masters, the rich......

Or would you like me to call them the hobbits?

Alex – you may think its funny or cute or witty to call people you disagree with terrorists but if your cousin was killed by ACTUAL terrorists, you’d find it pretty disgraceful and ignorant. My cousin was in WTC 2 when it collapsed. His wife, mother and our entire family watched him die when the building fell. He was killed by terrorists. Tea party members disagreeing with you on budget matters ARE NOT terrorists. They did not kill anyone. They did not take away the breath of a loved one whom you will never see again.
I’m grateful your use of this type of rhetoric only resonates with the extreme fringes of our political spectrum. The vast majority of Americans find your word choice appalling. The more you say it and desensitize yourself from the word “terrorist”, the crazier you sound to the rest of our population. Perhaps you just don’t realize how ridiculous you sound calling political opponents that word. I pray you and your family personally never know the affects of a real terrorist. We are all Americans and we should be able to disagree without being labeled such a cruel and terribly inappropriate word.

ITripleDogDareYou! is correct; you should not use the word "terrorist" to describe the Fascist Hate-mongering, Racist, Ignorant, Simplistic, Anarchists who refer to themselves as "Tea Party" referencing an event that was over Taxation Without Representation (IE being taxed by people who they had no say in voting for) as opposed to these so called "Tea Party" members who most certainly did have the ability to vote for their representatives.

So do not call them terrorists...they don't overtly kill people though their insane politics would kill people and are full of lies, distortions and everything that is un-American

Just call them A$$holes and be glad real Americans are catching on to their game. As the approval of the Tea Party is DOWN Down down.

Yes A$$Holes is a nice term for them, and how cn they object, certainly they have one...well then again maybe they don't and thats why they are full of SH--

Bev:

Nice post. Hannity is an idiot - he also tried to give Bush credit for taking out OBL as well. These guys have NO shame at all. They want credit for everything that is good, even though they do not deserve one iota of credit, and then turn around and fight against the very same issue when it goes bad.

When jobs and the economy were improving they wanted the credit, now that it is not doing so well because of their "Obstructionism" they blame President Obama - Hypocrites all of them.

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

Bev:

Nice post. Hannity is an idiot - he also tried to give Bush credit for taking out OBL as well. These guys have NO shame at all

Thank you, Navy

I agree Tea- nuts have no shame because they are stupid. They act like a bunch of greedy "Rats" circling around looking for a new hole to fill

Tea- nuts have no shame

And they want citizens to VOTE for them in 2012??????

That they even announce is crazy....

Obviously WAY off base and out of touch - all they know is the RNC spin and sales pitch... ridiculous!

Beverly, you get a gold star on that post. Hannity is such a phoney baloney as is Trump; Cain is a pizza guy who doesn't get "foreign policy".

I'll take partial exception...Hannity isn't an idiot. He handles his audience masterfully, and is expert at the role for which he was hired--taking the message of the moment from the Conservative PR apparatus, and spreading it widely into the conversation. His job is to take the memes of the Luntz's, Roves, and Morris' and implant them into the broader world of Conservatism as well as the media at large.

John B:

Noted, I probally should have said sly like a FOX. (pun intended)

Thanks my friend, great posts today. Kudos

Jody, Iowa

Beverly, you get a gold star on that post. Hannity is such a phoney baloney as is Trump; Cain is a pizza guy who doesn't get "foreign policy".

Thanks Jody, Hannity and all the Fox echo chamber are acting like a bunch of holler back monkeys perched each and every day to get their talking point from Rush Limbaugh.

Damage, No, not all the credit, but some! No wars like the republicans have dragged us into, no US deaths from this win. No following McCain's call for US troops to be involved. Not one word of support from the right, including you! Plain disgusting Americans!

Jody,

The President does not need to thump his chest about what he accomplish with a "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner. The Libyans did. Here are the pictures...

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/libyasquare.jpg

Tea- Nuts spoke about dithering, a quicker outcome in Libya, and even using military force. This President makes America and the world proud becaus he doesn't use go-alone cowboy diplomacy; and he does not boast. He is humble; President Obama has always said what he does and does what he says.

a. Somali Pirates

b. Bin Laden

c. Egypt

d. Tunisia

e. now daffy Gaddifi is on his way out.

ROFLWL

The neo- cons look very weak right about now since they never finished any task on military defense.

Tea Nuts can't stand it.

President OBAMA worked tirelessly>

GreedyBizOwner

Beverly....Very classy post...I see name calling and insults are still SOP on FIRST READ amongst the "Gang of 14"...sad......BTW....If what you say were even remotely true, why were Republicans unanimously elected into Congress just 9 short months ago on 11/2/10 and effectively replacing several busloads of entrenched "do nothing" Democrats and to the extent that it was the worst defeat for the DEMS in 60+ years or a real "shellacking" according to President Obama?

You mean you don't know? Do you know anything about the KOCHOPULOUS?

In case you have noticed the polls American people have a very dim view of T- Nut republicans.

Damage123

So you liberals want to give Obama all the credit for knocking out Kaddafi?

Damage is using a common tactic employed by teabaggers and wing nuts: falsely claim that someone is making an argument they clearly are not making. Nobody is saying Obama deserves ALL of the credit, or even the major share of credit. But the teabaggers and Obama haters are arguing that Obama deserves NO credit at all, and idiots like John (Bomb Bomb) McCain are claiming that Obama actually deserves BLAME for not bombing Libya hard enough.

Damage123

So you liberals want to give Obama all the credit for knocking out Kaddafi? Go right ahead. I guarantee the polls won't reflect this idiotic sentiment. His numbers will still be down in the dumps and only the few hardcore worshippers of the jug-eared pinhead will believe such nonsense.

Makes no difference no matter how low his poll numbers go no t-nut can bat OBAMA in 2012

As for Maxine Waters, when she says the "Tea Party can go to hell", we all know that she really means "white people." That's how that fish-lipped female dog gets elected term after term; she bashes whitey and her ignorant, low IQ constituents eat it up. SHE can go straight to hell and dance in the fire with all those rioters she supported in 1992.

Speaking of IQ yours is very dense. Hemain Cain, Michael Steele, and Rubio are not white; bonehead.

They're not acting Beverly. They are buffoons.

Damage123- as a 65 yr old white woman in S.C., one of the working poor, who pays payroll taxes, no refunds, no food stamps, no welfare, no medicade- I say the teabaggers can go straight to hell. Maxine I couldnt agree more. If you claim to be a teabagger- GO TO HELL !!!!!

