This President speaking to the Joint Congress, implored them to do the job we sent congressionals to WA DC to do. We pay them big salaries to work and do right by us and we need them now. We need them to act fast.

Pass the American Jobs Act (AJA). Barack Obama is fighting for all of us. America needs jobs.

Economists from every quarter say the American Jobs Act will do the job. It will grow our economy and strengthen our families all across America. We've been hurting from a recession that we NOW know dropped down to -8.9% (not -3.7%) GDP at the beginning of 2009.

Congress, pass the AJA! We need Congress to act now, right away, right now, Today!

Mark Zandi, Chief Economist at Moody's Analytics said, “The fiscal boost from the jobs package next year would be larger than in the first year of the 2009 economic stimulus ....The plan would add 2 percentage points to GDP growth next year, add 1.9 million jobs, and cut the unemployment rate by a percentage point.....It would go along way toward stabilizing confidence, forestalling another recession, and jump-starting a self-sustaining economic expansion".

Economic Forecasting Firm Macroeconomic Advisers said, “We estimate that the American Jobs Act (AJA), if enacted, would give a significant boost to GDP and employment over the near-term. The various tax cuts aimed at raising workers’ after-tax income and encouraging hiring and investing, combined with the spending increases aimed at maintaining state & local employment and funding infrastructure modernization, would: Boost the level of GDP by 1.3% by the end of 2012, and by 0.2% by the end of 2013. Raise nonfarm establishment employment by 1.3 million by the end of 2012 and 0.8 million by the end of 2013, relative to the baseline.”

Richard Parsons, Citigroup Chairman said, “The President's proposed combination of personal and business tax relief, targeted spending to support infrastructure, and aid to states offers several direct and innovative ways of creating jobs and bolstering our economy. The President's focus on assisting small business is spot on, since small business is the engine of job creation."

The American Jobs Act proposed by President Obama will allow us to upgrade schools, rebuild roads and employ our first responders, police, firefighters and teachers now when we need them most.

If you go on the White House site, you can see a version of the speech to Joint Congress on the AJA by the President that has been enhanced by graphics alongside, giving important facts and background. Well worth it and will answer lots of questions.

We are the 98%. We are 300 million people strong and we're not helpless. Let's call on our reps and senators and Congress to act.
If you cannot do it for yourself, do it for your children or for Americans everywhere.

This one is going to make lefty liberals wet themselves in anger. LOL!!!

The weekend WSJ had an article saying the Treasury Dept is developing a plan to reform the corporate tax code including elimination of “some, but, not all” US taxes on foreign profits.

This change would put the US corporate tax structure in sync with all the beloved socialist countries that lefty liberals admire so much. France, Germany, Canada, and most of the major industrialized countries use this type of “territorial” corporate tax system. The only other major industrialized country that uses a “worldwide” tax system like the US is South Korea. If a French company has profits in its Canadian subsidiary, it pays the Canadian taxes only. There is no French corporate tax ever paid on those foreign sub profits. If a US company has profits in a Canadian subsidiary, it pays the Canadian taxes and, if it brings those profits back to the US, it ALSO pays the US corporate taxes. That’s why US companies have $2 trillion in cash parked outside the US. And it ain’t coming back to the US as long as it will be punished with the US corporate tax bill.

The corporate tax system in those beloved socialist countries is one of the things they got right. Since lefty liberals love these counties so much, I’m looking forward to seeing them rally behind this Obama proposal.

Yeah, right.

U.S. may end taxes on some overseas profits: WSJ

Sat, Sep 10 2011

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The Treasury is weighing a proposal to eliminate some, but not all, of the taxes on overseas profits of U.S.-based companies, the Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday, citing two people familiar with the deliberations.

Eliminating the taxes on some of the profits is a central element of the Obama administration's broader plans to overhaul the corporate tax code, the newspaper said.

Business have long complained that the U.S. system of taxing companies' overseas profits hits companies that have often already paid been taxed in the countries where the profits were earned.

Morning Feisty -

George Bush, worst President we've had in my lifetime. From Texas.

Now we have another clown from Texas who wants to be President. I certainly hope we've learned ourlesson about Texans.

PS- Your advice about Newsvine paid off. First Read back on line. Thanks.

a

Anna and a lot of liberals are saying big spending works….. We just need to spend more. Even offered the following as proof over the weekend ….

Because the unemployment rate actually started at 25% in 1933, when Roosevelt took office . In 1937, after it had reduced by to about 14 percent, some economists concluded that there had been enough stimulus, and advised President Roosevelt to cut back. That strategy failed, causing a recession within the Depression, and a Big jump in unemployment. Ay that point, Roosevelt (and Congress) had to go back to more stimulus spending.

In other words, bob, they didn’t go big enough the first time. And then they had to go bigger.

No Anna, in other words, when big government quits pouring tax payer money into the economy to support non-sustainable / “infrastructure jobs” …… the economy folds …..again.

Unemployment jumped from 14.3% in 1937 to 19% in 1938 ….. Manufacturing out put fell by 37& from 1937 peak …..

Yea the economic indicators were really grim, but what was really funny in the 1937 doom and gloom of what you attribute cutting back on the stimulus ….. you fail to mention that Roosevelt RAISED TAXES TO 79% in 1936!

You mentioned unemployment started at 25% in 1933, when Roosevelt took office (actually it was more like 21% maybe 23%), and had it down to 15% when WW II started …..but how about looking it in an honest way …..

Unemployment peaked at 9% in December 1929 – 2 months after the crash. By June 1930, six months after the peak – unemployment had fallen to 6%. Coincidently, this was when big government passed their first intervention, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which was followed by the Federal Home Loan Bank Act, followed by the Emergency Relief and Construction Act, followed by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation …. AND UNEMPLOYMENT WENT TO DOUBLE DIGITS WITHIN 6 MONTHS AND REMAINED THERE THE REMAINDER OF THE DECADE!

Roosevelt tried to stimulate “demand” through increased government spending, instituted massive new regulation, set minimum prices and wages / labor standards, set competitive conditions, encouraged unions, cut farm production ….. the New Deal … the Newer Deal …CCC …..WPA …..

EIGHT MONTHS AFTER THE CRASH - FROM AN UNEMPLOYMENT RATE OF 6% - A DECADE OF BIG GOVERNMENT INTERVENTIONS SKYROCHETED THE UNEMPLOYMENT TO 25% AND NEVER GOT THE UNEMPLOYMENT BELOW 15% .

Fact.

What …… this proves the decade wasn’t enough? They didn’t spend enough? Now Obama doing the exact same thing when history has taught us what doesn't work.

Why do liberals refuse to accept fact and continue to punish the poor and unemployed for the sake of advancing a failed ideology?

Pathetic.

Question -- How can Congress pass a bill before they have it, read it and understood it? Question -- How can economists base opinions on a speech when they haven't read the details? Question -- Shouldn't the American people have an opportunity to read a bill like the AJA and comprehend all aspects before jumping on the bandwagon?

@Feisty -- That was a disgusting rant that dishonors all those who have sacrificed for this country. You -- little girl -- are not a true American. @Beverly -- as well to you for reposting what the community has determined to be vile and despicable.

It is 0827 as I type this. Already posts one and two have been collapsed. What kind of insane citizens do we have in this country? What kind of people will do anything they can to forbid the dissemination of information?

Don't like the post? Don't read it. Hate the writer? Put the writer on "ignore".

Yesterday was the tenth anniversary of the worst attack in my life time. Insane terrorists piloted enormous flying bombs into the Twin Towers. Three-thousand dead. Such an attack on America by the Japanese unified this country 70 years ago. This attack? Not at all. We are polarized to the greatest extent in my lifetime.

The leader of this country - President Obama - leads the nation in a remembrance of this awesome tragedy. He calls for unity.

The haters, the dividers, the nihilists turn out instead and we get attacks on the President.

It is the saddest of commentaries that this nation cannot come together, that we cannot share the sorrow of the survivors, that this anniversary is simply another day to put our hate on public display.

Fiesty---They collapsed your first post? The truth must sting like hell!!

Feisty, good post, I see the collapsers are out early, tee hee. Just makes me click on! I see Tpaw is now running for Romney's VP slot. Good luck, loser. Tpub "debate" tonight, or Monday Night Football? I'm getting the nachos and beer out for the game. I'll check the "lowlites" as I'm sure the best faux pas' will be rerun on MSNBC. Everyone have a great week, and thank god the 9/11 reruns are over. I'm with you, the reflecting pools at ground zero are awesome. RIP fellow Americans and all their families and friends, the force is with you. God Bless all.

Well, as long as Judge Joe is quoting The New York Times today himself, here's a little article about the 2004-05 repatriation of foreign profits that ought to be read in conjunction with his Wall Street Journal article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/business/20tax.html?_r=1&hp

This is what businesses SAY repatriation will do:

“For every billion dollars that we invest, that creates 15,000 to 20,000 jobs either directly or indirectly,” Jim Rogers, the chief of Duke Energy, said at the conference. Duke has $1.3 billion in profits overseas.

And this is what it DOES do:

But that’s not how it worked last time. Congress and the Bush administration offered companies a similar tax incentive, in 2005, in hopes of spurring domestic hiring and investment, and 800 took advantage.

Though the tax break lured them into bringing $312 billion back to the United States, 92 percent of that money was returned to shareholders in the form of dividends and stock buybacks, according to a study by the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research.

This money comes from overseas operations and in some cases accounting maneuvers that shift domestic profits to low-tax countries. The study concluded that the program “did not increase domestic investment, employment or research and development.”

Indeed, 60 percent of the benefits went to just 15 of the largest United States multinational companies — many of which laid off domestic workers, closed plants and shifted even more of their profits and resources abroad in hopes of cashing in on the next repatriation holiday.

Need more evidence, from somewhere other than The New York Times? Well, then, how about Bloomberg:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-17/tax-holiday-for-1-trillion-may-lure-profits-without-spurring-u-s-growth.html

Some analyses that did showed disappointing results. The 2005 repatriation “did not increase domestic investment, employment, or R&D,” but did boost share buybacks, concludes a forthcoming Journal of Finance article by Illinois’ Dharmapala, C. Fritz Foley at Harvard Business School and Kristin J. Forbes at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management.

One anecdote makes the point acutely: Hewlett-Packard, even as it was pulling its $14.5 billion home from abroad, announced plans in 2005 to reduce its workforce by 14,500.

“Given that the last holiday did not result in repatriating firms increasing investment levels, it seems the burden is on the advocates of another holiday to explain why things would be different this time,” Dharmapala said in an interview.

Okay, Joe ... why would things be different this time?

Isn't it odd that poor Ray can only show his displeasure by showing himself to be a complete chauvinist with the repeated "little girl"? Stay classy Ray. And the collapse feature on Newsvine is to be used for personal attacks like you made, not collapsing things that you don't agree with. K?

I have to admit that I was almost scammed by a con man last Thursday. His name is Barry Obama. In his speech he assured American’s that “Everything in this bill will be paid for. Everything.”

Well, over the weekend I was catching up on my reading and I learned what that lying sack of sh!t means by that statement. He is not going to propose any cuts or new taxes to cover this $450 billion boondoggle. Instead, he is dumping this responsibility on the Congressional supercommittee that already has $1.5 trillion in cuts on its plate to deliver by Thanksgiving. They should give him the one-finger salute on that one. And House Republican’s shouldn’t even bring this bill up for debate until, and unless, Barry details how he plans to pay for it.

Well, Ray admits to his authoritarian conservative instincts -- suppress opinions that disagree with your own by any means available.

Okay, Joe ... why would things be different this time?

________________________________________________

Why should they be different this time??

This proposal would make the US more like those beloved socialist countries that lefty liberals adore. That's reason enough to do it.

Friday’s episode of De Rev. Al’s Comedy Hour had a couple of good laughs:

First, was the Rev. teasing a segment before going to a commercial. It had a live shot of NBC terrorism expert Roger Cressey and the Rev. butchered his last name into something unintelligible on his first try. He then tried it again and called him Roger Cressely, like he was a cousin to Elvis. Cressey immediately smiled and looked like had all he could to not burst out laughing at the Rev. This is a condition I’ve noticed a number of the Rev’s guests have been afflicted with.

Next was the Rev. touting a poll on making changes to Social Security:

“64% of poll respondents said they don’t want any changes made to Social Security. Dat’s well over 2/3’s of the people polled that want Social Security to stay the way it is now.”

What a moron. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@ bob --

You say that my statistics are flawed, but you fail to provide any citations of your own to support your arguments. Ironically, in fact, right under the quotation you lifted from my earlier post, which was backed with a citation and said that unemployment was 25 percent in 1933 when Roosevelt took office, you state -- without citation of your own -- that it was actually 21 percent. You also state that unemployment never went below 15 percent, but my source clearly says it was 14 percent in 1937. It was precisely because unemployment went so high and consumer spending dropped precipitously that manufacturing dropped like a stone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession_of_1937–1938

By the spring of 1937, production, profits, and wages had regained their 1929 levels. Unemployment remained high, but it was considerably lower than the 25% rate seen in 1933. In June 1937, some of Roosevelt's advisors urged spending cuts to balance the budget. WPA rolls were drastically cut and PWAprojects were slowed to a standstill.^[1] The American economy took a sharp downturn in mid-1937, lasting for 13 months through most of 1938. Industrial production declined almost 30 per cent and production ofdurable goods fell even faster.

Unemployment jumped from 14.3% in 1937 to 19.0% in 1938, rising from 5 million to more than 12 million in early 1938.^[2] Manufacturing output fell by 37% from the 1937 peak and was back to 1934 levels.^[3]Producers reduced their expenditures on durable goods, and inventories declined, but personal income was only 15% lower than it had been at the peak in 1937. In most sectors, hourly earnings continued to rise throughout the recession, which partly compensated for the reduction in the number of hours worked. As unemployment rose, consumers' expenditures declined, leading to further cutbacks in production.

The Roosevelt Administration reacted by launching a rhetorical campaign against monopoly power, which was cast as the cause of the depression, and appointingThurman Arnold in the anti-trust division of the U.S. Department of Justice to act, but Arnold was not effective. In February 1938, Congress passed a new AAA bill which authorized crop loans, crop insurance against natural disasters, and large subsidies to farmers who cut back production. On April 2, Roosevelt sent a new large-scale spending program to Congress, and received $3.75 billion which was split among PWA, WPA, and various relief agencies.^[4] Other appropriations raised the total to $5 billion in the spring of 1938, after which the economy recovered.

I find it hard to take anything you say seriously when you appear to be pulling statistics out of the air.

The fact remains that when Roosevelt cut back on WPA programs in 1937, unemployment immediately jumped by 5 percent -- from 14 percent to 19 percent -- and consumer spending dropped like a stone. The economy went back into the tank until another stimulus bill was passed. You can try to attribute that to other causes, but without any credible citations to back you up, you're just whistling ....

While the collapse of the California Bay-Area "green" technology company Solyndra is tragic in light of the loss of 1100 jobs, not to mention the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal loan guarantees, it certainly adds to the discussion about the competency of and the appropriate role of the federal government in private sector job creation.

The bankruptcy filing for solar panel manufacturer Solyndra served as a backdrop to President Obama's address to a Joint Session of Congress...where the President demanded that Congress approve a new $447 billion economic stimulus proposal. A couple of days after that address, the FBI raided Solyndra's offices, seizing documents and other materials.

The Solyndra fiasco demonstrates that the federal government should not be picking specific winners and losers in the private sector. It would be nice if they were qualified to do that, but clearly...the are not.

Any initiatives to improve the business climate in the current challenging economic environment should be global and "big picture" in nature and benefit all U.S. businesses. The alternative is more examples like Solyndra, which can threaten this or any administration with a political scandal and a PR disaster.

If the Obama Administration is serious about improving the U.S. business outlook and stimulating private sector job creation, President Obama might want to take a look at the complete overhaul of the U.S. tax code, as proposed by his own debt commission.

Gambling taxpayer dollars in private enterprises in the misguided belief that the federal bureaucracy understands which companies are viable, and capable of surviving and actually thriving in the private sector is a bad bet...however tempting it might be to help friends with enterprises that you're favorably inclined towards in the first place.

President Obama is in the process of learning...the hard way...just exactly how bad an idea that really is.

Ray lotsanumbers:

I don't ever expect you right-wing extremists to understand the posts of others, but I still hold to the notion - albeit tenuously - that at least you understand what you write.

Practice what you preach? Perhaps.....if you understood what you are preaching, or is this just another manifestation of the totalitarian "Do as I say, not do as I do" mentality."

You wrote, "If collapsing is a legal option on here, you have no right to tell any one how they should conduct their business." Well Mr. Thought Police - or is that Mr. Control Freak? - collapsing a post is a deliberate, hands-on attempt to control the way other people conduct their business.

I no longer wonder what it is that keeps your types' heads from exploding. They can't explode. Now, implosion? Well, that's the real concern.

By the way, I note you hold girls in contempt. What is it right-wingers have against females?

This proposal would make the US more like those beloved socialist countries that lefty liberals adore.

Why? Because it's biased 60% toward tax cuts, something that Republicans worship? Because those tax cuts are biased toward small businesses, a group that Republicans claim to revere?

How about because Republicans have no legitimate reason to criticize this plan, so there's no choice but to fall back on the tired "socialist" meme?

Bravo, David Walker! Would vote for this twice if I could!

"By any means available"??????? Hogwash. If Newsvine did not believe that collapsing was a viable option for readers who find comments offensive, of no value, inflammatory, etc. it wouldn't have provided that option. So get off your high horse -- Dale -- and just keep shoveling the crap in the barn. Feisty -- and in fact most of the left loons on here -- could have been cast (should have been) as Hilly in "The Help." You would deserve the pie.

Judge Joe:

This proposal would make the US more like those beloved socialist countries that lefty liberals adore. That's reason enough to do it.

Believe it or not, I totally get this. Let's all be more like the French.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/08/markets/europe_debt_crisis_/index.htm?iid=HP_LN

Last month, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel met in Paris to discuss, among other things, a proposed "golden rule" to require all euro area nations to commit to balanced budgets ....

The leaders also discussed greater coordination on corporate tax rates and the creation of a so-called financial transaction tax.

_______

Mixed Bag:

While the collapse of the California Bay-Area "green" technology company Solyndra is tragic in light of the loss of 1100 jobs, not to mention the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal loan guarantees, it certainly adds to the discussion about the competency of and the appropriate role of the federal government in private sector job creation ....

The Solyndra fiasco demonstrates that the federal government should not be picking specific winners and losers in the private sector. It would be nice if they were qualified to do that, but clearly...the are not.

Better talk fast, bag boy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/business/energy-environment/2-more-solar-companies-get-us-loan-backing.html?ref=science

Undeterred by the bankruptcy filing of a California solar company that got $535 million in federal loan guarantees, the Energy Department is issuing two more large loan guarantees, albeit to companies that look like safer bets.

The department will announce Thursday that it has completed a $150 million loan guarantee to 1366 Technologies, a company with a new way to make the silicon wafers used in solar cells. The company, based in Lexington, Mass., is the star pupil of the department’s Advanced Research Projects Agency — Energy, or ARPA-E, which makes grants to entities with radical ideas with great potential value; 1366 appears well on the way to being the first of the project recipients to reach commercial application.

Ray-4054460 -

I fed you your teeth last week when you brought up the garbage about "no details" for the AJA. You seem to like lying down in the stable and inviting the horsies to feed you their hooves, though. And your snark today is even worse than it was last week.

So here it is again, little creature:

The Congress is in recess - Speaker Boehner has an aversion for work. The House will return to session tomorrow. it went into recess just after the President addressed the joint meeting last Thursday. When the Members finally show up for work tomorrow, there should be a bill available to address.

The principal concepts of the measure are already known, because President Obama laid it all out in his address.

Now just drop your face back into the manure on the stable floor. You need a recharge.

This proposal would make the US more like those beloved socialist countries that lefty liberals adore.

Why? Because it's biased 60% toward tax cuts, something that Republicans worship? Because those tax cuts are biased toward small businesses, a group that Republicans claim to revere?

How about because Republicans have no legitimate reason to criticize this plan, so there's no choice but to fall back on the tired "socialist" meme?

__________________________________________________

You aren't very bright, are you John B.??

My post is not about Barry's jobs scam bill. It's about the US Treasury preparing a corporate tax reform proposal. Go back and read posts #1.2 and 1.14.

AM-

I hadn't seen the article you referenced.

Are you aware that U.S. Energy Department officials regularly sat in on Solyndra board meetings?

I wouldn't be surprised if, as the Solyndra story receives more public scrutiny, this sort of thing comes to an abrupt halt.

Doubling-down on enterprises like Solyndra with taxpayer funding is extremely ill-advised. Especially when you don't know where the FBI's Solyndra probe is going to end up.

These folks aren't very smart, are they?

What's worse, they're being not very smart with our money, AM.

Mixed Bag:

These folks aren't very smart, are they?

That's one way of looking at it. Another way is that they did nothing wrong in the first place, Solyndra failed like many start-ups do, and they're not doubling down on anything except trying to stimulate the kind of economic growth that makes sense in a global economy.

If we don't do it, China will.

About the board meetings, yes, I read your earlier post. I'm not sure what that proves. We loaned Solyndra a lot of money, so why wouldn't we want some oversight capability?

According to the article I posted last week, however, Solyndra failed for reasons that were beyond anyone's control -- i.e., their superior technology got priced out of the market when the price of silicon dropped.

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Well, it's actually worse than I thought. Obama does not just double down on stupid- he is hellbent on preserving it.

1366 technology was developed by Ely Sachs- an MIT braintrust who is currently on indefinite leave.

Know what other company's technology Sachs' developed?

Evergreen's. The same Evergreen that took the federal and Commonwealth of Massachusetts money and ran- to China. After, of course, declaring bankruptcy, laying off its workers, and handing the taxpayers the bag.

You miss that particular, AM?

Believe it or not, I totally get this. Let's all be more like the French.

______________________________________________

AM: No thanks. They did get their corporate taxes right by using a territorial system. But, I'm not going to stop bathing and start eating smelly cheese.

@ no joe ~

Show me, if you can, where I said I was supporting any of these particular companies.

I don't know enough about it, but without more, I don't see what being on leave has to do with it. If Sachs is on leave to develop technology applications in the private sector, I would think you'd applaud that. I also can't see what developing another company's technology has to do with corruption by the company's financial managers. Having some experience with start-up technology companies, I can say for a fact that there is sometimes a BIG difference in philosophy between the actual scientists and the finance guys.

In short, your whole post doesn't compute to anything.

@ Mo -- You're probably right. Call me foolish, but I just want bob to know that not everyone gives in to those sorts of tactics. Who knows? If I keep dogging him long enough, maybe he'll be the one who gives up.

@ Joe -- bathing I get, but no smelly cheese?! Well, I never. You don't know what you're missing.

AM-

Lots of start-ups DO fail, Anna Molly.

But, how many fail, and take hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer loans with them?

WHILE they're being closely monitored by an agency of the same federal government that gave them the money?

And are subsequently the target of an FBI investigation?

Really, AM?

If you want to consistently champion a federal government role in private enterprise...can we first have federal government agencies competent to engage in such involvement?

You should be furious at the government's indemnity with regard to Solyndra...and seething at the loss of 1100 jobs in an enterprise the Obama Administration vouched for, and was very publicly invested in.

This IS NOT the way to reassure the public about an activist role by the federal government in private sector job creation, or President Obama's notions about prudent "investment" in the U.S. economy.

AM-

I'm delighted that you've rehashed your earlier argument about Solyndra having a "superior" product and technology.

In light of the way events have unfolded, it's hard to believe that you're blissfully unaware of how silly that argument sounds.

The marketplace decides which products are "superior" and what the metrics are for measuring that superiority.

The Betamax videotape system was technologically "superior" to the VHS videotape system...it clearly produced better images than VHS. But consumers preferred the utility of VHS over the technical superiority of Betamax...and the Betamax format simply faded away.

Thankfully...the federal government didn't invest hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in the eventual loser.

Feisty, how can you take the worst terrorist attack that happened on our soil and use it as a platform to make your political statements? You are not an American and should be ashamed of yourself. You are entitled to your views, but your lack of character in this post is astonishing. And don't try to pass my comments off as Tea Party (definately not in my instance). I don't know how you can live with yourself on a daily basis with all the hate you have within yourself.

newdayDAWNING...RETURNED

Stay classy Ray.

You mean stay classy like, Feisty? With her hateful rants, name calling, personal attacks, and vile language?

That kinda classy?

Thank you calm and sickofthebickering!!!!! You are Great Americans.

I don't mind being like Europe at all, they seem to be taking everything much better than us (cue up the examples of Greece, but don't forget to include the "socialist lefty" Scandinavians and Germans who have dealt with all these debacles with ease). Also, demonizing that the French don't take baths and eat nothing but cheese is not supporting your argument at all, they are just petty insults. Right now Europe seems up in the air as we are bombarded with reports about how Wall Street is panicking about European debt, but I have confidence that with their lower unemployment rates and higher production (as well as lower costs to their citizens for education and health care) they will bounce back faster than us. Also because this petty bickering stopping all legislation in their tracks (we're already calling it a "jobs scam bill" I see... not petty at all...) isn't in effect there, they can pass things that they need.

Also, if we haven't had the necessary details of this plan to support it, how do you have enough of the details to see its wrong and broken? The day of the speech we already had the republicans speaking out against it... While everyone was deciphering the numbers and what was in it, we had rank-and-file orders come down for the repubs against this.

Finally, How about we talk about these WILDFIRES? Your slash and burner in chief decided he didn't want Wildfire firefighting (cut that by 30%) or firefighters (slash 75%) in a wildfire prone area. He LAID OFF FIREFIGHTERS and now they've got to PAY to fight the fires to help their fellow man, after being sent to the unemployment line. Now? HE'S ASKING FOR FEDERAL AID! All the while he has a book not even a year old talking about the FAILURE that the federal government is and how everything the government touches dies. SO WHY'S HE ASKING FOR HELP? Why does California (The Lefty devils of the USA) have to give him a hand? What happens when he slashes budgets on the federal level? "We don't need bridges, these bridges look FINE!" and it collapses, we just cry about it? WHY ARE YOU SENDING GOOD MEN AND WOMEN INTO A FIRESTORM AFTER MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO FEED THEIR FAMILY! HOW DARE YOU!

I'm not taking one side or the other Ray. I wouldn't vote for Michelle Bachman or Palin if they were my only choices. I also will not vote for Obama again. My point is that seeing the posts on this site and knowing that it is really the way the far left and right feel in this country, we are a long way from healing the wounds that exist in this country. And I felt this president had the power to bring us together as a country and now I see that I was woefully mistaken. Party vs. party, class vs. class, and race vs. race conflicts have all gotten worse under this administration. I wish I could say they haven't, but they have and all you have to do is look around.

Mixed Bag:

I'm delighted that you've rehashed your earlier argument about Solyndra having a "superior" product and technology.

I'm so glad you're delighted, but sorry to have to disappoint you. This is almost exactly the same argument I made before. And this was the cite for it:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/09/technology/solyndra_fbi/index.htm

The falling price of traditional silicon-based solar panels was cited as the main reason for the closure. Solyndra made a more advanced panel that relied on less silicon. When its rivals' technology got cheaper, Solyndra's became less appealing.

This article also provides illumination and further support for my statement that if we don't do these things, China certainly will.

You see, it turns out that Solyndra's competition -- also heavily government-subsidized -- was in China.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/09/08/fbi.solyndra.raid/index.html?iref=allsearch

Last week, the company said in a statement that it was hurt by reduced demand for the solar panels it produces and strong competition from overseas rivals. Some U.S. officials have cited China's subsidies for its solar industry as a major factor in Solyndra's difficulties in competing.

(emphasis added)

So much for "free trade" and "let the market sort it out," right, Bag Boy?

It's not really Beta versus VHS, so much as it is China- versus US-made.

Change your answer as to whether government has any role to play?

hey, Feisty, girl you got their number today!

I see we have a 'new' troll amongst us. Fresh born on date and all. But AWFULLY familiar with the cast of regulars.

Tick Tock Tick Tock.

Be well, GF! I see you've gotten more votes since I opened this thread. Nothing like trying to silence and censor to really make folks curious about what someone has to say!

And then the very cretins doing the silencing want to cloak themselves in their 'brand' of Patriotism. They really do live in an alternate universe where UP is down, right?

Ray,

Excellent posts! Keep up the fight against the leftie loons on here!!

Anna - I've been reading your posts on Solyndra and I have a small comment to make for your conclusion in 1.44. You said, "So much for 'free trade' and 'let the market sort it out,' right Bag Boy?"

The market in this country would sort it out if it weren't for the fact that we get dirt cheap items from China. The Chinese have duped our manufacturing markets because of the slave labor they employ. When you buy goods made in China their costs are so much below ours which is pretty obvious. The comparison is apples to oranges. The only solution would be to slow down the Chinese by placing tarrif's on their goods but we can't. If we tarrifed their goods, it would be a hostile act against them and who holds a good portion of our nations debt and who do we look to when borrowing our deficit spending?