You're right, Beverly. She forgot to refer to Cain and Steele as "Uncle Tom House Negroes" as she undoubtedly does in private. As for Rubio, liberals haven't come up with a "uncle tom" type slur yet for Hispanics. They're waiting until they can sew up 90+% of their votes first like they did with Blacks. Then they'll surely have a slur ready and waiting for any Hispanic that votes Republican. And you and the Feisty moron and others will throw it around freely.

John B: Hannity isn't an idiot. He handles his audience masterfully

John, I agree with you. But is being the master of deceit really a positive?! It's more like a double negative!

Great post, by the way...

Mo-1852032

They're not acting Beverly. They are buffoons.

Mo,

I know that. I was really trying to be nice. LOL

GreedyBizOwner

It is your right to call out a liberal if you wish and question their class. However, I wonder what you think about the jewels of wisdom and classy remarks that Damage123 has added today.

To your question, the 2010 election was a referendum on the economy as well as an upwelling of irrational Tea Party anger against HCR. Remember - "Big government Take your hands off my Medicare!"

Despite the recent interest in foreign policy here at FR the last couple of days, the 2012 election will most certainly be about the economy as well.

Bev - the opponents of Obama are trying to BAT him now. It's coming upon election season so for the next 14 months, there will be a lot of batting. Not a single one of us can say anything, do anything or wish anything... it will be what it will be and we all have to accept the consequences... win or lose.

She forgot to refer to Cain and Steele as "Uncle Tom House Negroes"...liberals haven't come up with a "uncle tom" type slur yet for Hispanics...And you and the Feisty moron

Awful lot of name calling from a guy bitching about name calling.

But is being the master of deceit really a positive?!

Agreed, Fielden--I mention it only because once you understand the true mission of talk radio it becomes easier to understand and predict. If you study how messages get into the Conservative echo chamber then understanding how lies are transformed into "Conventional Wisdom" is easier. That's the first step to not being taken in by the deceptive messaging of the GOPTP.

YES BEVERLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WOOOOOOOOOO!

So far the WMD's haven't been found, but we are going to keep looking we know they were there, I hope we find them soon or we are going to have to explain to the big bad democrats why we attacked Qadhaffi, boy are they going to be mad.

IR:

Great post - one of the true American Hero's that we need to remember. I saw him speak once and he was the type of person that I could listen to all day. His untimely death was a loss to all Americans and I am glad he has finally gotten his place in History for all the world to see when they visit DC.

There is hope people.

Thank you IR - beautiful post!

You’ll need to quit diminishing yourselves. Because by diminishing your selves you are diminishing us all.

These days it much simpler to drag people down to their level then lift all of us UP!

The instant gratification crowd wants the easy way out...

Sadly, check out CNN's website and the blog posts to their article on MKL's memorial, and you will see the worst of America there...almost every single post was a racist rant.

These racist rant people are the same ones that can't stand it that we have a person of color as President. Shame on you all.

Can you say "Made In China."

Gee, I guess it's an oversight on your part, but you left out the fact that it was a REPUBLICAN congress, in 1996, that authorized the Department of Interior to allow the construction of the Monument, on the Mall, and in 1998 authorized the Foundation to raise the funds for the Memorial?

I guess you just plain forgot who was President at the time? Let me refresh your memory - it was Bill Clinton.

Not Obama.

To My Favorite Independent Redneck:

You sir, are a man among boys . . . thank you so much for your excellent comment this morning and the quotes from Dr. King . . . this country sure does need more folks trying to do what's right and less folks trying to do what's profitable.

Amen.

Morning Nash and all the rest of you. I think some of you miss the point. It don't make no difference where it was made and who authorized it. The words and ideals expressed and living by them are what's important.

Sad but very true people, racism is still alive in this country and we have a long way to go. Just like the TP/GOP has vowed to make President Obama fail, many of them have reignited the flames of judging people base on color, sex, religion etc. They have now vowed to push America back in time before civil rights or worse.

Wonderful post, IR. The Martin Luther King Memorial represents centuries of struggle against wrongs. It is a reminder of the history of this country; it is a reminder of the on-going effort to achieve civil rights for all minorities. King's words remain as powerful today as they were when he spoke them.

"Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' But, conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because one's conscience tells one that it is right."
-- Martin Luther King Jr.

Last year when I vacationed in Washington saw it under construction it has such a prominent and a well deserved position along the tidal pool east of Jefferson.

IR - I've never seen this particular quote. Not speaking politically or ideologically but personally, it makes me ponder on a great many things.

Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Great post IR. I'm sure MLK would be proud to see the classy and dignified actions of his successors; buffoons like Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson and Al "Freddie's Fashion Mart" Sharpton. It's also great to see his vision being carried out by the likes of Maxine Waters and the New Black Panther Party. Not to mention the 75% out of wedlock birth rate among black women, flash mobs (brought on by the entitlement mentality created by liberals), the fact that the leading cause of death for young black men is to be murdered by other black men. Yeah. He sure left a hell of a legacy, didn't he?

Martin Luther King was a man of peace and non-violence, right? So why is it that in EVERY city in America, Martin Luther King Blvd is where all the violence is? Chris Rock asked that question a while back and nobody ever gave him an answer. They just laughed. Can any of you here answer that question without calling into question my very real belief in equality for all? Yeah. Didn't think so.

Seriously, you can't drive (or , God forbid, walk) anyplace where roads and other things are named after MLK. And if there's a Malcolm X Avenue, you can be sure to be hit by a stray bullet. What do you all think MLK would say about this? Gained voting rights and fair housing? Great. Other than that, the civil rights struggle and it's ultra-liberal goals damaged the Black community/family more than the KKK ever did.

Yellow Dog I thought one of the less known was very appro this morning. Most of the time my intent is less ideological than it is to make you think. Thanks for the feedback.

Thanks for sharing these thoughts, IR.. "Sincere ignorance" seems to sum up most of the Republican field this year. Although they are quick to unreasonably question the President's patriotism, I give them credit for their sincerity in their patriotism but do think it is based in ignorance.

Damage123: " Yeah. He sure left a hell of a legacy, didn't he?"

Well, yes.....he did, actually. People who choose to ignore it - or try to demean it as you just did - diminish only themselves by their words and actions.

Here's a little more of Dr. King's legacy you might want to reflect on today:

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that".

"I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear."

"Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality."

" We may have all come on different ships, but we're in the same boat now."

" Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think."

Thank you JoAnne for summing up Dr. Kings Legacy better than I ever could.

Damage123-

"Great. Other than that, the civil rights struggle and it's ultra-liberal goals damaged the Black community/family more than the KKK ever did."

Are you serious?

Do you not know anything about history?

Liberals have made some mistakes but for the most part their heart has been in the right place.

Can't say the same thing for all the KKK hangings and other murders and atrocities carried out in the name of white supremacy.

Hey, IR -

I was just tagging on to your lovely opening. If you actually got to hear any of those words first hand, then you truly are a lucky man. It would be my pleasure to meet up with you and Miss Elly again some day to check out the memorial in person.

Sheila, MD - Maybe we'll see you there too?

I keep seeing the same worn out statements about how Obama has increased the deficit by x Trillion dollars and grown the size of government. There was a great editorial in Saturday's paper that pointed out that the growth of new government employees was overwhelmingly people in the military and homeland security. Yes, he did significantly increase the number of border patrol people in Arizona and New Mexico. I guess that was a bad thing, right? It also pointed out that the percentage of government workers to GDP was only a percentage or so different than under Reagan, during that smaller recession we went through.

The bulk of the increase in dollars can mostly be accounted for in the pay, support, and benefits of those previously mentioned new hires, along with increases to the Federal payments to states for Unemployment Insurance benefits, medicare, and increased health care costs (Note: these health care costs had nothing to do with the HCA, which hasn't taken effect yet other than not being able to deny coverage for preexisting conditions and including students up to age 26). And military costs like using drones (putting less American lives at risk) does cost a

I keep seeing the same worn out statements about how Obama has increased the deficit by x Trillion dollars and grown the size of government. There was a great editorial in Saturday's paper that pointed out that the growth of new government employees was overwhelmingly people in the military and homeland security. Yes, he did significantly increase the number of border patrol people in Arizona and New Mexico. I guess that was a bad thing, right? It also pointed out that the percentage of government workers to GDP was only a percentage or so different than under Reagan, during that smaller recession we went through.

The bulk of the increase in dollars can mostly be accounted for in the pay, support, and benefits of those previously mentioned new hires, along with increases to the Federal payments to states for Unemployment Insurance benefits, medicare, and increased health care costs (Note: these health care costs had nothing to do with the HCA, which hasn't taken effect yet other than not being able to deny coverage for preexisting conditions and including students up to age 26). And military costs like using drones (putting less American lives at risk) does cost a

I keep seeing the same worn out statements about how Obama has increased the deficit by x Trillion dollars and grown the size of government. There was a great editorial in Saturday's paper that pointed out that the growth of new government employees was overwhelmingly people in the military and homeland security. Yes, he did significantly increase the number of border patrol people in Arizona and New Mexico. I guess that was a bad thing, right? It also pointed out that the percentage of government workers to GDP was only a percentage or so different than under Reagan, during that smaller recession we went through.

The bulk of the increase in dollars can mostly be accounted for in the pay, support, and benefits of those previously mentioned new hires, along with increases to the Federal payments to states for Unemployment Insurance benefits, medicare, and increased health care costs (Note: these health care costs had nothing to do with the HCA, which hasn't taken effect yet other than not being able to deny coverage for preexisting conditions and including students up to age 26). And military costs like using drones (putting less American lives at risk) does cost a

"Their heart has been in the right place"??????? Good one, Sheila. You know what they say about good intentions, don't you? Yeah. The libs heart is always "in the right place." So effing what. Does that make up for the destruction of the Black famiuly that has taken place over the last 4 decades? The condescending "give a man a fish" mentality that the libs have treated Blacks with all this time? Do you think it's a coincidence that Black on Black crime and murder, drugs and violence came along and grew with the liberals social engineering policies? More Blacks are muredered in ONE YEAR by other Blacks than were murdered in 50 years of KKK activity. Keep drinking the Kool Aid, Sheila. And be careful at night in your neighborhood. You know and I know that you are moe likely to be raped and/or murdered by a brutha "keepin it real" than you are by a Klan member.

Steeler, though you may be sincere,

ALEC, Norquist et al. set the tone and attack, agenda and strategy from the right...... GOP contenders & congressionals represent and give voice to those agendas.

GOP presidentials put defunding deregulation (inviting another financial disaster), refusing revenues and lowering corporate taxes (while blocking the extension of payroll tax for the other 98%) on the top of their list.

That is not the same as 'sincerity' or 'ignorance'. And not even the same as 'patriotism' when folks like Perry claim that civil rights, public education, healthcare, etc, etc, are unconstitutional.

Correction: I meant to say....GOP congressionals want to defund the new financial regulations Bill (inviting another financial disaster).

IR - Thanks for this post! So encouraging when people recognize the contributions of a man truly embodying the teachings of Christ (actions & words) and gave his life in making this country a better place for ALL people. It is sad to see others who are so filled with bitterness and hate that the love of God has no place in their life, they cannot appreciate the contributions of others and they themsleves have no contributions except hateful rants like we see above.

We remember the life, contribution and example of MLK....compared to the leadership on display today by the GOP/TP "the party of christian moral values" right?...and the direct contradiction and hypocrisy is staggering.

Ben-636050

Can you say "Made In China."

Can you be anymore disappointingly disgusting?

See my GF Feisty post.

#3.2 - Tue Aug 23, 2011 9:12 AM EDT

Independent Redneck Va.

Your post was so beautiful it brought tears to my eyes.

Dr king lived here in Chicago to protest unfair housing. I also remember when Dr King came here many times and marched. I also remember those Willis wagons Dr King's marching got rid of.

MLK's 1960's Chicago residence redeveloped

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8048211

During the times Dr King built support for the black freedom struggle he picked up the cause for all people, the butcher, baker, candlestick maker, red, brown, white, and any on oppressed.

I will always have those days etched in my heart he gave his life for.

Sheila, MD

Damage123-

"Great. Other than that, the civil rights struggle and it's ultra-liberal goals damaged the Black community/family more than the KKK ever did."

Are you serious?

Sheila, I not saying this poster is a "KKK" member; but if he/she is we can now understand what the pointed means.

Most dunces try to hide their ignorance.

patHuntingtonNY

Sadly, check out CNN's website and the blog posts to their article on MKL's memorial, and you will see the worst of America there...almost every single post was a racist rant.

Probably all posts by 'angry white people' too... since as we all know (and have been told many times here at FR) "you can't be a racist of you're black."

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

Regarding the comments of Damage...