The free markets do work when trade is equal. Right now we are caught in a lose/lose situation when it comes to buying American because of the really discounted prices that China offers.

As long as China is allowed to set prices for goods in our country we will never bring back profitable manufacturing - hence jobs. This government is too dependent upon China for our government spending. Right now we are in a catch 22 with them.

I realize that the point a lot of people are making is that the government guaranteed Solyndra's start up and it appears as though the failure of the company may seem complicant, the fact of the matter is they just couldn't compete with the low wages of China. What may have been great idea's and those ideas held potential benefits... the business plan failed. It happens. Now we are stuck with a half a billion in bad loans, once again. The blame naturally lies to some people on political whims. If this happened under a republican president, the left would be blaming him if he so endorsed the company that failed... you and the liberals would be doing your level best to blame that president.

Anna,

(sorry I had to leave and am late getting back to you)

By 1932, unemployment had reached 23.6% and it peaked in early 1933 at 25% … (from wiki – the Great Depression)

I said ….maybe 23%. BFD

So you quibble 15% / 14.3% in an effort to avoid the unavoidable salient point ..... that after a decade of big government interventions ….. a decade in which the unemployment went from 6% in June 1930 BEFORE BIG GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION, to a peak of 25%, it was still at 15% when WW II started and effectively ended it.

A decade of government interventions / manipulations and you end up at 15% unemployment? And you can’t even maintain 15% without tax payers funding it?

And you say it was working – just needed more tax payer money and what ….. another decade or two?

Simply asinine.

How can you ignore that by your very example - that when you pull tax payer money for government supported jobs …. The jobs disappear …. Again! The economy sinks again because it is not self supporting.

Duh.

You also ignore the fact that Roosevelt INCREASED TAXES TO 79%!

Repubs say everyday that raising taxes is a job killer – THERE IT IS!

It didn’t work under Roosevelt, it didn’t work under Obama. Obama was saying the EXACT SAME THING last year about teachers and firefighters and infrastructure jobs.

It didn’t work and here he is again.

You guys never learn.

What is pathetic is that you sacrifice the poor and the unemployed all for the sake of your failed ideology.

Truly pathetic.

It didn’t work and here he is again.

You guys never learn.

What is pathetic is that you sacrifice the poor and the unemployed all for the sake of your failed ideology.

Truly pathetic.

I see. Roosevelt was the worst president EVER. Thanks for straightening me out.

But you know what? I take back what I said to Mo. I give up.

AM-

What makes you think the Chinese will lend us the money to support business models that aren't viable?

Why don't you pull that money from under your mattress and put in all into the same "green" companies that the Obama Energy Dept is pouring money into? Or, like most on the left, do you prefer that it's taxpayer money that's lost, instead of your own?

'Cause, AM...there's still time to get into the next Solyndra, if you really believe what you're saying. And, the Gray Lady was kind enough to provide you with the names of some suitable prospects, if you're so inclined.

You still haven't explained why you're confident in the Obama Administration's record in creating private sector jobs (at Solyndra, or elsewhere), based on the available evidence.

Brianb:

The blame naturally lies to some people on political whims. If this happened under a republican president, the left would be blaming him if he so endorsed the company that failed... you and the liberals would be doing your level best to blame that president.

Maybe. But unless you're prepared to tell me -- with supporting citations -- that it NEVER happened under a Republican president -- i.e., that no company to which the federal government loaned money under a Republican administration EVER failed for any reason, then this entire discussion is pretty much futile.

Last week, and on several prior occasions as well, I cited the article about Rick Perry's less-than-totally-successful forays into the same water, involving grants and loans to companies owned by HIS campaign donors that turned out to be unsuccessful, but so far not one Republican has stepped forward to criticize HIM at all, much less with the relentless zeal you are applying to President Obama.

So, pot meet kettle, I guess.

Anyway, my whole point is that the government can make mistakes. We invaded Iraq, didn't we? Obviously, no President is perfect.

What we don't want is government to make those mistakes because of campaign donations. So far we can all agree.

And given the article I cited about Perry, it appears that Democrats are not alone in doling out money to campaign contributors.

Mistakes might still be made, but at least public finance would fix that part of the problem.

Mixed Bag:

You still haven't explained why you're confident in the Obama Administration's record in creating private sector jobs (at Solyndra, or elsewhere), based on the available evidence.

I never said I was. Au contraire, as a matter of fact, although we might disagree as to the reasons.

I just don't think you're proving the point you think you're proving.

Interesting, AM.

I'm uncertain that you've grasped the point I'm trying to make.

I see we have prisoners of ideology once again trying to create a myth that the Great Depression was actually caused by lack of sufficiently free markets. Complete ignorance or intent to deceive is required to make this attack. From a 2009 column, before the tea drinkers TOTALLY absorbed the Republican Party;

Whatever you think of the Obama administration's proposals, to declare the New Deal a failure gets the history fundamentally wrong. The legacy that FDR created proved remarkably successful and remarkably enduring.

The New Deal operated at three levels: first, the programs established by the New Deal worked immediately to bring economic relief; second, the long-term changes the New Deal made to the structure of our economy brought the cycles of the economy under better control; and, finally, the New Deal re-shaped the social contract between our citizens and our government.

We usually associate the New Deal with the programs it created to put people to work, such as the Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps. Republicans hated these programs. They denounced the WPA as "We Putter Around." The new Republican National Committee chairman, Michael Steele, recently parroted this accusation when he tried to explain that the government never creates jobs, just work.

But the New Deal did provide jobs to hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans, and while they "puttered" those workers managed to build tens of thousands of bridges, paved countless miles of roads, and planted 3 billion trees.

It's certainly true that those programs by themselves did not end the Great Depression, though they did ease the crisis for the families who gained an income because of the New Deal. So while these short-term programs operated, the New Deal created a set of long-term structural changes to the economy whose impact lasted well beyond the Great Depression.

A few examples: Our bank deposits are protected by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., and the integrity of stock market transactions is guaranteed, or is supposed to be, by the Securities and Exchange Commission, both created as part of the New Deal. Most important, with the passage of Social Security in 1935 future generations of American workers could look forward to a more secure old age.

Few would argue that these New Deal initiatives have been anything but successful in the roughly 75 years since their creation. Former President George W. Bush wanted to privatize Social Security and do away with FDIC. Notice that Republicans aren't talking about that any more.

Finally, the New Deal altered the relationship between government and the economy. After World War II, Republicans and Democrats agreed that the government should take a more active role in regulating the economy, that it should use economic policy to promote the greatest good for the greatest number, and that it was obligated to provide a social safety net. They might quibble over the details, but there was a broad consensus around these points.

The result of that consensus was the greatest expansion of the middle class the country has ever experienced. The growth of the economy from the 1940s through the 1960s was widely shared. Conversely, when the economy did go into recession during those decades, the supporting frameworks set up by the New Deal helped keep those downturns relatively short.

In the early 1980s, under the leadership of Ronald Reagan, conservative Republicans set about dismantling this system. Regulations were gutted or not enforced, the social safety net was largely unraveled, and government tax policy shifted money from the middle class to the wealthiest. Since 1980 the result has been a nasty recession in the early 1990s, caused by the failure to regulate the savings and loan industry, and two devastating downturns, one in the early 1980s and the one we're in right now.

More than that, during the 30 years in which we've moved away from the New Deal, the middle class has stagnated. As wealth and assets have shifted to the top 10 percent, the middle class has survived largely on credit cards and home equity loans. Now millions have no way to pay that piper.

The system the New Deal initiated kept us from experiencing a second Great Depression for nearly half a century. We are in our current mess in large measure because we dismantled that system. Republicans would have us be afraid of a new New Deal. But based on the track record of the original, a new New Deal is just what we need.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/02/18-14

Now the GOP is totally in the hands of rabid extremists. Their wrong-headed beliefs have nearly destroyed our economy.

I see the triflin, trashy, stank, old &*&* named Fiesty has opened her turd cutter. You are about the most ignorant lefty loon in here. Then you have your worshippers in here patting you on the back for making a damn fool of yourself. I bet your husband is bulimic from looking at you everyday. That is enough to make a man puke.........

Anna Molly your posts on the off shore profits are spot on! I hope everyone reads them to see how foolish the idea is. Tried. Been there-done that-Didn't work. Let's not repeat instanity again. Or if we do have them ceritfy exacly where the money goes to jobs or they don't get to use the break. Have them specifically list every job created tojustify the tax break and make it a felony to misreport.

Let's go enen further-takingu p Mitt Romneys "coporations are people" agurment. Require the whole corporation to go to jial for misreporting.

Who says Democrat can't be bipartisan?

fiesty red head was disgusted to see Mr. Bush front and center in a show of solidarity with her dear sweet and perfect, Mr. Obama. I found it refreshing to see them together and share this great moment together without partisanship.

I really liked Bill Clinton's comment in Shanksville when he thanked George W. Bush and his staff and all the people who worked for the administration and country for keeping us safe. Mr. Clinton went on to thank Mr. Obama and his administration and all the others in the country for continuing to keep us safe. It was one of Mr. Clinton's very best speeches.

I thought his comments were healing, heart felt and right on the mark. The shame is Ms. Fiesty chose to be her typical self in light of this great day.

Beelzebub has a devil put aside for you.

I have to say that Fiesty went lower than I already thought she could go. Totally reprehensible to use 9/11 for her own politically partisan purposes. But we have already seen her religious bigotry, her zero tolerance for beliefs other than her own, over the top hypocrisy and her sensitivity for being called out on it by ignoring those she cant critically think against.

John A, is it possible that if you took your radical left academia colored glasses off for even a moment, its radical right and left wing beliefs that destroy this country (including yours) and its fiscal conservatives like Reagan and Clinton who have succeeded as leaders in this country? Stop being blinded by your bias. Can you provide me with examples where under the Reagan era,the social safety net was largely unraveled? Go to the budget numbers, employment and GDP growith from the trough in the economic cycle in 1982 until 1988 when Reagan left office and show me one safety net that was unraveled? Give us examples of how this happened?

Mixed Bag:

I'm uncertain that you've grasped the point I'm trying to make.

Of course, not.

I guess that's why they call me obtuse. ;-)

@ Arlin Carlson -- Thank you for the kind words. But like everything else, Republicans will beat down the opposition and get their way when no one is looking any more.

We will never forget alright, we will NEVER forget the most horrific attack on American soil happened right under the noses of the Republicans…

Fiesty and Bev, Absolutely right, but, the real problem started in the Clinton administration with Jaime Gorelick and now the president is thinking of making her Director of the FBI. Source is included should you think it is made up.

Movie patrons recall Forrest Gump's remarkable presence in an amazing succession of
notable historical events. Gump's innocence and simple wisdom amid those times
made for a delightful two hours of cinematic escapism. But there is no escaping
the damage that would result if President Obama appoints Jamie Gorelick to
succeed Robert Mueller as FBI director. Like Gump, Gorelick was present at a
remarkable series of recent historical events during the past two decades, but
through them all she displayed nothing that could be called either innocent or
wise. So let us count the ways in which Gorelick earned the sobriquet
"Mistress of Disaster."

First, there was her tenure as deputy attorney general under Janet Reno during President Clinton's
first term. Reno described Gorelick as Justice's "chief operating
officer" from 1993 to 1997. She was a key Reno adviser during the
horrendous events in Waco, Texas, in which David Koresh, 76 of his Branch
Davidian followers (including 20 women and children) and four federal agents
died in an unbelievably bungled assault intended to end a 50-day siege. The
Davidians were immolated in an inferno apparently ignited by pyrotechnic gas
grenades used by the government in the assault.

Next came Gorelick's move to Fannie Mae, where as vice chairwoman from 1997 to 2003 she was paid in
excess of $26 million. During her time at Fannie Mae, Enron-style accounting
techniques were used to make the government-chartered mortgage corporation
appear to be in better financial shape than it was. As a result of the cooked
books, Gorelick was paid more than $800,000 in bonuses in 1998. She was among
multiple former Democratic operatives then working at Fannie Mae who received
substantial additional compensation for their exertions in what later proved to
be a $10 billion scandal. Shortly before the scandal became public, Gorelick
told Businessweek that Fannie Mae was "managed safely ... Fannie Mae is
among the handful of top-quality institutions." It was also during these
years that Fannie Mae began investing heavily in the subprime loans and
unsecured mortgage securities that were at the heart of the Great Recession of
2008.

Finally, and most seriously, there is the matter of "Gorelick's Wall" and 9/11.
Gorelick was a member of the 9/11 Commission and became a focus of critical
attention during its hearings when it became known that during her DOJ tenure
she imposed a policy of radical separation between the FBI and the nation's
intelligence agencies in terrorism investigations. According to then-Attorney
General John Ashcroft, "Gorelick's Wall" was a key reason why
"we did not know an attack was coming." By barring such contacts,
Ashcroft told the commission, "our agents were isolated by
government-imposed walls, handcuffed by government-imposed restrictions, and
starved for basic information technology. The old national intelligence system
in place on September 11 was destined to fail." Gorelick refused to resign
from the commission despite the obvious conflict of interest.

After such a checkered career, we find it incredible that Gorelick would be on anybody's
list for appointment to any federal position, much less to head the FBI.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: #ixzz1XkhxdQOB

Rational AmeriCAN -- President Obama has been gracious from day one, including the many olive branches and concessions he and the Dems have made to Republicans to date. But we cannot have partisanship unless both sides participate.

The Tea Party Express spokeswoman was on CNN last night lying non-stop about Democrats being part of the Tea Party (prove it), about the stimulus not working, how "Obamacare" is killing jobs (though the program does not go into full effect until 2014), and apparently "uncertainty" has not included the Tea Party desire to default on the debt, and on and on. Unfortunately she was not interrupted with the facts and asked where she was getting her information. I had to change the channel, because I won't be subjected to propaganda like that.

As long as the right-wing operates with machinations instead of the Rule of Reason, how can anyone expect partisanship? No one was watching during the run-up to the Iraq invasion. But we are all watching now. I hope the far-right Republican candidates continue to be exposed for their lunacy, and I hope the sane majority gets out the vote for Democrats.

I agree that the repatriation of foreign profits is not likely to be a net jobs creator and that the manner in which Bush did it was stupid. I am not sure that without the appropriate corporate incentives to invest such as investment tax credits, accelerated depreciation deductions, fast trak regulatory approval processes, why these corporations would invest the excess cash. I would assume most of them could borrow the money here in the US at extraordinarily low rates and if the return on the investment could exceed the cost of equity capital, they would do it now. Dont need the repatriation to make that investment decision without the incentives that increase the returns. However, the elimination of the potential double tax created by repatriation would make us more competitive overseas and allow our multinationals like GM to sell cars etc cheaper in foreign countries and potentially employ more people here. I dont think repatriation helps any but making the tax code simpler, fairer and more competitive would likely create jobs.