He/She is rather 'in your face' with his/her comments... but there is a shred of truth there. Point in case: I was listenting to the radio the other day and a gentleman who claimed to be AA stated that he believes the problem with the AA community is that they have (and i quote) "a slave mentality." (his words not mine) He went on to further explain that when slavery was inforce the slaves were 'taken care of' (again his words) by their master. Food and shelter were provided... they were told what to do and when to do it. This man's statement was that the government programs that were put in to assist blacks have continued that mentality of needing to be provided for. Additionally he stated that having multiple generations of AA families living under these programs has reinforced that mentality.

His comment was that it will take a MAJOR change in how our government deals with this situation to change the future for black america AND that is will likely come with violence.

Thoughs anyone?

Dear Sick of Bickering:

I think that we black people are poorer than other communities because we were not paid for our labor and therefore were unable to pass wealth on through generations.

I think pretending that did not happen and that we have all had a "fair shot" is pretty much not true, even if there are some African Americans who feel that way. I am African American, and I strongly disagree.

Perhaps if we had been paid what we earned, instead of having it retained by the same folks who now tell us that we are the problem, things may have been different, no?

I don't think the problem with black people or working people is a slave mentality . . . I think it is the "master" mentality of those who ignore the advantages they have built into a system that was designed to oppress all non-white, non-male people for decades.

Dear Nash...

Thank you for your thoughts. Unfortunately, I don't see the revelance of your argument that blacks are in the position they are today becasues they did not get paid for their labor and therefore did not have wealth to pass down.

How may generations of ex-slaves have existed since slavery was ended? 5 or 6 at least wouldn't you say?

My family immigrated here from Italy, three generations ago. My Great-Grandfather came here alone... with no money in his pocket as a 17 year old boy. He married and raised 7 children in a two room house (with dirt floors) working as a coal miner. My Grandfather dropped out of school in the 5th grade to work in that same coal mine. But each generation worked hard to teach their children the value of hard work and sacrifice. My father was the first in our family to graduate high school and I the first to graduate college.

Each generation has SACRIFICED to help the next. We started with NOTHING and in three short generations we have made GREAT ADVANCEMENTS!

I am not buying that 'we did not get paid' line. Once freed... those people started with the same material goods that mine started with. Perhaps the difference was the 'mentality' they entered their situation with? That radio listener may have a point.

Dear Sick of Bickering:

You asked for thoughts and I shared mine. I am not trying to convince you of anything or sell you anything, mmmmkay?

If you already know everything about being black in America, why are you asking questions then? I did not say that as an excuse, I said that to specifically address the concept of a "slave mentaliity" which you mentioned.

Slaves worked pretty f#$@#@ hard, so the idea that they were "given" room and board and lived some type of charmed life is complete and utter bullsh!t.

You get back at me when you find all the lynched Italians. Italians could start a business when black folks weren't even allowed to shop in one, so you can kiss my blac $#$@.

Hope that helps.

P.S. Were Italians kidnapped and sold away from their families? Did they have their children stolen from them? Were they identified in the Constitution as 3/5 of a person? Did I mention that you can kiss my black @#$@?

Because you can.

You get back at me when you find all the lynched Italians. Italians could start a business when black folks weren't even allowed to shop in one, so you can kiss my blac $#$@.

Touche' Nash!

@damage #s Let me shoot one little hole through your rant: We had a black secretary of state, and joint chief, we have a black president, and a black man running for the republican nomination for president. You think that would have happened in 1960. They could hardly get a vote cast before the equal rights laws were passed much less run a candidate, and just so you know, before we had poor violent black neighborhoods, we had poor violent Italian neighborhoods, and poor violent Irish neighborhoods, I know, I came from an all white, poor, violent neighborhood the only difference is that people are so much better armed these days.

Do you not know anything about history?

Only what he learned from Glenn Beck...oh, sorry about that, I didn't realize I was being redundant.

Outstanding post, IR. Those of us who are fighting for the average American need to realize we're part of a proud legacy...one that's been fought by the wealthy elites throughout history. We are part of a continuum that includes the Trust Busters against the Robber Barons. It includes the fight for safe food and drugs, the right to be paid a fair wage, the right to a safety net after decades of labor, even the very right for people beyond men (only) of the landed gentry to vote. I'm not just proud to pick up their legacy...I feel I owe it to them...and to future generations of Americans.

Hey Damage why don't I see any young rich Klansmen with fabulous homes on MTV's "Klancribs", how come I don't see any talented young klansmen making a fortune on "Pimp My Pickup"

I would say many of these kids have learned to catch their own fish. Only thing is there has to be some fish to catch, where are the jobs Boehner.

One thing you never see on Jerry Springer or Cops, is poor violent white people in a trailer park, or a white welfare queen meth head and the several lousy men that fathered her kids living in squalor but somehow finding the money for drugs and alcohol out of her government disability check. I am glad we never have to see that right damage#s

Nash:

Absolutely the best comeback - Touche' my friend. I am a 4th generation Italian and my grandfather used to tell me stories on how doors would open for him when he came back from WWI- Not so for the black solider that also put his/her life on the line to fight the Kaiser. It mad my grandfather furious that this man or women could put his life on the line but when he/she came back from the war he/she could not stand in the same line as him. It was different back then and it was not until the 60's that any headway was really made, and judging from some of the rhetoric coming from the right we have a long way to go, STILL. People (TP) tend to try and gloss over those facts.

John B:

Outstanding follow up.

People, it is time to connect the dots - we have been saying this for a long time. The TP/GOP is now making no bones about what their agenda is, and it is not one that will lead us down the path of prosperity - It will lead us down the path of total chaos and the destruction of this country as we know it.

The handwriting is on the wall and we either read and and act or we do not and fail.

As Ms. Water's siad:

"I'm not afraid of anybody, This is a tough game. You can't be intimidated. You can't be frightened. And as far as I'm concerned, the 'tea party' can go straight to hell."

President Obama 2012

TOUCHDOWN JohnB!

Good one John.

Good Morning All,

It cannot be said often enough that most of the GOP/TPrs are, liars, racists, bigots, homophobes, hypocrites and ...ta da Christians.

Man, that was great. How long till the usual howlers blast John B.?

Terrific post, John B. Keep connecting the dots!

Lets all just ignoremthe fact that 379 new regulations were enacted in July alone, at a cost, to business, of $9.5 billion.

Let's just ignore the fact that there are 4200 regulations in the pipeline- or the fact that federal regulatory agencies haw grown by 16% since 2008.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/581555/201108151901/Regulatory-Agencies-Staffing-Up.aspx

You seem as clueless as your idol about the ramifications of all these new regulations. Let me tell you, in one word, what these cost, in the end-

JOBS.