AM, you did to Bob what you do to me. You ignored the overall substance and conclusion that he is making which is pretty powerful and compelling while attacking some small point, observation or stat he used. The focus is then off the conclusion and you make it about the veracity of some non essential fact or observation. I bet he goes on ignore soon too.

True Patriot, my colleague from Detroit who sits next to me, voted for Obama and actually has met him a couple of times is a Tea Party member. He probably has never voted GOP in his life but is so disgusted by the lack of fiscal discipline by both parties and especially Obama at this point, he might vote GOP (but I would highly doubt it). But he definitely loves the Illinois Tea Party.

As for Obamacare, as people have told you over and over, it is a jobs killer and its not true that it doesnt go into effect until 2014. Yes, the exchanges, fines, and additional payroll tax goes into effect in 2014 but a variety of insurance mandates have already been put in place. I am sure you are aware of eliminating the annual and lifetime caps, keeping dependants on until age 26, mandating 100% reimbursement of female contraceptives, wellness and screenings etc. Who do you think pays for these huge additional costs to insure their employees? Most employers pick up 75% of the aggregate cost of an employees health care costs and the employees pick up 25% either through experience rated insurance or self insurance administered by an insurance company. So if the aggregate costs go up, and it hits operating margins by a bigger percentage, do you really think that is a job creator?

Kirk:

AM, you did to Bob what you do to me. You ignored the overall substance and conclusion that he is making which is pretty powerful and compelling while attacking some small point, observation or stat he used. The focus is then off the conclusion and you make it about the veracity of some non essential fact or observation. I bet he goes on ignore soon too.

Sure, it's compelling if you believe his factual premises, which are mostly false, as I pointed out. It's your opinion that those are "non essential facts," but yet those same facts form the difference between his opinion and mine. What could be more essential than that?

Frankly, I'm tired of contending with people who make up their own version of the facts. And anyway, this discussion began last week, so I suspect you're a little late to the game and short on the context.

But thanks for your input. Duly noted.

In case you're wondering, I peeked because I figured that comment had something to do with mine.

Ha, I dont even understand the ignore button. What is so scary about anonymous posting? You also ignored where I agreed with you in the post before that. Yeah I cant keep up with all the previous posting but I am somewhat of an FDR fan and have been to his home in Georgia and have read many of the books about him. I cant quote the factual premises which are correct or which are false but there are certainly an equal number of historians and economists who agree with Bob in that they viewed FDR's economic policies although the big government spending started with Harding actually prolonged much of the depression rather than helping it. I loved his leadership and highly respect him for that and I do respect his big idea thinking at the time and certainly many of the bills he passed were beneficial on a long term basis for the country. But to give your protagonist his due, his ideas and comparison to today isnt crazy just at odds with Obama and your current philosophy.

For those who say, "the actions of FDR did nothing and only WWII got us out of the depression, Not government spending." I have one question, exactly who do you think spent a lot of money during WWII AND raised taxes to 90% to pay for it ? I'll answer for you (since you have Republican brains that usually can't see the obvious) it was the government.

Prior to the 1930's it was a TOTAL lack of government oversight which led to the Wall Street collapse and muliple bank failures in the 1930's. Prior to the advent of the FDIC, if a bank failed and you had your money in that bank, you lost everything. Because you lost your money, you could not pay your mortgage, which would cause additional bank failures. The dominoe effect was cumulative, across the country.

Ron Paul is wrong, the role of government is to "provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." Shutting down the government will not secure those blessings. Shutting down the government will only add to the misery.

Kirk -- Teabaggers and/or those who "identify" with the Tea Party are NOT Democrats and we all know it. This from the Pew Research Center:

But the precise nature of the Tea Party has been less clear. Is it solely a movement to reduce the size of government and cut taxes, as its name -- some people refer to it as the Taxed Enough Already party -- implies? Or do its supporters share a broader set of conservative positions on social as well as economic issues? Does the movement draw support across the religious spectrum? Or has the religious right "taken over" the Tea Party, as some commentators have suggested?¹

A new analysis by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life finds that Tea Party supporters tend to have conservative opinions not just about economic matters, but also about social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. In addition, they are much more likely than registered voters as a whole to say that their religion is the most important factor in determining their opinions on these social issues.² And they draw disproportionate support from the ranks of white evangelical Protestants.

This from the American Sociological Association:

The analysis shows that most people who agree with the religious right also support the Tea Party. But support for the Tea Party is not synonymous with support for the religious right.

Tea party voters are more likely to fear change and harbor negative attitudes toward immigrants, according to a study presented Monday at the American Sociological Association's annual conference in Las Vegas.

The study, called "Cultures of the Tea Party," also claims voters who felt favorably toward the tea party movement valued deference to authority and libertarianism. The report concludes that the tea party movement is not a new political phenomenon, but rather "is best understood as a new cultural expression of the late-20th-century Republican Party."

This from a Harvard/Notre Dame study:

"Our analysis casts doubt on the Tea Party's "origin story." Early on, Tea Partiers were often described as nonpartisan political neophytes. Actually, the Tea Party's supporters today were highly partisan Republicans long before the Tea Party was born, and were more likely than others to have contacted government officials. In fact, past Republican affiliation is the single strongest predictor of Tea Party support today.

What's more, contrary to some accounts, the Tea Party is not a creature of the Great Recession. Many Americans have suffered in the last four years, but they are no more likely than anyone else to support the Tea Party. And while the public image of the Tea Party focuses on a desire to shrink government, concern over big government is hardly the only or even the most important predictor of Tea Party support among voters.

So what do Tea Partiers have in common? They are overwhelmingly white, but even compared to other white Republicans, they had a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and they still do.

More important, they were disproportionately social conservatives in 2006 — opposing abortion, for example — and still are today.

All the studies conclude that the Tea Party is and always has been a minority in the Republican Party who want more religion, not just less government, and who are bigots as well.

Furthermore, there is NO evidence that the Affordable Health Care Act is "killing jobs" or that "uncertainty" other than supply and demand is the reason companies are not hiring. A couple of years of a small stimulus package compared to a decade of tax cuts for the rich and corporate welfare that has NOT created jobs--as well as deregulation and toxic mortgages that caused the economic meltdown -- It is ludicrous to claim we need to continue Republican policies even longer with more intensity. We need a jobs plan, period.

Kirk, you and Miss Tea Party Express can have your own opinions but you can't have your own facts.

We will never forget alright, we will NEVER forget the most horrific attack on American soil happened right under the noses of the Republicans…

Feisty should be banned for her hatred - this is so far beyond the line it is unbelievable.

The lefties have posted over and over that we need to unite, and Feisty posts this kind of over the top hate? I will place her and Beverly on ignore, as they add nothing and have consistently shown that they are more than willing to state any outrageous hatred to further their cause.

Good people do not need to denigrate others in order to teach, educate or make a point. Shame on you both.

TruePatriot,

It might be worth mentioning that it has been determined that conservatism is a mental illness, according to studies sponsored by the NIH...

We consider evidence for and against the hypotheses that political conservatism
is significantly associated with:

(1) mental rigidity and closed-mindedness,
including (a) increased dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity, (b) decreased
cognitive complexity, (c) decreased openness to experience, (d)
uncertainty avoidance, (e) personal needs for order and structure, and (f)
needfor cognitive closure;

(2) lowered self-esteem;

(3) fear, anger, and aggression;

(4) pessimism, disgust, and contempt;

(5) loss prevention;

(6) fear of death;

(7) threat arising from social and economic deprivation; and

(8) threat to the stability of the social system.

Gee...sound familiar?

I agree with previous posters that it's disgusting and morally reprehensible for feisty to use the heroes from 9/11 as a platform to attack and demonize those who disagree with her. Seriously, just low down. Having said that, I'd like to point out a quote from Blackhouse:

Mark Zandi, Chief Economist at Moody's Analytics said, “The fiscal boost from the jobs package next year would be larger than in the first year of the 2009 economic stimulus ....The plan would add 2 percentage points to GDP growth next year, add 1.9 million jobs, and cut the unemployment rate by a percentage point.....It would go along way toward stabilizing confidence, forestalling another recession, and jump-starting a self-sustaining economic expansion".

Now, Mark Zandi did in fact say that. What he leaves out is that the same article points out that "If Zandi's estimates are correct, for example, the program would cost roughly $235,000 per worker to create jobs that would likely pay a quarter of that or less annually."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44489655/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy/

True Patriot, so what? I would bet you that if you did the same research for the anti war protestors that plagued the major cities 5 years ago or the environmental grass roots protestors such as the recent Daryl Hannah against the canadian pipeline group would show that they are 100% democratic voters. The fact that people who are generally fiscally conservative identify with the GOP is not a mystery do you think? Have you been paying attention to our economy and fiscal policies over the last 10 years and exacerbated over the last 3? Not surprising but if you dont think that there are a ton of independents and democrats who identify with the fiscal ideas of the Tea Party, then you might be in shock come next November. Did you see the new poll by Media Watch, the group that Bill Daly came from? In the 12 states that will decide the election, Obama has already lost close to a third of the independents who voted for him last election and 50% say they identify with the fiscal policies of the GOP and are leaning to vote for the GOP candidate. If that were to be the case, Obama would lose by a landslide.

True Patriot,

Rational AmeriCAN -- President Obama has been gracious from day one, including the many olive branches and concessions he and the Dems have made to Republicans to date. But we cannot have partisanship unless both sides participate.

How was Mr. Obama being gracious when he looked at Republicans and told us that Democrats had won so to the "back of the bus with you?" How was he being gracious when he excoriated Paul Ryan in front of Mr. Ryan when he is the only one to present a comprehensive plan to balance the budget and get us out of debt.

I really wonder how you define gracious, sir.

Obama is trying to get re-elected by writing legislation that won't pass Congress, more specifically, the House of Representatives. Why? So he can blame the economy on the Republicans.

But there's a problem with that approach. The American people understand spending won't fix the problem; rather, it will just kick the can down the road past the 2012 elections costing our children billions annually just in interest payments alone. That's the real cost to America should we fall for Obama's call to spend, bill. Do we really want another 4 years of out-of-control spending? Can our economy survive it? Will the World, namely China, allow it?

So Dude, how will the Republicans create demand in the economy when there is none? How does Supply Side economics fix that?

John B, Des Moines, IA

So Dude, how will the Republicans create demand in the economy when there is none? How does Supply Side economics fix that?

You haven't been listening to small businesses. All they need is for our government to back off and stop adding new regulations impacting the cost of doing business here in America. The issue is market confidence that their taxes won't go up come 2013. Not to mention, concern about being raided like Gibson Guitars was recently over stupid "regulations". The uncertainty is so overwhelming that they aren't hiring. It has nothing to do with "supply side" economics.

As far as my knowing how the Republicans plan to fix our economy, well, you will have to ask a Republican I guess. But it is perfectly clear that spending is not the solution because it does nothing but "kick the can down the road". We are here again with Obama wanting a second stimulus due to the first stimulus running out this past spring allowing America to catch up to the can once again.

Those are talking points. Business is earning record profits, so the "crushing burden of regulation" must be pretty manageable for them.

So Dude, how will Republicans create demand in the economy when there is none?

We have oversupply in the economy because people aren't buying...how do we get them buying by further increasing supply and capitalization, currently in excess of $3T?

Great post, IR. I notice that Mr. Golub identifies "Legitimate" tax breaks as "anything that benefits the CEO class" and “replete with favors to various interest groups and industries,” is defined as "anything that doesn't benefit the CEO class."

It's just part of the Ayn Rand philosophy of the Conservative Movement, a point of view that defines over 98% of us as "leeches" while the Golub's of the world are the only "creators."

Bev and Floyd: You aren't very bright, are you.

LMAO!!!!

It looks like the Right Wing collapse bast@rds are out in force today.

"It would serve the Teapublican’s well to keep Bush out of sight between now and Election Day…"

Hi Feisty,

I hope people will think of W. Bush when they see the other red neck cowboy Perry.

John B, Des Moines, IA Comment collapsed by the community

President Obama made such a great case for his American Jobs Act that there isn’t much point in me putting a lot of detail into that issue. To summarize, average Americans can’t afford to wait another 14 months for help, President Obama has a plan that combines the best ideas of both Republicans and Democrats, so everyone should just get it in gear and start helping the American economy quickly.

Still, for some reason Republicans aren’t expected to be supportive of a plan that incorporates many of their own ideas and is 60% biased toward tax breaks. Confused by this, I did a fair amount of Google research to try to determine why. I didn’t have a lot of luck with that. The results were all pretty vague, expressing outrage at the President’s plan without saying why, but the objections seem to fall into 2 categories.

The first is a claim that no one knows what President Obama is proposing. As with most Conservative distortions there’s a grain of truth attempting to give it legitimacy. The final language is still being drafted, but a bill will be before Congress very soon and take away. Even in the interim there’s plenty to talk about, because almost everything but the final language can be seen right now at www.americanjobsact.com .

The only other reason Conservatives seem to have for keeping the American economy in suspended animation is a vague “it won’t work.” That seems to be a strange complaint for a plan that’s 60% tax cuts. It doesn’t seem strange anymore that the beliefs of Conservative politicians and opinion-makers is at odds with that of economists…you know, people who actually have a claim at knowing how the economy works. Let’s have a closer look at that. In typical GOPTP hypocrisy THESE tax cuts are being counted by them as “spending” because they would make the deficit worse. I happen to agree with that accounting, but it’s clearly hypocritical because 1) President Obama is offering offsets to these tax cuts and 2) when Republicans propose tax cuts they show no such logic, preferring to refer to them as “letting people keep their money.” On this point Conservatives are holding the economy hostage for the sake of political gain, same as they’ve done repeatedly since taking the House in January…strike that, same as they’ve done via filibuster, hold, and every other purely procedural maneuver ever since Barack Obama’s address became 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

More telling, the President is suggesting that some fringe but significant tax breaks for the very wealthy and highly profitable industries be suspended to shift that aid to working Americans and small businesses. Republicans are against that, preferring to protect tax breaks for the oil industry, corporate jets and the like because Conservatives believe tax breaks are only of value if they help the rich. Is that the case?

Our growing income and wealth disparity is a dangerous situation socially and for the well-being of our economy. When policies cause wealth and income to accumulate to the top 1%, economic activity naturally slows because the wealthy's marginal propensity to consume is much less than that of the working and middle class. In other words if 1 billion dollars is earned by 50,000 everyday people instead of a single, super-wealthy plutocrat, then those 50,000 everyday people will generate a LOT more economic activity because they will spend most of that billion dollars right away, while the plutocrat may invest the excess money in China or just save it. It should be noted that at the beginning of the Great Depression (1929) and the Great Recession (2008) the income share of the top 1% were both in excess of 20%.

Under President Obama we have had the lowest income tax rates ever, including under President Reagan. These low rates have been a windfall for those with the largest income and wealth. We chose to believe the claim that bigger and bigger tax giveaways for the wealthy will benefit the rest of us when their wealth spills over and trickles down to us. If we were thinking for ourselves, we might have concluded by now that, if Wall Street tycoons cause a global financial market collapse, if the U.S. economy craters, and if factories are closing in America while opening in countries where there is very cheap labor, "trickle-down" policies have failed and should be repealed.

http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/ARecipeForDepression

So there you have it. The Republican economic approach of Supply Side Economics is a failure both in logic and in practice, but even with that President Obama was able to find a significant number of Republican ideas of merit for inclusion within the plan. That’s why Congress should pass this bill now.

@Feisty -- That was a disgusting rant that dishonors all those who have sacrificed for this country. You -- little girl -- are not a true American. @Beverly & IR -- as well to you for reposting what the community has determined to be vile and despicable.

Joe about as bright as collapsing somebodies post because you don't like what they have to say.

And Ray save me from your faux outrage. It don't set well with me.

Thanks for the rapid repost. I see the Conservatives must be pretty frightened by the message in order to collapse the first 2 threads in only 15 minutes. They know the President's plan is solid and they have no legitimate reason not to pass it now.

Are we having a "war" on comments? Can't we just all be adults and let freedom ring? To quote Charlie Brown's Lucy, "Good grief".

(Morning to All, have reposted because we were collapsed 30 minutes after FR article was posted):

This President speaking to the Joint Congress, implored them to do the job we sent congressionals to WA DC to do. We pay them big salaries to work and do right by us and we need them now. We need them to act fast.

Pass the American Jobs Act (AJA). Barack Obama is fighting for all of us. America needs jobs.

Economists from every quarter say the American Jobs Act will do the job. It will grow our economy and strengthen our families all across America. We've been hurting from a recession that we NOW know dropped down to -8.9% (not -3.7%) GDP at the beginning of 2009.

Congress, pass the AJA! We need Congress to act now, right away, right now, Today!

Mark Zandi, Chief Economist at Moody's Analytics said, "The fiscal boost from the jobs package next year would be larger than in the first year of the 2009 economic stimulus ....The plan would add 2 percentage points to GDP growth next year, add 1.9 million jobs, and cut the unemployment rate by a percentage point.....It would go along way toward stabilizing confidence, forestalling another recession, and jump-starting a self-sustaining economic expansion".

Economic Forecasting Firm Macroeconomic Advisers said, "We estimate that the American Jobs Act (AJA), if enacted, would give a significant boost to GDP and employment over the near-term. The various tax cuts aimed at raising workers' after-tax income and encouraging hiring and investing, combined with the spending increases aimed at maintaining state & local employment and funding infrastructure modernization, would: Boost the level of GDP by 1.3% by the end of 2012, and by 0.2% by the end of 2013. Raise nonfarm establishment employment by 1.3 million by the end of 2012 and 0.8 million by the end of 2013, relative to the baseline."

Richard Parsons, Citigroup Chairman said, "The President's proposed combination of personal and business tax relief, targeted spending to support infrastructure, and aid to states offers several direct and innovative ways of creating jobs and bolstering our economy. The President's focus on assisting small business is spot on, since small business is the engine of job creation."

The American Jobs Act proposed by President Obama will allow us to upgrade schools, rebuild roads and employ our first responders, police, firefighters and teachers now when we need them most.

If you go on the White House site, you can see a version of the speech to Joint Congress on the AJA by the President that has been enhanced by graphics alongside, giving important facts and background. Well worth it and will answer lots of questions.

We are the 98%. We are 300 million people strong and we're not helpless. Let's call on our reps and senators and Congress to act.
If you cannot do it for yourself, do it for your children or for Americans everywhere.

IT HAS BEEN a little over a week since billionaire Warren Buffett called for higher taxes on the richest Americans, and now comes the reaction. Harvey Golub, a former chairman and chief executive of American Express, writes in the Wall Street Journal that he “resents” Mr. Buffett’s suggestion. I already pay plenty of taxes, Mr. Golub asserts, adding: “Before you ‘ask’ for more tax money from me and others, raise the $2.2 trillion you already collect each year more fairly and spend it more wisely.”

I love Warren Buffet. The man is a genius. But this tax me more statement is full of hypocrisy. Ignore the fact that he could write the IRS a check if he feels he is undertaxed. Look instead at how he has set up his estate and the comments surrounding it's justification. He has placed his money tax-exempt trust funds for charity in the event of his death to avoid estate tax. I have no complaint that he is using the tax code as currently written to protect his legacy, but his justification for this is that "a private endowment will use the funds more efficiently than the government".

How are his words vs his actions not hypocrisy?

Backhouse and others I couldn't repost all of the responses but I would invite all of you'll both yea and nay to repost in view of what seems a concerted attempt by others to shortcut the debate this morning.

There's the Conservative straw man "if Buffett wants to pay more taxes he should just write the government a bigger check."

Warren Buffett voluntarily sending money to the IRS does very little to solve either the budget issues or the fundamental unfairness of the tax code. Adjusting tax rates on ALL the ultra-wealthy does.

Don't fall for the Conservative deflection. Buffett is right, that's why they work so hard to deny his message.

This has got to be the finest article written on Obama's new spending plan

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/09/12/obama_the_veg-o-matic_president_act_now__99248.html

Pity, and to the point.

The real pleasure I have had is putting many of the Right Wing Extremist who post here on ignore. It’s like changing the TV channel from FOX Noise to a Real News channel such as MSNBC or CNN.

This Right Wing Extremist group doesn’t deserve my time, because all they do is recycle all of the CRAZY RED NECK, Racist, Lying Talking points concerning Our GREAT President Obama.

“They the Tea Potty- Right Wing Extremist “Can Go Straight to Hell.”

America gives Billion in foreign aid so, now some aid at home is despicable? Finally looking out for US first is a bummer?

No wonder America has lost the status and respect as a Super Power Globally. Every Nation who takes from the USA, knows we really have nothing to give to ourselves.

Charity begins at home and then you spread it abroad.

Nothing like a hard Right wing Op-Ed.

There goes No Joe with more of her famous “Critical Thinking”.

Don't fall for the Conservative deflection. Buffett is right, that's why they work so hard to deny his message.

I assume you mean the one about a private endowment being more efficient than the government? Because that's where he's putting his money. Talk is cheap.

And I suppose it's Buffett's strong feeling that he should pay more taxes that has him fighting tooth and nail against paying $4 billion in BACK TAXES- a fight he will, ultimately, lose, given the history of his other fights against paying back taxes.

You are being taken in by a hypocrite, and you're too dumb to know it.

On the other hand, you're also in the 26% of delusionals who think Obama is doing a good job on the economy, so what is surprising about it?

How about this for a "Right Wing" opinion on the president? I love the last sentence. It is oh so true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/opinion/sunday/dowd-sleeping-barry-awakes.html?_r=1&ref=congress

As always, the same questions persist in our long, fruitless effort to pierce the Obama opacity. How long can the president sustain the sizzle before the fizzle? Does he get it together when the country’s in trouble or when he’s in trouble?

Certainly, Obama cares that Americans are in pain. Yet he has been unable to move away from his academic disdain for hardball and his alpha addiction to buzzer-beating wins.

So while the country has grown ever more scared, miserable, broke and broken, the president has too often been absent, quiet, ambivalent, impenetrable and inscrutable.

The master of his own narrative in print let the Republicans define the narrative in politics. And Obama likes to come in late, after the other players have staked out positions. It’s a strangely risk-averse tact, given the fact that he took two of the boldest risks in history — jumping into the presidential race in the first place and giving the kill order on Bin Laden on sketchy intelligence.

But when his polls plummeted, the Sleeping Beauty President roused himself to transform back into a semblance of the 2008 electrifying phenomenon.

He always must be chided and cajoled before he gets re-engaged. Among other times, it happened during his campaign, when key donors went public with their displeasure at his laconic attitude.

He’s eternally the gifted and sometimes indolent student who has to be wooed and pressured into making the game-winning shot. As one aide joked, “We work 6 to 9 and he works 9 to 6.”

But the odd rhythms of his temperament are less interesting when so much is at stake. Bill Clinton drifted for a time during his presidency, also needing the guillotine to focus his mind. But at least he was drifting on an ocean of peace and prosperity. Disengaging when the United States and the world are going to hell is playing with fire.

We never knew which Clinton would show up: Saturday Night Bill, as Dick Morris called the man of uncurbed appetites, or Sunday Morning Bill, a talented and passionate pol. Now Obama offers his own version of the split-personality presidency: Do we get Energizer Barry or Enervating Barry?

It’s deeply confusing to a country that’s already confused, as well as to the Democratic Party. Will he ever get that through his magnificent brain? The nation deserves clarity and consistency.

Each time Obama goes through a period of lying doggo, his opponents — from Hillary in the primaries to the Tea Party in the summer of 2009 to the House Republicans during the debt-ceiling debacle — get an infusion of oxygen.

The reawakened Republicans are no longer the loyal opposition. They’re revolutionary Bolsheviks who want to eat Obama alive.

When the president stays insulated with his little circle that doesn’t know how to push his messages, and he lets the nihilist Republicans go unchallenged in their crazy claims to be saving the country they’re hurting, he sets the stage for Rick Perry.

It’s still impossible to sum up what Obama’s presidency is about right now, except saving his own job.

Actually Ray, my preference is this one:

The reawakened Republicans are no longer the loyal opposition. They’re revolutionary Bolsheviks who want to eat Obama alive.

For once MoDo got something right.

President Obama this morning is quoted as remarking that the jobs plan is insurance against a double-dip recession. Well, he's correct - and it's even more important than that.

The rest of the world is fighting a massive economic wildfire - and the health of the American economy is vital to stopping those flames. The Bush Recession in the U.S. set off global collapse, and President Obama's admittedly too small first stimulus program helped stop that slide everywhere.

President Frannklin D. Roosevelt in 1936 turned into a deficit hawk, which led to a return to recession. He also came to Congress as President Obama has, and called for renewed public expenditure to restart economic recovery. It worked, although it was a slow process ultimately aided by massive wartime mobilization starting in 1940.

We should hope that this time the lessons of the past will be properly applied, and Congress should pass the President's bill immediately on returning to session.

Repost from collapsed comment !:

Anna Molly

@ bob --

You say that my statistics are flawed, but you fail to provide any citations of your own to support your arguments. Ironically, in fact, right under the quotation you lifted from my earlier post, which was backed with a citation and said that unemployment was 25 percent in 1933 when Roosevelt took office, you state -- without citation of your own -- that it was actually 21 percent. You also state that unemployment never went below 15 percent, but my source clearly says it was 14 percent in 1937. It was precisely because unemployment went so high and consumer spending dropped precipitously that manufacturing dropped like a stone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession_of_1937–1938

By the spring of 1937, production, profits, and wages had regained their 1929 levels. Unemployment remained high, but it was considerably lower than the 25% rate seen in 1933. In June 1937, some of Roosevelt's advisors urged spending cuts to balance the budget. WPA rolls were drastically cut and PWAprojects were slowed to a standstill.^[1] The American economy took a sharp downturn in mid-1937, lasting for 13 months through most of 1938. Industrial production declined almost 30 per cent and production ofdurable goods fell even faster.

Unemployment jumped from 14.3% in 1937 to 19.0% in 1938, rising from 5 million to more than 12 million in early 1938.^[2] Manufacturing output fell by 37% from the 1937 peak and was back to 1934 levels.^[3]Producers reduced their expenditures on durable goods, and inventories declined, but personal income was only 15% lower than it had been at the peak in 1937. In most sectors, hourly earnings continued to rise throughout the recession, which partly compensated for the reduction in the number of hours worked. As unemployment rose, consumers' expenditures declined, leading to further cutbacks in production.

The Roosevelt Administration reacted by launching a rhetorical campaign against monopoly power, which was cast as the cause of the depression, and appointingThurman Arnold in the anti-trust division of the U.S. Department of Justice to act, but Arnold was not effective. In February 1938, Congress passed a new AAA bill which authorized crop loans, crop insurance against natural disasters, and large subsidies to farmers who cut back production. On April 2, Roosevelt sent a new large-scale spending program to Congress, and received $3.75 billion which was split among PWA, WPA, and various relief agencies.^[4] Other appropriations raised the total to $5 billion in the spring of 1938, after which the economy recovered.

I find it hard to take anything you say seriously when you appear to be pulling statistics out of the air.

The fact remains that when Roosevelt cut back on WPA programs in 1937, unemployment immediately jumped by 5 percent -- from 14 percent to 19 percent -- and consumer spending dropped like a stone. The economy went back into the tank until another stimulus bill was passed. You can try to attribute that to other causes, but without any credible citations to back you up, you're just whistling

Repost from collapsed comment 1:

Ray-4054460 -

I fed you your teeth last week when you brought up the garbage about "no details" for the AJA. You seem to like lying down in the stable and inviting the horsies to feed you their hooves, though. And your snark today is even worse than it was last week.

So here it is again, little creature:

The Congress is in recess - Speaker Boehner has an aversion for work. The House will return to session tomorrow. it went into recess just after the President addressed the joint meeting last Thursday. When the Members finally show up for work tomorrow, there should be a bill available to address.

The principal concepts of the measure are already known, because President Obama laid it all out in his address.

Now just drop your face back into the manure on the stable floor. You need a recharge.

Repost from 1.29 collapsed"

@John -- Only in your little girl mind did you feed any one their teeth. It doesn't make one iota of difference if Congress is in session or not for the American people to see the details of the bill. You can't say pass the bill NOW if there is no one there to pass it. The president could have called Congress out of recess if he felt it was necessary. The American people have been mislead by the president so many times that what he says IS NOT BELIEVABLE!!!!!!! Let me repeat if there is a limited comprehension capacity -- THE PRESIDENT IS NOT BELIEVABLE!!!!!!!

Please stop collapsing posts!

This is America. Freedom of speech is one of the cornerstones of our country. It is one of the things that sets us apart from other nations, particularly from those under totalitarian rule.

If you wish to ally yourself with those totalitarian regimes, go elsewhere to stifle speech and other freedoms. This forum is not based on those totalitarian principles.

The Congress is in recess - Speaker Boehner has an aversion for work. The House will return to session tomorrow. it went into recess just after the President addressed the joint meeting last Thursday. When the Members finally show up for work tomorrow, there should be a bill available to address.