Obama seems to have no clue- and the advice he's getting is poor, at best, ludicrous, at worst. Some of the companies with which I work have received letters over the signature of Immelt in the last month, urging them to help jumpstart the economy. Not now, you understand, but next summer, when it will really count. The formula for this?

Immelt suggests they pledge to double the number of summer interns they they had this summer for summer 2012.

So, let's break it down-

Unemployment typically jumps in May, because high school and college students are seeking summer employment, then dips in August and September, as those students leave the workforce to return to school.

Many, if not most, summer interns are unpaid- as the folks on this blog could tell you.

So, Immelt has this great idea to help unemployment- get students into unpaid internships to keep them from inflating the unemployment rate in the mo this before the election.

While internships provide valuable experience, they are net negative for the economy, because the firms "employing" them incur costs of training, with little of value for the firm in termsmof return on investment. Ipso facto, while it might be a good idea for an individual intern for one summer, it is not so great for the overall econony.

There are many former interns in the communications sector who cannot find paid employment upon graduation, due to the sheer numbers who have interned before them, and those who will come after them. Therefore, internships do not benefit the majority of interns in the long run.

So, why is Immelt suggesting this? Quite simply, for political gain for his boss.

Just one more example of something that is good for Obama, but really bad for the rest of us. Think HCR. Think Cap and Trade.

Think green jobs- which benefitted Immelt, and Steve Westly, nd a handful of other Obama donors, but did nothing for the majority of Americans- except to add to the debt that we all will pay.

NJNB-- Couldn't disagree with you more on internships regardless. The only thing I agree on is that they should be paid....to benefit the economy. You are so green with envy on the "Green" sector what gives? It will go forward as an addition to energy solutions not a total replacement. What is wrong with that? Do you have a problem with innovation? Once again think 200 years from now.......

John -- Another thoughtful post. You make a valid argument on wages and on the issue of "certainty" being fluid.

I presume what your aren't carrying are books, newspapers, or sources of information that challenge your preconceived notions.

I guess you did not happen the read The New York Times last week. They concluded that the writers of this study were correct

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba702

So called green jobs COST jobs- an average of 2.2 for every one created. That's bad enough, but, since only one of ten green jobs are permanent, and the jobs losses are, also, permanent, they have the capability of totally destroying an economy.

Take a look at Spain.

Moreover, technology that is viable does not require actual, rather than tax, subsidy. By actual I refer to government dollars given to businesses- like Steve Westly's half a billion tax dollars. Tax credits for R &D are a different story- they incentivize firms to innovate, by allowing a firm to keep more of the profit they earn.

Look at it this way- company A manufactures widgets. They earn a profit of $1000- on which they owe tax of $350. However, due to the amount they spent researching better widgets, they have a tax credit worth ten percent of their tax, so try actually owe the government $315.

Company B wants to manufacture green widgets. They have no luck getting investors to back them, but onemof the company founders happens to be a big contributor to the current president. They get $3500 to "invest". Unfortunately, there is no way to manufacture said green widgets in a cost effective manner. They convince the current president that giving consumers tax credits to purchase said green widgets will help them sell, so such is added to the tax code. There is one little problem, however- a similar product is on the market, but it happens that said product is a recreational product,as opposed to a replacement for normal widgets. Since the tax code is not set up to accommodate such differences, a lot of people who would never consider purchasing, rather than renting, such recreational widgets do, because, with the tax credit, the federal government is now giving them away.

Sounds bizarre? Well, I just described the electric vehicle tax credit. It's $7500- making golf carts free. You would not believe the number of them on the roads in Florida today- because they are, essentially, free. Not safe, of course, but when something is free, there will be a lot of takers.

When green energy becomes cost effective ON ITS OWN, it will find private investors. While it needs actual cash subsidies, it will cost both jobs and revenue. It is a completely ridiculous way to run an economy- unless your intention is to run it into the ground.

Whether intentional or because of complete ineptitude, that is where Obama has brought the economy. Romantic visions of rainbow technologies are best left to the dreamers who will never have a role in setting economic policy. The country needs some pragmatists who learn from history, and allow proven technologies, rather than proven failures, to dominate energy policy.

NJNB -- My point is it will go on regardless of who or what or where the incentives come from. You are for throwing the baby out with the bath water......that is just silly. You make your point better without derogatory inferences. Tax credits for anyone or business is a form of control I agree. Clean taxes, clean bills, and clean initiatives would be a start on clarifying who is doing what, to what extent, and is it "cost" efficient or "cost" prohibitive as a Country to support. Something I agree on. There is freedom in clarity and accountability. Yes, I read, a lot, but with an objective mind......

I would add there are many brainiacs around the world that will step forward with ways to utilize and capture energy as one solution to our future shortage. Will we lead or wait for someone else to.

Dcia- a cursory search of bankruptcy filings yielded six green tech companies- headlined by Evergreen Solar and Solyndra- both big recipients of tax payer funds.

You don't get it. If these were good technologies run by people with good business plans, they would attract private investors. They would not be dependent on taxpayer monies they have no means to repay.

How many failures and bankruptcies can you find in any sector NJNB your argument is bogus and stubborn. Ridiculous comes to mind.....yikes

I am not your enemy.....you have a right to voice your opinion, sometimes I agree and most times I disagree.

Whew! That was a lot to read through - but, VERY informative. Thanks for putting so much effort into your post. Kevin Phillips has several books, such as The Politics of the Rich and the Poor, that clearly show the dismal future for this country if we continue down this path of destroying our middle class. If you haven't already read him, I think you would appreciate what he says.

NJNB -- Do you agree all business should stand on their own two feet? No socializing losses?

Thanks Judy...will look into it, always open to new approaches.

John B, who cares if Warren Buffet should pay more tax. There is no doubt that if you want to tax the super wealthy even more, take away loopholes, dividends and cap gains rates for those making over some threshold, do it. Thats a blip in the system. What you really want is to embellish and exaggerate the class warfare and tax and punish the working rich--the small business owners, the doctors etc under your system of leveling the playing field. Instead of worrying about bringing in a few dollars on the super wealthy--why not talk about tax reform that brings everyone into the ownership system eliminating all government subsidies and welfare through the tax system? Why not talk about eliminating all the barriers to jobs growth like the regs in Dodd-Frank or Obamacare like mandating free contraceptives to women etc that only raise the costs of hiring employees? Why not talk about reforming our government costs and reforming entitlements so we dont reduce the standard of living for our children and grandchildren? Instead of worrying about your class warfare and inequality of sucess, why not focus on education reform and forcing the unions to accept trying new ways and merit based pay so we can eliminate the education gap that causes so much income inequality? Why not focus on stopping the flow of illegal immigration which depresses wages and is such a huge burden on our government budgets? I know Obama has done a decent job in this area but there is alot more that can be done. Come on John you can do better than Soros talking points.