Doesn't the AJA arrive tonight? So you are complaining that Congress is in recess (I guess Harry Reid gets a pass but Boehner doesn't), but the Administration has taken over a month from the announcement of the "Jobs" speech to supplying legislation.

I mean really, find something substantial to complain about.

Also, most economists I've seen say that if the President gets everything he wants, employment will not be affected until mid-2012 because the most labor intensive parts of the proposals, the infrastructure projects, are again not shovel ready, and the tax proposals will not change employment plans except at the margins.

American people have been mislead by the president so many times that what he says IS NOT BELIEVABLE!!!!!!!

And, dog gone it, we are used to being told the truth by our President - truth is the only thing that saved us from all those weapons of mass destruction Saddam had aimed at us ready to fire... truth that Bin Laden really just wasn't that important... truth that "deficits don't matter" to our economy... and on and on.

Open your eyes Ray and see that President Obama is MUCH more believable than what we have had in the past. You should be grateful instead of hateful toward the American Chief Of State.

Skip:

No one will ever confuse me with the cheerleaders of the George W. Bush Administration. However, after seeing clips of the President following early notifications of the attack, I couldn't help but wonder how anyone would have reacted differently - in the early going.

Was it an accident? After he received more information he had to ask whether it was a military action, how extensive was the attack, would it continue?

In the main, I am a President Obama fan, but I don't know how he or anyone else could have reacted even the slightest bit differently. Even Presidents are not immune from shock.

I will always question President Bush's actions in the days following the attacks, but I certainly understand his early reaction. Confusion, uncertainty, anger, sadness - Wow! It had to be awful to be President that day.

Bev continues to 'blame Bush', yet ignore the monumental failures of the CURRENT administration! This is so consistent with the liberal thinking at this blog! We can't fix the past, but we certainly fix the present and future!! Nobama in 2012!

"Notice that other then the idiot from Albany the rest of the collapse cowards are lurking in the shadows... like the cockroaches they are? lol

Not too obvious they're playing their little trolls games!" Feisty Redhead

Words like these came from those who supported genocide in Africa.... so sad.

so defensive, so much hate in too many postings today. 7

Ray (to John A):

Only in your little girl mind ....

And this means .... ???

ahhh, I see Atlas shrug is still incapable of putting a relevant thought together. Ayn Rand is rolling in her grave!

Skip, like the posts. I agree that Bush certainly could have handled things better afterwards. Though, I must say that as a Christian (leaning left), I don't hate him. Hating would make me like those "other" Christians...you know the ones leaning in the 'other' direction. And Yes, I am being sarcastic, because all the hatred directed at our Potus by the "Christian" right, stinks to high heaven. They wonder why so many people are running from religion, Christianity and would not dare vote for the likes of Bachmann or Perry?

btw, keep the predictions coming :)

David, also agree that this would be a stressful day for any president. I think the country would have responded very differently had it happened on mr. Obamas watch. I shudder to think of the hateful words and actions that would have come up against him by the Right, their pundits, News, etc.

Anyway, kinda new the FR and Newsvine and don't understand how this 'collapsing" stuff works. I just click on the little "+" and the collapsed comments open backup. Not sure who's diong all this collapsing and if you can click to open it back up, what is the point?

Paris

Thank you for your comments. I understand what you are saying and thus my feelings of shame when I have my strong negative reaction to the former President and his cohorts.

I do not understand why my comments have been collapsed. The former Bush white house staff must be reading FIRST READ today. I do not believe I violated the code of conduct by expressing my opinions. I have requested that the comments be restored but so far, no go.

Have a great day and thanks again for the civil response.

[And I suppose it's Buffett's strong feeling that he should pay more taxes that has him fighting tooth and nail against paying $4 billion in BACK TAXES-]

NoJo:

Your post about Warrenn Buffett was bull@!$%# yesterday, and it's still bull@!$%# today. now how about posting the rest of the story...like it's not Buffett who owes the back taxes, but one of his companies...

...c'mon...you can do it...show us all that you're not totally ignorant...

[I do not understand why my comments have been collapsed. I do not believe I violated the code of conduct by expressing my opinions.]

skip,

you did nothing wrong. It seems there is an element, probably bored with the usual maniacal, emotional and ideological rantings over at FoxNation and The Blaze, that come here with the intent of stifiling First Amendment rights.

The best thing you can do is copy and paste the post that was collapsed, but take out the little [+] before the words "Collapese by the community", like this:

skip Nicholson, Oklahoma City Comment collapsed by the community

"Hiya Kid, Hiya, Hiya," Froggy

I watched a little of the 9/11 memorial broadcast and was moved by the childrens choir singing the national anthem and by the Mayor's words and the Presidents biblical quote. I was also moved by the two women who read the first of the names of the 2800 dead in New York.

But I had to turn it off when Brian Williams began his interview with Karen Hughes, former Bush II adviser. I still cannot look at or listen to anyone from that administration and I don't know if I every will be able to stomach them.

Oh, I don't blame Bush II for 9/11. Yes, there were warnings that something was afoot, but no one could have imagined the horror of 9/11 or prevented it. It defined the term "unthinkable". But for what came afterward, the jingoistic posturing, the oxymoronic "Patriot Act", the pointless invasion of Iraq and the undermanned assault on Afghanistan.All of which resulted in the hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths, I blame Bush II and his administration. I am filled with hate when I see him or anyone from that administration and I look away in shame. Shame at my anger and shame that the American people saw fit to give him a second term. It is a true American tragedy and we are still, right now, today, paying for his mistakes. Our children will pay for his mistakes and perhaps our grandchildren will pay for them as well. In my personal opinion, and I believe history will bear me out, he is the worst American President in the history of the United States.

On a brighter note, the dominos are falling into place, exactly as I have predicted. Tim Pawlenty has endorsed Romney and Santorum and Huntsman will follow very soon. Romney is the chosen one. He will be the GOP/TP/LDS nominee and he will lose the election by an historic margin because the religious right will not accept him. He is a Mormon and no amount of LDS television ads proclaiming "I'm a Mormon" is going to change public opinion regarding the Church of Latter Day Saints.

Perry and Bachman are nothing more than a flash in the pan. Paul is a nut and the rest of the "also-rans" are just that.

So, I return you now to your regularly scheduled mud-fights, name-calling and generally non-productive behavior. Have fun, I know you all look forward to it. I'll leave you with my usual final thoughts.

"Plunk your magic twanger Froggy."

American Held Hostage, day 255

Obama/Biden 2012

These are the same "patriots" that quote from the U.S. Constitution, yet recoil at any type of dissent.

Their motto is:

"Don't Tread On Me...But Let Me Tread On Thee!"

(compliments of another First Read forum user whose identity is unknown)

"If Zandi's estimates are correct, for example, the program would cost roughly $235,000 per worker to create jobs that would likely pay a quarter of that or less annually."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44489655/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy/

Common sense really isn't your thing, is it? We're not buying payroll, we're buying schools, roads, high speed wireless, and a host of other infrastructure improvements that will build our economy for decades to come.

Excuse me, but the data is conclusive. I have no problem rebuilding infrastructure, but at a cost of 235k per job saved, I respectfully suggest that your post is the one lacking in common sense. Common sense is just that. Apparent, easily discerned by all. Not some byzantine complex thing, but the simple facts, which many posters here just refuse to acknowledge.

Thanks Mickey. Sometimes I repost but I really thought the monitors would restore the comments because I don't beleive I violated the Code of Honor. I guess they were too busy putting out other fires. No big deal. I appreciate your kindness.

No, it's the Conservative attack on government that's conclusive. What's the return on investment for the Defense Department? How many dollars per job did construction of the TVA cost, in 2011 dollars?

You have no idea. It's an empty talking point.

John, Bush had a Democratic Senate and House, and he still managed to do all that stuff everybody is still blaming him for. But Obama is defeated becuse he only has the Senate and the Presidency? That's BS and you know it. Face it, he is full of fail. Here's some more "talking points" for you:

A reporter reminded Lew that a Democratic-controlled House and Senate had chosen to not pass these measures in 2009 and 2010. “You had a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate and it went nowhere. So how are you going to get it done now with a Republican House?” he asked.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/13/7745889-gop-leaders-dismiss-revenue-raising-in-obama-plan

If Zandi’s estimates are correct, for example, the program would cost roughly $235,000 per worker to create jobs that would likely pay a quarter of that or less annually.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44489655/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy/

Cheers!

You forgot the words "will be out" Insert between the word Obama and in.

Got to love it. California a state near bankruptcy, a weak economy and high unemployment and what is on the states agenda? Drink cups and babbysitter laws. Just what we need in Washington, ops that is what we have already.

Tony C, another very tired reply from you.

If you don't want to be on this forum, go elsewhere. If you don't like California, stay away.

Anything positive to add? Any better alternatives to offer?

fielden,

Positive... like Feisty... with her hate filled rants, name calling, personal attacks and vile language?

You mean that kind of positive?

fielden,

I agree with SOB. When will you call out one of your own? She consistently berates others and is rude. But yet we don't see word one from you about her? Why don't you take a stab at calling her out with her "positive" and "very tired" comments?

wow, jk,

We agree, so when are you all going to call out the Bush Admin? We're still waiting for those mea culpa's from the Cowboy Diplomacy crowd. I literally cringed watching the HBO special with rumsfield, w and cheney interviewed. they are STILL trying to cover their tracks and their acts. Man, a simple "My Bad" would SURE go a long way. Or the faithful followers to just suck one up and say, yeah, some mistakes were made; but nope, nada, nothing, zip, zilch. and so it goes...

Sure, I'll call out Feisty too. But Feisty does have positive things to say as well.

Look above and below on this page at all of the negatives from Tony. Look at the number of leftist posts that have been collapsed versus the number of rightist posts.

I don't agree with Tony. But I don't collapse his posts.

I stand by my post.

@fielden...

There is a reason that the 'leftist' posts are collapsed... they are filled with angry, negative, hate-filled comments. It is one thing to challenge someones position on a certain topic... but these people focus on personal attacks, name-calling and general nastiness toward anyone that disagrees with them.

They love to talk about showing respect to the position of the President... but take an objective look at the way they talk about President George W. Bush... their behavior exemplifies hypocrisy.

And you guys are not angry, negative, disrespectful?

Please!

Disagree? Fine. But collapsing is beyond disagreeing, it is suppression.

fielden,

I still have not heard you call out Feisty. Her first post in this thread was filled with hateful, rude and inappropriate comments towards a former president and yet nothing from you about it. YOU may find a few positive words in her thousands of posts, but nearly 99.99% of her posts consist of nothing more than berating someone. So do us a favor and call her out... As for collapsing posts, I don't (don't even actually know how) and could care less as I've seen it done from both sides. I don't think it's that big a deal in that you have a choice to expand to read it or not. I personally think that everyone is entitled to their opinion to carry on a meaningful debate, but clearly Feisty is a person that gets her enjoyment out of berating others. She gets exactly the kind of attention she clearly deserves (or wants...). But when you call someone out for making hateful remarks, please be sure that you are being fair to both sides and not just limit yourself to someone that chooses to have a different opinion than yourself.

Clara,

I have no idea how my comment to fielden in any shape or form can be related to former president Bush. If you wish to dwell on the past, that's your business. Many other folks on here are worried about the here and now and of the future.

Good for you Fielden. I tip my hat to you! Now what did I say that was negative? You may not agree with what I said. I post my opinion and facts that some folks want to deny. But, that is OK.

Bill, the anger and disappointment will only be starting if Conservative extremists find some way to force President Obama out of office without a legitimate election.

Obama to Congress: "Pass this bill" on to our children and grandchildren for payment.

Gee, I must have missed it when it was posted on C-Span for all of us to read first. Ah, I forgot that was one of Obama's"talking points". Never intended to actually do it. Just like most of his "talking points"

Union Baby, they must not let you out of the rubber room very often....at least I hope not.

Gee, I must have missed it when it was posted on C-Span for all of us to read first. Ah, I forgot that was one of Obama's"talking points". Never intended to actually do it. Just like most of his "talking points"

You've not seen the legislation online because it has not been introduced in Congress yet.

Bill Thomas, did you ask Bush and Cheney to resign? Did you ask the GOP who passed every piece of unfunded legislation Bush wanted to resign? Did you ever ask republicans to quit charging everything to the nation's credit card, to quit spending money without raising revenues or cutting spending elsewhere? I doubt it because the world according to conservatives is flat.

Those type of comments in very poor taste by Union Baby just goes to show you how Liberals think and how they will exaggerate and misrepresent facts. Enough voters will see through this kind of behavior and it will help defeat Obama.

Yesterday was difficult for me as I lost a friend on the plane that thankfully missed it's target and crashed in a PA field. Among the coverage, I particularly liked the remarks of former Presidents Bush and Clinton, as well as those of Biden, who seemed particularly lucid when he spoke.

It was a day that everyone, on both sides of the political spectrum were together for once, now it seems all that unity is lost..... the liberals are again in attack mode.... the class warfare they love and feed on so much cannot rest......

Bill Thomas - PRESIDENT Obama (you most disrespectuflly left his title out) has managed, despite people such as you, to successfully pull this country out of the dumspster President Bush put us in. PRESIDENT Obama has maintained a cool and temperate attitude despite the sleaze that attempt to obstruct his every action - the sleaze who started that effort even before he was inaugurated.

PRESIDENT Obama has done wonders for this country. You have not.

I see Tony C is here early today to spread his lies and distortions. If you want to know how the plan will be paid for it's right here; http://www.americanjobsact.com/reducing-the-deficit.html

Jody, looks like you forgot Obama's quote: "George Bush took out a credit card from China and now expects our children and grandchildren to pay the debt. That is unpatriotic". Obama is on track to rack up more deficit spending than Bush. This next "stimulus" is not paid for, just like the last one. Should we call Obama "unpatroitic"? After all Obama said the deficit spending by Bush was "unpatroitic"? Bush was wrong. I probably wouldn't call him "unpatroitic" or call Obama that either. But, Obama is doing the same thing he criticized Bush for doing.

Memphis Kelly, feisty the redwig is incapable of making a relevant post without throwing in vile and hurtful comments, she truly is a miserable and lonely old woman! And is seems she has several rats that enjoy eating those crumbs!

Yesterday's ceremonies honoring the victims and heroes of 9/11 set me to thinking over my personal activities of the past ten years. I remember the MoveOn meetups I attended, even though I am pretty shy and tend to stay away from group activities. I remember hearing Howard Dean on the radio arguing against invading Iraq and feeling such relief that SOMEONE was voicing opposition. I remember going down to Monument Square to protest the invasion and feeling so disappointed that more "ordinary" citizens weren't there, the folks in suits, the decision makers in the community, the great middleclass. No, the folks out protesting were mostly Vietnam Veterans for Peace, crunchy grannola types, like me, and very young people.