Kirk -- a friend in tax reform! There is room here for everyone's voice, just make a little room for yourself and advocate for what you believe in. We need all voices in order to reason. Do you think we can elevate the plight of the working poor by taxing them? Is that what you mean by ownership? Ownership becomes obtainable when one has enough money to purchase it. What say you?

No Joe could you please give me a detailed list of the 379 regulations from July and the 4200 in the pipeline.

I wouldn't worry too much about NJ's list of regulations. Conservatives have a long and storied history of being wrong on claims that new regulations were destroying industry. From the Cry Wolf Project;

As the nation approaches the first anniversary of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, opponents are claiming that the new measure is extraordinarily damaging, especially to Main Street. But industry’s alarmist rhetoric bears striking resemblance to the last time it faced sweeping new safeguards: during the New Deal reforms. The parallels between the language used both then and now are detailed in a report released today by Public Citizen and the Cry Wolf Project.

In the decades since the Great Depression, Americans acknowledged the necessity of having safeguards in place to prevent another crash of the financial markets, including the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and laws requiring public companies to accurately disclose their financial affairs. Although these are now seen as bedrock protections when they were first introduced, Wall Street cried foul, the new report, “Industry Repeats Itself: The Financial Reform Fight,” found.

http://crywolfproject.org/briefs/industry-repeats-itself-financial-reform

After lack of effective regulations and hamstrung regulators brought down the entire world economy you'd think the GOPTP would realize the failure their deregulatory policies wrought, and the need for new regulation to prevent a recurrence. Conservatives don't learn that well, though. It isn't just in the financial sector, either.

There’s an old adage that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. That seems to be the unofficial motto of the United States Chamber of Commerce, which has spent the last forty years repeating (and repeating and repeating) the mantra that government regulations on businesses “kill jobs” and economic growth. But their predictions are repeatedly wrong. The laws that they warned would bring economic ruin have become the basic health, safety, and environmental safeguards we now take for granted.

The Chamber’s latest goal is to prevent implementation of regulations to limit greenhouse gases and toxic air pollutants (as mandated by the Supreme Court). Republican proposals to eliminate the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gasses failed in the Senate. Now they are focused on the Obama administration to thwart the EPA’s rule making process. The EPA recently proposed several regulations to address greenhouse gases, toxic emissions and other pollutants from power plants.

The Chamber is hoping that in these hard economic times, Americans’ concern about jobs will scare them into believing that rules to limit global warming will stifle job growth. But their rhetoric is the same when the economy is humming. Whether unemployment is high or low, the Chamber and its business allies have opposed every significant step towards a more sustainable, healthier future. They opposed the Kyoto treaty, the Clean Air Act, auto emission standards, Renewable Portfolio Standards, the Clean Water Act, removing lead from gasoline and more. They justify their opposition by claiming that these rules will kill jobs. And they are wrong every time.

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

In fact, on virtually every topic Conservatives have employed the same reflexive talking points in an attempt to block the advances that have brought us to the pinnacle of society. http://crywolfproject.org/issues

I am not sure what you mean by the working poor but if your asking if I am all for a simpler, fairer progressive tax system in which all social engineering is removed from the tax code yes. Why should homeowners get tax benefits over renters or people with children get deductions as these are behaviorial choices. But yes those who make more should pay more tax both in absolute dollars and rate. As for what the bottom is, I dont know but it has to be below $50k where its basically at now. A family of 4 making $75k with a house etc pays about $5,000 in federal income tax and that same family of 4 making $250k pays $75 thousand in tax. Something is wrong with that. But the higher you go then the rates drop because dividends and capital gains are taxed too low. Its a screwed up system but I have no problem with a threshold where you dont pay much tax but it shouldnt be 47% of current taxpayers

Jody:

I agree. The TP/GOP has been a tad short on the truth for the last several years. They have no shame and tell outright lies, like we see here everyday from them, and then try to deny it or it was not supposed to be a fact or they just lie and hide, hoping we will forget.

Sorry, we are on to that old Karl Rove play book.

John B and Jody: Outstanding posts!

And by not bombing the sh.....t out of them and accidentally hitting innocents, you have not made enemies that will come back to haunt you.

Great post, Jodie, Iowa

The decision made by President Obama to allow the Arab League and the African Union to head the effort is what I appreciate the most. In turn, there will now be less need for United States involvement in the Middle east and Africa.

Thank you, Mr. President

Great post, Jody. I saw a picture from Tripoli thanking 4 people----President Obama, President Sarkozy, PM Cameron and UN Ambassador Rice. I thought at the time that most of the people being so critical of the President probably couldn't even name the UN Ambassador and yet she played a huge role in events occurring so that none of our brave soldiers gave their life in this effort.

This whole situation was one of the strongest examples of how the Republicans are anti whatever the President is for.

Anna Molly:

Right on the money today. The TP/GOP Party has become a collection of frauds, flip-flopper's and outright hypocrites. We have a few of those in our Party as well but it is not President Obama. He is the only one that is trying to move this country forward while all the time the TP/GOP does everything in their power to try and make him fail.

It is amazing that he has been able to accomplish what he has when you take into consideration that he has faced more crisis than any President since WWII. He inherits a recession, 2 wars, a record $1.3 Trillion Dollar deficit, unrest in the European Economy that has repercussions on Wall Street, political unrest in Egypt, Iran , etc. Earthquakes in Japan and a "Obstructionist" TP/GOP Party that vows to make him a failure and to never compromise. And recently, the first ever Credit Rating Downgrade caused by these very same "Obstructionists"; and their dysfunctional 112th Congress as exposed by S&P.

President Obama 2012

and then the GOP/TBers want to deprive him of a "vacation". Some vacation. That's not my kind of vacation.

Marilyn:

Touche' Right on the money. The hypoctites on the right complain about him being on vacation but not one word about the MIA Congress - Are they not getting paid for being away from their jobs, and collectively what does that cost per day.

Agreed, Navy. I don't agree with the President on everything, but it takes a lot of guts just to get out of bed every morning, knowing what he will face every day in phony and unnecessary obstruction. If Republicans put half as much energy into constructive cooperation as they do into obstruction and destruction, we can only imagine what a different prospect we would be facing right now.

Instead, they put that effort into blaming you and me.