Where were the Tea Party type people? Nowhere. Where were the Republicans? Busy telling us we were unpatriotic wimps. The Bush administration put two wars on the nation's credit card without any opposition from the so-called fiscal conservatives, and now they want to make President Obama a one term President? I dopn't think so. It's my turn to determine national policy, you didn't listen to me during the Bush years, and we lost billions of dollars to waste and fraud. I support the President Obama. Republicans, you need to sit this one out.

Thats what they do. The facts do not support their position. Therefore they resort to blame and excuses. Seems we have a President who kind of does the same thing. See the connection?

Memphis Kelly

I am sorry for your loss, but Liberals are on attack? What are you talking about? Have you been watching the dozens of Republican primary candidates out attacking the President on the stump every day, calling him all kinds of names and never taking responsibilty for the failed policies of the BUsh years which they supported and which has driven us to this mess? Take your blinders off.

John B. I hate to be the one to break it to you. But the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny really do not exist. Claiming you "pay" for something in Washington is no different than a fairy tale or a "sea story". Reducing the growth in spending is not a cut.

You know I "planned" to spend $250,000 more next year than this year. But I will now only spend $150,000 more than last year. I just saved $100,000. If you fall for this math, you really have a problem.

Bill Thomas-2852155

In keeping with the unity the country experienced yesterday, Obama's next appropriate act should be to resign and spare the country another year of anger and disappointment!

The nation's unity didn't last much past 9/11 because of people like you working so hard to divide it.

Obama is doing a fairly good job at dividing the country with his "speeches".

Tony C-2383666

Jody, looks like you forgot Obama's quote: "George Bush took out a credit card from China and now expects our children and grandchildren to pay the debt. That is unpatriotic".

I cannot find any evidence that Obama ever made the above statement on Google. But assuming he did say something of the sort, he was correct. Had it not been for the Bush tax cuts, there would not only be no budget deficit, there would be no national debt by now.

Obama is on track to rack up more deficit spending than Bush.

The deficit is due mostly to the shortfall in revenues caused by the combination of the Bush tax cuts and the Bush recession. Now that the stimulus has tapered off (resulting in Slick Rick Perry having to fire all those government employees he used that money to hire), hardly any of the deficit is due to any increased spending initiated by President Obama. Bush chose to drive the nation deeper into debt in order to reward his rich backers with tax cuts. In contrast, Obama is mainly just doing the spending required by existing law. It was Dick Cheney who said "deficits don't matter", not Barack Obama.

union baby....why do think Bush was a murderer, but not address Obama's "murdering". Who did Bush murder? Who has Obama killed? Obama is murdering innocent people with his drones. Those that just happen to be in the house with the target. Is that OK???

Then by that measure the Ryan "budget" is an even bigger bow to the imaginary. It wouldn't balance the budget for DECADES, yet it passed the House on party line vote.

The Reagan and Bush tax cuts, 2 wars handled off budget, and Medicare Part D with no funding have created an extreme structural imbalance. It'll take years to get out from under Republican fiscal irresponsibility no matter what happens. Right now that means reducing the deficit. One day it'll mean getting back to a budget surplus...like we had under President Clinton.

Houston, Obama made that comment during a campaign speech.

You can make all the excuses you want, Obama does. Fact is, if there was more tax revenue, it would be spent.

Tony C-2383666

Houston, Obama made that comment during a campaign speech.

Where's your evidence? My guess is he said something vaguely similar and you've mangled the quote, in typically dishonest conservative fashion. But the statement, whether mangled or not, happens to be true: Bush ran up a huge structural deficit that we are still paying for because of his tax cuts. Deal with it.

Houston, before you make such inane comments read posts from redwig, backwash, and other liberal enablers of class warfare. I, and others would prefer to debate these issues like adults, while the liberal posers prefer to use insults and lies to attack those that would oppose an obviously inept administration!

feisty, sometimes the truth hurts, doesn't it?

Houston:

Sadly, it is quite true that President Obama did refer to financing deficit spending with foreign borrowing as "unpatriotic". I didn't believe it either, but I I think it was John from Tucson who provided the link. The President made the statement during a campaign swing, July 3, 2008. Bummer. Here's one link: www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q

David Walker

Houston:

Sadly, it is quite true that President Obama did refer to financing deficit spending with foreign borrowing as "unpatriotic".

I didn't really doubt that Obama had said something of the sort. Saying deficit spending is "unpatriotic" without any qualification is definitely over the top. Bush's deficit spending and the structural deficits he built into the budget for no good reason are of a different sort than the deficits run up by FDR to win World War II, or the (too-small) stimulus spending that Obama did to save the country from sliding into a new Great Depression.

Amy, thanks for your response! My comments about liberal attacks were more about Feisty's usual mean spirited and hurtful comments. Those comments usually set a contentious tone to any new thread here at First Read. I guess I was hoping that after yesterday that unity that was felt across the country, and across 'the aisle' would continue..... but feisty dashed those thoughts, now we're back to business as usual..... slinging mud!

Robin hot in NM:

Memphis Kelly, feisty the redwig is incapable of making a relevant post without throwing in vile and hurtful comments, she truly is a miserable and lonely old woman! And is seems she has several rats that enjoy eating those crumbs!

And your post is ...

(a) Filled with joy and light and compassion for your fellow human beings?

(b) Relevant to anything substantive?

or

(c) Reflective of your own personality?

Actually, I vote (d) -- A total waste of time.

Memphis Kelly

I have a Tea Party brother whose rhetoric upsets me, although I love him. It's important, I think, to know how other people are feeling, even if you disagree, and also to read comments that support your own opinion, because no one likes to be alone. I like to read Feisty because I agree with her politics and I appreciate her ability to stand up for our point of view. I don't think Feisty sets the confrontational tone on FR, as the right-wingers would be on here bashing President Obama and "libruls" if she was here or not. You just don't see that because you favor the Republican view.

If Feisty upsets you, you can just ignore her, as I ignore Spanky, Mixed Bag, JoanneSmith1, No Jo and White Collar Auto, (to an extent.) If you click on the actual "ignore" button, however, know that this also collapses the responses that follow that author's comment, from your view.

@Houston!

You want to see where the nation's unity went?

Take a look at Feisty's first post of the day in this thread. Right there at the top (collapsed... and for good reason!) Read and stop... think about her words. She wasted no time in attacking this morning. Right out of the blocks she spewed the same vile, hate-filled filth that she throws out here everyday.

You want unity? Get your dogs under control and then we can begin working back toward unity.

(BTW AM...Feisty did go on the attack. FIRST! AS ALWAYS!) What a pathetic excuse for a human being!

Bill, the anger and disappointment will only be starting if Conservative extremists find some way to force President Obama out of office without a legitimate election. John B. Des Moines

My comments were intended that this administration should NOT be awarded a second term! I have never condoned violence as a means to an end. Can all of the more spiteful liberals at this blog claim the same thing? Not from what I've seen...... it is those folks that we need to be worried about!

Bill Thomas...

You are absolutely correct! They behave somewhat Malcome X-like don't you think? That man was filled with hate. He was at direct odds with Dr. King. These people talk about unity and respect but it's all talk. Actions speak louder than words.

BTW... a little food for thought to be shared with the Feisty one...

Given the comments and attitude you and your GF's display here... have you ever thought about how your beloved President Obama would view your comments? Think about it Feisty... and before you post a reply... keep in mind that what you say will reflect both on you and your view of the type of man you believe the president to be.

SOB

Squirrel!

(responding to the dog whistle)

Looks like Feisty Redhead and I struck a nerve with the two posts below, both of which were collapsed by the teabagger community:

Sally Rocks classically

I, and others would prefer to debate these issues like adults, while the liberal posers prefer to use insults and lies to attack those that would oppose an obviously inept administration!

In the same sentence, you claim you want an "adult" debate in the same and then engage in infantile name-calling. See the irony there? Probably not.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL Comment collapsed by the community

I, and others would prefer to debate these issues like adults, while the liberal posers prefer to use insults

Is it any wonder NO ONE takes anything YOU say seriously? LMFAO!

read posts from redwig, backwash,

Great way to start a debate... ;o)))

Here's another one of you adult comments:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/10/7706585-bachmann-attends-tailgate-in-iowa

Take a peek at Sally's comment history & get back to me about her silly childish immature comments...

SOB - I believe the President has a fine outstanding character. Despite his critics tossing names at him and disrespecting the office, he would hold anyone who actually worked for him responsible for overzealous name calling and attacks.

Case in point, I remember in the campaign one of his senior advisers called Hillary Clinton a monster and a #itch. Despite her credentials that senior level advisor was removed from her position.

My opinion, not that it is unnerring fact, but my belief nonetheless is that Obama has been more than concillatory to the other side and has risen above the fray. He has tried to find common ground at the cost of democratic party principles but he is still spurned by the GOP.

Regarding 911 memorials, I appreciate those that have shared their thoughts about them today. It appears that even some GOP types agreed with and found comfort in the words spoken by Bill Clinton, Joe Biden and George Bush at the United 93 memorial. I saw United 93 on Current TV. Really was heroic what those people did in attempting to rush the cockpit.

I didn't watch any of the memorials, but did see "Freedom rising -Rebuilding Ground zero" a series of shows on the Science Channel about the planning and construction of the six different projects simultaneously going on at Ground Zero - Memorial waterfalls, Musuem, transportation hub, commerical towers and retail projects. Definately worth watching. Don't worry it is Non political. The hours long episodes are broken into about four or five segments. They talk about the architects, planners, community groups and people who lost friends and family as well as the many challenges that had to be overcome.

Today and going forward, politically and figuratively it is time to build up rather than tear each other down. Our country has a lot of problems and we aren't going to have a hope of solving them until those politicians work together in a balanced and compromising way ie. unlike the debt ceiling fiasco. Shrieks and crys of partisan vitroil from the sidelines will only make things harder for them.

@Clara... regarding your dog whistle...

You got it Clara... You are definately one of them!

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

@YellowDog...

Thank you for sharing. However, you are not the one to which my question was posed. I thank you for sharing your insight and opinion... but I am VERY interested in Feisty's response to my question.

SO... Feisty... what do you think President Obama would have to say about your comments on this vine? What do you think he would say about the way you treat people here?

SickOfTheBickering

@Houston!

You want to see where the nation's unity went?

Take a look at Feisty's first post of the day in this thread.

Why don't YOU take a look at the opening post for this thread from Bill Thomas, calling for the duly elected President of the United States to resign from office, as if he were some miscreant like Richard Nixon.

Feisty Redhead:

According to the tea baggers I have some kind of mystical power over them I wasn't aware of...

I guess they think exposing idiocy and hypocrisy is some kind of voodoo (not to be confused with their own voodoo economic theories).

Sorry to burst your bubble redwig, but if every village has an idiot, you are First Read's anointed one'.... lol!

I wonder what Obama would do if he knew that someone like you actually supported him? You are a tool, but unfortunately you are a tool for those opposed to the onerous policies of this administration! Thank you for your efforts! hehe!

Well here we are, a couple hours after I posed the question and still no response from Feisty.

Perhaps I actually got through to her. Perhaps she is thoughtfully reflecting upon how she treats people on this vine... Perhaps, after that reflection she has realized the error in her ways and she is too embarrassed to respond.

Perhaps she will strive to make her beloved President Obama PROUD of her behavior, rather than ashamed of her.

We can only hope.

Well here we are, a couple hours after I posed the question and still no responce from Feisty.

Keep holding your breath... K?

Perhaps she is thoughtfully reflecting upon how she treats people on this vine...

Someone needs to take a good long look in the mirror...

Well, if you can see your own reflection!

I have got to tell you... I'm impressed at how much power I wield over you & the rest of the RWNJ's...

Rather then discuss issues you & your ilk have spent an entire day obsessing over little old me?

I'm sure the President would be proud... ;o)

Thank you, Feisty!

Your eventual reply demonstrates EVERY point I made in my posts above. I believe that you are completely incapable of conversing in a civil tone.

BTW... Your first post in this thread certainly did not focus on discussion of any issues. as I read it I initially thought... Nice, Feisty is finally going to make a kind comment on a topic that we can all agree on. But then you completely abandoned that sentiment and proeceded to stab at Presidnet G.W. Bush. I should have known better than to give you credit for acting like a human being.

And your thought that Obama would be 'PROUD' of you says everything we need to know about both you AND Obama.

Also, I don't mean to burst your bubble, but we are not obsessed with you, nor do you 'wield' any 'power' over us. You see, we love to use you as an example of what thedemocratic party stands for... of the character of the people that comprise that party... you provide such WONDERFUL examples EVERY DAY! Thanks You!

Finally Feisty... let me just say that you are a truly dispicable person! May God have pity on your soul (if you actually have one.)

Bill Thomas, you posed the question:

I wonder what Obama would do if he knew that someone like you (feisty) actually supported him?

I would guess if that happened, he would immediately kick the family dog!

On another more important note, I see that Turner, the Republican candidate for Wiener's vacated Congressional seat (remember, he's the tweet guy, lol) is heavily favored over the democrat in the special election for that same seat! This is big news as that seat in Brooklyn has been held by the democrats for over 40 years. What an indictment of Obama's record that would be if that happened....!

Also, I don't mean to burst your bubble, but we are not obsessed with you, nor do you 'wield' any 'power' over us.

Yet here you are...

I respond and you just can't help but continue to babble... I would say that's power!

You just can't get yourself enough Feisty Redhead... lmao!

It's just so precious the way you follow me around like a lost lipstick wearing pitbull...

I'm flaterred... really...

Tony C. - Sincerely speaking, the GOP went on their "Divide and Conquer" America for the 2012 Election Campaign...the very moment America chose to elect a Democratic Potus in a landslide and he had the absolute AUDACITY to be Black!!! Rush, Glenn, Hannity and many others were on the job from DAY ONE. It is no secret, it was very obvious then, is just as obvious now and they are very PROUD of it.

And the most ridiculous part of the GOP/TP flawed strategy is they drive this Hateful Divide, then blame it on Mr. Obama as if he has been the one calling himself a 'light-skinned negro"; as if he called himself a 'racist' and said he hated ALL white people including his grandparents and mother; as if he himself is calling all of his supporters " blind slaves" for supporting him; as if he is drawing cartoons himself with an African loincloth and bone in his nose! WOW!

I respect your opinion to disagree, but sorry, America is not fooled! The hate and division will come back to bite the haters and dividers! Obama 2012.

Houston!

Why don't YOU take a look at the opening post for this thread from Bill Thomas, calling for the duly elected President of the United States to resign from office, as if he were some miscreant like Richard Nixon.

Or Bill Clinton? (Good old Slick Willie!)