Anna Molloy:

I would not want his job period. No matter what you do you have a segment of people pissed at ya.

You are right, just imagine what could have been done in 2009 and 2010 if the TP/GOP would have just said 'yes' once in a while. Instead they block over 400 Bills in the senate - some that would have created millions of jobs collectively. They block appointments to government positions basically making them mute, and on and on. Any help at all from these guys and we could have avoided this whole mess including the "Credit Rating" Tea Party Downgrade by S&P.

AM: Agreed, Navy. I don't agree with the President on everything, but it takes a lot of guts just to get out of bed every morning, knowing what he will face every day in phony and unnecessary obstruction.

Poor Obama. Obstructed at every turn. He didn't get his $800 billion dollar and ineffective stimulus. He didn't get his trillion dollar job killing ObamaCare. He didn't get his 99 weeks of unemployment benefits. He didn't get his debt ceiling raised (by a record amount). He didn't get get QE1 or QE2 from the Fed (not that you Libs would even know what that is). He didn't get a report from his very own Debt Commission on how to fix the economic problems of the country.

Grow up liberals. Obama has gotten exactly the things he wanted to get, and your lame attempts to blame others is pathetic to watch. Here are Obama's results: 9%+ unemployment. 24 million people out of work or under-employed. 1.3% GDP. 1 in 5 children in poverty. 1 in 7 Americans on food stamps. US credit downgrade to AA+. That's Obama's report card going into an election year.

So while the Liberals ran the show...Bi-partisanship be damned but NOW......you are a doddling fool. This guy's done nothing but feed the welfare state and encourage people to "look to government" instead of doing what needs to be done to improve their lives instead of waiting on your government mother to fix your problem. The healthcare bill was aimed at using taxpayers money to cater to illegals and create yet more government addicted Liberals. he declares war on American energy sources putting yet more Americans on the dole and running american business overseas and promoting 4.00 to 5.00 a gallon gas that devestates the middle class long term. To defend this failure as he sinks is nothing short of partisanship while America suffers.

Ahhh....a lot of short term fixes without any long term solutions... hopefully, the President will put in writing a plan that can be compromised on and passed for the good of our great Country. On that we can all agree.

Clean taxes, clean bills, and clean initiatives would be a start. Use the IRS as comptrollers to weed out fraud in medicare, medicaid, etc. Clean it all up...what's the hold up! I would argue it is our legislators unwilling to give up power. Presidents come and go.

Anna and Navy --- good points in this thread! : ) Obstruction doesn't help the Country in any way. Where are the statesman????

Tenthers? These Tea Party Republicans are constitutional ANARCHISTS. That's what a "Tenther" is.

Why should these "Party of NO," these bunch of right-wingers in Congress do ANY work for the people that they were elected to do, when they can always fall back on the excuse that, "Why should I do this, or do that ...or have to do anything, now that I've been elected into office? What you're asking me to do isn't stated in the Constitution's original document, therefore I'm not going to lift a finger to help you, because the way I see it, the 10th Amendment implies I don't have to legislate anything ...But I will help corporations and special interests that gave me and my office, millions."

Perhaps this is the reason why President G.W. Bush took so much record amounts of time off from the White House, to work and play at his ranch in Texas, and to go golfing so much, with his buddies.

If he said he likes his mom and apple pie, they would shun their mothers and turn down a slice of apple pie.

You forgot the word "out" which needs to be inserted between the words Obama and in.

We need a Second French Revolution to deal with the new aristocracy of the billionaires and millionaires that have bought our country and the republican party. Off with their heads!

Does that include all the wealthy Wall Street folks that supported Obama?

Of course not! They have shown signs of intelligence and not been republican zombies that do as they are programed. One of those wealthy Obama supporters just gave $5,000,000 to support the homeless in Newark NJ. They aren't hoarders!

Oh, so it is only wealthy Republicans that are the problem. I see.

Tony, I hate to say it, but right now I despise the right rich and conservative so much I guess only the republicans losing their heads would be fine with me! We haven't gotten through this summer yet not to forget the summer of 1968 and the riots. The UK was maybe a wake up call for those on the right who have the wealth to sit up and take notice!

Well, in the summer of 1968 I was in Vietnam defending your right to your opinion. But, I believe wanting someone to lose their head and despise people because they may be wealthy and conservative, while accepting wealthy people as long as they are liberals is very bias. Wealthy liberals do not do any more for poor Americans or people in need in this country than conservatives. Sympathy and "enabling" people does not help them. Opportunity exists in this country and just because someone may have taken greater advantage of the opportunity or benefited from the opportunity doesn't make the person bad. Wealth is not your enemy. The debt this nation will be down the road. Too many people taking advantage of the programs that are there to help people in need are the problem. I may not change your mind, but if this country does not become responsible in terms of its finance, there will be a real price to pay.

All will pay higher taxes both democrats and republicans only the republicans are fighting the people to keep the tax cuts for the richest.

Democrats love our country more than protecting the rich from fair taxes. Shared sacrifice is more that raising taxes on the poor and middle class.

You know there is an example of my point. Making a statement that one American loves his country more than another based on a false premise. More taxes going to Washington will be spent without some controls in place to ensure the additional tax dollars go toward debt reduction. The tax code in this country needs to be reformed. But, the Obama talking point about shared sacrifice is just that a talking point that some people will buy into. The fact is the tax code needs to be reformed and the government needs to cut the level of spending. Nobody disagress. They disgree on how to accomplish it. But to say what you said is inaccurate. Problem is Obama does the same thing and then wants "compromise". Obama shows poor leadership on this issue and most other issues. Obama should be pointing out the difference in the approach and not allienating and agitating. In other words, lead.

Tony... your attempts are admirable... but my friend... you cannot reason with these people. They are so blinded by hate and anger that they will turn on ANYONE that sees things even slightly different than them. They are all GIMME GIMME GIMME! They believe that 'SHARED SACRIFICE' means taking EVERYTHING from the 'RICH'. But after all of the 'RICH' have given everything there will be a new definition of 'RICH' and the next wave will begin.

They are the downfall of America!

I know you are right. I know you are right. Seems sad that there are these folk who just deny what is right in front of them.

I know it is sad that these republican folks just deny what is right in front of them.

Don't feel sorry for us liberals we have enough brains to realize that the republicans are willing to destroy America for the rich. The rich are only like 2% and need a lot of suckers to vote to never raise taxes again and to deregulate the EPA so the rich can rape America and destroy the environment without any government standing in their way.

I guess republicans don't need clean air to breathe or clean water to drink? Our grand-kids can just carry around an oxygen tank if they need to breathe.

As I'm sure you could guess while you were in Vietnam fighting I was here protesting and going to school. Interesting we lost and we wasted 59,000 lives finding out we couldn't win. I lost 4 classmates over there for nothing and it is really an anger point in me !

Americans First, once again your comments serve no real purpose except to allienate and agitate. Unfortunately we have a President who does the same thing instead of working with others that may not agree with him to find common ground. As I stated, Obama sets the tone for all the lack of civil discussions in Washington. Any tax increase without some control will be spent in Washington. The national debt is a serious problem. Unfortunate that you cannot address issues without name calling and have to be disrespectful.

clwyd, thats OK. The Vietnam war was a mistake. Seems we never learn as a nation. Obama is no different.

How can our president work with those who say no compromise, no negotiation. Your words are hollow when they aren't based on fact Tony! Stupid is forever!

You should go back and read some of Obama's statements right after he was elected. Like "Elections have consequences" "I won" in response to accepting an idea from a Republican. "The Republicans can come along for the ride, but they have to sit in the back seat". This is not "compromise". Obama spent 2 years allienating and agitating people who he didn't agree with. But then, after the mid-term, the new talking point "Compromise". There was no negotiation on Obama's part before the mid-terms. I won't call it stupid, but just a lack of understanding leadership.Obama's attitude was exactly as you mention, he was not willing to compromise or negotiate for two years.

Come to Wisconsin where we now are creating a new Reich. Wacko Walker told the Koch Brothers that the senators that left the state would be lured back, let talk or an hour, no discussion and no compromise and then a vote would be taken. Walker and the Fitzgerald's called these senators "criminals." Glad to see the voters told the senators they were innocent by big majorities, but Walker threw two republican senators under his bus and called their loss a victory! Oh, republicans didn't even take the back seat, Cantor and then Boehner walked out the doors! The republicans are trying to create a Nationalist Socialist State and having 30% of the voters without a voter ID will make it possible!

Pat...

The comment you just made sounded like you believe that a good president should 'lead from the front.'

REALLY? Is that what you think? And where is Barry? Leading from .......... WHERE?

Right wing NUTS admire the Alzheimer's President, Reagan, because they also have a limited capacity to think. Never underestimate the stupidity of the Conservative right wing NUT!

You can not eliminate hate and bigotry from the hearts of all men, but you can live in a country where those things are not supported as the law of the land, and in that respect his dream and our own Declaration of Independence is fulfilled.

Nash:

How true, take perry trying to back track now on his own book. This is typical of the TP/GOP Party but people are starting to see the flip flopping and are calling them out on it. Then they run and hide. Instead of town hall meetings they now want telephone chats so they can hang up the caller if they do not like where they are going or they will edit the tapes like FOX does to prove a point.

So true Navy . . . it is sad how little the American people have come to expect from folks applying to be the leader of the free world.

Nashville, well said. I've concluded that the GOPTP no longer knows what it believes and what it doesn't because daily, there is a giant and loud thump of the entire party doing a flip/flop--an occurrence based on what President Obama says or does, or doesn't say or doesn't do.

Great post, Nash. How about the debt commission that they were for until the President agreed to i. It would be amusing to watch the Republicans backtrack constantly if it didn't involve such critical issues.

I wonder if Slick Rick considers the billions of federal dollars that have and continue to be poured into Texas "inconsequential"?

Here is a quote from a spoiled child: Those Republicans can come along for the ride as I fix the economy, but they will have to ride in the back seat. Obama's message to folks who he now wants "compromise".

Get ready because the "bad times" are going to last.

I am so very proud of President Obama and will continue to let him, my representatives, and FR know it - through good times and bad.

Me too!

We have to remember, this is a marathon & not a sprint!

Obama 2012!

Tony,

I would have tied ropes to them and let them drgg behind the car the heck with the back seat that is too good for these right wing freeloaders with their loopholes that let them pay 17% average taxes while the rest of us pay 25%, 27% or 37% without the loopholes!

Get ready because the "bad times" are going to last

Yes they will Tony...

if you and your ilk have anything to do with it, or if we elect Republicans in 2012...

That just is not true. 51% of federal tax filers in 2009 paid zero income tax with some receiving a "credit". Even with the standard deduction, no one who earns the average wage paid 25, 27 or 37% of their earning in federal taxes.

Who said average wage? Those of us in the middle class! Even Buffett showed he paid only 17.4%.

You said people with lower incomes pay higher percentage amount of taxes and that is not true. The percentage that Buffett paid is not the issue. Buffett gives a bunch to charity, that is good. But it avoids taxes as well. The money does some good. Better than Washington wasting the money.

I'm with you K2mn! Well said.

Tony, yes it is true, people with lower incomes pay a higher percentage of their incomes in taxes than do the wealthy. You ignore that they pay the same rate in sales taxes, local option sales taxes, gasoline taxes and other taxes on consumption products as does the wealthy. You should check the facts before making untrue statements.

I believe the tax rates quoted were federal income tax rates. What I stated was true. Absolute dollar amounts are a better gauge of tax dollars collected than percentages when you speak about any tax, including consumption taxes. 3% of $100 is $3.00 3% of $1,000. is $30.00 The same rate right? The person that spent $100. paid less tax.

Apples & oranges -- Income taxes are different than paying a higher percentage of their incomes in taxes.

Tony C, if you're going to quote, at least quote correctly and in context. By doing otherwise, you have diminished your credibility.

Tony, you don't read. I said those who pay 25% and 27% pay more and the IRS verifies it along with Warren Buffett!

sorry Tony, It was to read "the rest of us pay (ing) 25%, 27% and 37%. I did leave out the ing!

Ben, that was my point.

fielden, your point excapes me. Other than you don't agree with me. What I posted was factual. Governments collect dollars not tax rates.

You statement that the "rest of us" , I take it means folks at lower income levels. Those folks do not pay 25, 27 or 37% of their income in taxes.

@Tony: Why is it that you selectively don't mention payroll taxes? There is effectively 15% of income that poor people may more into, as a percentage, than rich people do? It is deceitful to leave out payroll taxes - especially if you call for the abolition of social security and medicare but not the elimination of the taxes that were supposed to fund them exclusively.

GCV, no one mentioned abolition of SS or medicare. It really is too bad that instead of a President discussing differences in approach and presenting solutions he just allienates and agitates the very folks he wants to compromise with, and places blame.

There are disagreement with approach, not this extreme talking point created to divide people.

Things in Washington will not be better with a President who is the cheerleader of dividing people.