Paris, no doubt Hannity and Rush like to stir the pot so to speak. It is about ratings. I keep things in context. Please do not make it race related. I got to tell you, Obama's speeches do divide Americans. I just do not see leadership ability in Obama. Besides that, I believe his policies are not in the best interest of this nation as a whole. I believe the economic data for the past 32 months demonstrates my belief. Adding to this nations debt is a serious matter with serious consequences. It is going to take leadership in the White House to solve the problems. Obama, as late as today in a speech, continues to poke a stick at those that disagress with him. Then claim to put politics aside. Obama really needs to rethink his approach.

John that's a very nice link, but it's full of fabrication. The President's Jobs plan was only sent to the Legislature today. He probably should have written it before telling them to pass it 17 times in one speech, but that's another matter. As even our liberal MSN states, the financing is, at best, "murky".

He's basically dumping it in the laps of the "super comittee" that is already burdened with the herculean task of coming up with the cost cutting agreed to in the debt ceiling deal. Finding another half TRILLION in cuts to fund this will not be easy. It may not be possible in the time frame given them to work with.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44489655/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy/

So ACS, tell me what's different in the plan that was sent to Congress as opposed to the plan the WH put on that web site. You claim it's "full of fabrication", WHAT was fabricated?

John, you must be being deliberately obtuse. He proposed many of these same "new" ideas in 2009 and 2010, when the Democrats had a majority in both the House and the Senate, and EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT VOTED AGAINST. It's not something I made up, it happened.

A reporter reminded Lew that a Democratic-controlled House and Senate had chosen to not pass these measures in 2009 and 2010. “You had a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate and it went nowhere. So how are you going to get it done now with a Republican House?” he asked.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/13/7745889-gop-leaders-dismiss-revenue-raising-in-obama-plan

If Zandi’s estimates are correct, for example, the program would cost roughly $235,000 per worker to create jobs that would likely pay a quarter of that or less annually.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44489655/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy/

Nonsense, it is you who are being deliberately deceptive. Democrats in the Senate didn't "choose not to pass these measures", they were torpedoed by Republican filibuster and you know it. In fact 400 bills were passed by the House and shelved through tyranny of the minority in the last Congress. They were the right ideas then, they're the right ideas now, and our economy continues to suffer through the failed, Supply Side ideology of the Conservative Movement.

I know your deception is deliberate because you continue moving from thread to thread posting the same nonsense about cost per job even though it's been answered repeatedly. The cost is as it is because we aren't just paying people an income, we're investing in things that will make us more competitive for many years. We are in short, BUYING THINGS. We're keeping businesses afloat, teaching our children, purchasing things like fiber optics, concrete, rebar, roofing, insulation, bridge beams...an endless list of things that are intended to keep our nation from falling to pieces as Republican policies would ensure.

Unless, that is, the extremist Conservatives who've coopted the once great GOP keep us from doing so, in the process keeping us in the same long, steady decline they've created over the previous 3 decades.

BS John. I see nothing in his jobs bill that would accomplish the things you claim it will accomplish. I see no mention of this. What happened to the last money for repairing bridges? Pretty sure that's just what you HOPE it will do. First of all, Zandi's a pure liberal economist, so I used his number's because I felt liberals would find him more acceptable. Conservative economists put the number even higher. This is just a grab for more money to piss away, like they pissed away all the other money we gave them. This jobs bill is nothing more than a rehash of ideas that have already been proven failures. As far as your filibuster comment, again, complete BS. The Democratically controlled House, and the Democratically controlled Senate DECLINED TO PASS THESE MEASURES TWICE, in 2009 and again in 2010. There was no filibuster, didn't happen. And if you want to talk about a conservative, I suggest you look squarely at the guy you're defending, President Obama. If you think he's a Liberal, you haven't been paying attention.

History has shown that big business has always needed regulations to keep them in line. Just think of how bad our world would be if big business had been allowed to run things the way they see fit.

Heck, the more regulations on big business the better. Even better, some of these CEO’s commit crimes against society daily and they should be put in jail.

AM, you're totally missing the point! The free market just assured that Montana wildlife and poor Kenyans will choose not to live next to unsafe oil pipelines!

Snark off.

Sadly, Job1, I wonder if there's anything short of jail that would make some of these greedy corporatists get a conscience.

Ah. Thanks, John B. for that update. I knew there had to be some master plan. ;-)

I don't know for sure, but I will ask Adrianna Huffington when I see her next. She just left in her new corporate jet. I do see her Hummer parked over there though.

@ Tony C:

Explain, in as much detail as possible, how that has anything to do with regulating pipeline SAFETY?

p.s. No one drives a Hummer anymore. Could I interest you in buying mine?

Anna, it was in response to your "conscience" concerns. Not really interested in a Hummer. my new Infiniti G37 is all I need. But, thanks for making the offer. You are probably right, with her new found wealth, even more wealthy than before, she probably upgraded.

Still waiting for your comments on regulation of pipeline safety, Tony C.

Anna Molly

@ Tony C:

Explain, in as much detail as possible, how that has anything to do with regulating pipeline SAFETY?

I can explain it: Bringing up a totally unrelated subject is a way to avoid talking about something that exposes the corruption and criminality of the corporatists who finance the ultra right wing right wing political machine. So, do you see the connection between Arrianna Huffington's transportation choices and oil pipe lines now?

Anna Molly---it is beyond me how the EPA became the latest whipping boy for the conservatives. It would be nice is business did the right things without regulation--either because or morality or fear of lawsuits----but in fact we know that they will sacrifice safety for profitability (and do a cost/benefit analysis to justify it) so that we must have regulation. Does it sometime go too far? Of course but that can be fixed.

Here's some serious irony for you! The clearest example of a pro-life organization within the federal government is the E.P.A. You'd think the Republicans would love it, moreso given the fact that it was the brainchild of President Nixon.

In the food for thought department, consider the value of the corporate structure and its raison d'etre. It is merely out there to engage in business and pursue profits - it is said. It has no conscience, it is not inherently evil, it is not inherently good - it is said. Thus it cannot be prosecuted for crimes - no mens rea, eh, Anna Molly?

What a corporation does beyond seeking profit is to provide a wall between crime and the executives who set those crimes in motion. Ah yes, the wonders of corporations! Don't blame the white shirt and wingtip crowd.......it was the corporation.

David--the TP/GOPers are only pro-life for the unborn. This can be seen by their hatred for the safety net programs for the poor, social security and medicare for the elderly, education, and any other programs that assist our citizens. Also can be seen in the love of war, destruction, and killing of citizens of other countries. It would appear that these folks are anxious for the apocalypse and want to bring it on, so why should we take care of the environment? Pillage and get all they can before the "rapture", never minding that they will not be able to take it with them!

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

What I said was not that difficult to understand. Oh well.

David:

In the food for thought department, consider the value of the corporate structure and its raison d'etre. It is merely out there to engage in business and pursue profits - it is said. It has no conscience, it is not inherently evil, it is not inherently good - it is said. Thus it cannot be prosecuted for crimes - no mens rea, eh, Anna Molly?

Well, actually, David, corporations are occasionally prosecuted for crimes -- just ask BP.

As for mens rea, however, this is one of the best arguments against corporations being persons under the 14th Amendment. The corporate mens rea is illusory -- subject to change whenever the Board of Directors changes. And as no one person actually speaks for the corporation, it is very seldom -- Enron perhaps being an exception -- that the individuals within a corporation see any jail time for the corporation's crimes.

Just look at Wall Street.

Tony C:

What I said was not that difficult to understand. Oh well.

No, but not relevant to the point, either.

How about republicans build some big orphanages, as a part of the jobs bill. Why should a women bring a child into the world with no way to properly feed, clothe, or educate that child. So you can bitch about her welfare and food stamps, so the kid can run the streets, until such time when we put them in prison, and house them at a cost of $80,000 a year. Build some orphanages offer the pregnant women some free prenatal medical care and then free delivery services at a christian hospital, then put the newborn in the orphanage until adoption. If Christians and republicans are so worried about abortion, then why did the three couples that I personally know who have adopted have to go to places like Guatemala or Russia to adopt. Time for all Christian organizations to put up or shut up, where is the christian orphanage in your town, do you think they could offer a little free medical care if an unborn baby's life would be saved. Do you think they could spend a little money on orphanages and some people to staff them. Put up or shut up because family values cost money, abortions are cheap.

Anna Molly Would you put Jeff Immelt in that category of people of greedy and needs to go to jail. By the way the very same Jeff Immelt said the reason the economy is not growing is that it takes too long to get jobs started due to EPA regulations. Hence the EPA needs to be reined in. Jeff Immelt jobs to china yet President Obama's point man on job creation and economic growth. Your view of him is....

Friday I congratulated you on your Packers win, however I think Green Bay will see New Orleans again in the playoffs and if the Saints get there short yardage running game going it will be a classic.

Anna, I think it was relevant as a response to your comment.

Comparing the US to Kenya is a fallacy. For one thing, Kenyans routinely damage those pipelines in order to steal fuel. The fact that they smoke cigarettes while doing so should tell you all you need to know about that. Certainly even the dumbest of us would not be filling open buckets of gasoline while smoking, even if the pipeline had started leaking all by it's lonesome. The previous fire they referenced was caused by a crashed fuel tanker truck being cracked open by Kenyans, who again smoked while filling buckets from the wreckage.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/baobab/2011/09/kenya

By the way, the President's half brother in Kenya recently took his third wife, not in a row, he has three now. The latest is a 16 year old girl who left school against her parent's wishes. He is 47. In this country, you would go to jail for that.

What's your point? MY point is that the religious devotion to deregulation exhibited by Conservatives has been a failure.

John B... We find common ground... Who Knew? While I vehemently oppose ILLEGAL Immigration, and while I find our current Leader of The Free World to be... somewhat lacking... I entirely agree about deregulation. To answer your question, my original point was that Kenya is one seriously effed up place, and not comparable to The United States. But you raise a valid point regarding deregulation. In my real life, my company used to be audited by the FCC, and they would work people overtime to get everything up to date and into compliance... When Bush2 got in, all that went away. When President Obama was campaigning, he said he would put things back to right. It was one of the lesser Promises to me that he has Broken. He's NOT Liberal. Face it.

He isn't, he's quite moderate in fact, which is why the hardcore Liberals are always cross with him. One of the mistakes the Democratic Party has made consistently since the time of Reagan is to try to position themselves "just to the left" of the Republican Party. It's a strategy that peaked with the Democratic Leadership Conference in the 1990s. It enables two things that delight Conservatives...1) it allows the GOP to claim there's "no difference between the parties" and 2) it's allowed the "center" to move dramatically rightward.

That's how we get to a place where banking regulation is somehow wrong AFTER lack of banking regulation crashes the economy and we spend much of the Summer arguing whether it's advisable to destroy the full faith and credit of the US Treasury when the voters just want JOBS.

I don't expect my lawmakers to be Ralph Nader or Dennis Kucinich (I consider them too far left) but it would be nice if the health plans of Richard Nixon, the Conservative response to "Hillarycare", and Mitt Romney didn't magically become "a Socialist takeover of 1/6 of the economy" when proposed by Democrats.

The healthcare bill is a GIFT to big business! It funnels our tax dollars dierectly to the insurance companies, and throught them the Hospitals and Pharma companies. It does NOTHING to adress the real problem of healthcare, which is rising costs. He did not allow for interstae competition, he got rid of the public option, and he's giving them 15% profit margin... Bernie Madoff was giving 13% and everybody said they should have known it was too good to be true. He said in his campaign he would repeal the exemption to the anti gambling statutes for the Big Banks that Bush signed into law. He didn't. He said he would repeal the law making it illegal for US citizens to buy cheaper drugs in Canada or elsewhere. He didn't. He said he would "put on some comfortable shoes" and walk the line. He didn't. He was nowhere to be seen in Wisconsin, and he was nowhere to be seen during the Verizon strike, where he clearly had the moral high ground. The Verizon workers were not paid with tax dollars, the company pays no taxes, and is making obscene profits (4.6 billion in profits on 27 billion in revenue for the second quarter of 2011) All he does is talk talk talk and get nothing done, while our Nation sinks deeper and deeper into debt. He said his jobs bill was "paid for", but then he dumped it in the laps of the super comittee, who is already charged with the herculean task of identifying cuts from the debt ceiling agreement. Now they are supposed to identify another half billion in cuts? What will they cut John? SS? Medicare? Medicaid? Welfare? What will they cut?

Sorry, I meant to say another half TRILLION in cuts.

This Titan's fan agrees with you Steeler Fan! I'm thinking anyone who is not locked into a primary system state should cross over and vote for the repugnant least likely to win anything - yep, what goes around really does stink when it comes around and they have been doing this to us for decades. My only complaint with President Obama - he is far too kind and far too willing to work with repugnants. I would not even give them the time of day, much less time for a meeting.

No enthusiasm gap with this President Obama supporter either. I think the only gap is the one the media pushes.

I see the anti-free speechers have hit FR bright and early this morning. Is this a carry over from Friday?

We have open primaries in Wisconsin. Imagine what will happen in the Republican primary when all the angry Democrats come out to vote.

I have the same complaint as Union Baby. Now I see from Joe's article above that the President is about to cave in on repatriation of overseas profits. It was a mistake in 2004, and it will be a mistake this time as well.

But voting for a Republican -- at least any of the current Republicans in the field -- is simply unthinkable.

I and many other Progressive-Democrats plan on voting in the Republican primaries in order to block the likes of Perry out. Perry is the most dangerous of all.

I am so irritated with the media. Yesterday, Brian Williams and David Gregory were discussing the Bush administrations' response to 9/11, of invading Iraq even though Saddam did not attack us, and how that has cost us billions of dollars, not to mention lost lives, and they sounded as if it just now occured to them this wasn't handled correctly, as if a whole ant-war movement didn't exist, as if Progressives hadn't been writing books, articles and protesting in the streets all during the Bush years. No, our MSM just passively observes the "mistakes" made by Republicans but doesn't hold them accountable, or acknowedge there were thousands of Americans opposing Bush's policies all through two terms.

To the MSM, Liberals are invisible. Tea Partiers, though, now THEY are an important grassroots movement. Do you think its because of the corporate money behind them?

Steeler Fan your defense of the president is admirable, were you voicing the same whenever the dems opposed President Bush or is that reserved only for President Obama.

Your defense of President Obama is obviously much stronger then the steeler defense against the raven offense 35-7 what a laugher.

Richard---maybe I should give a pep talk to the Steelers this week when they take on Seattle!

I am all for a loyal opposition and don't expect the other party to rubber stamp what the party in power does, but the failure of Republicans to support programs they have supported in the past tells me all I need to know about their motivation.

I think you will find that the Democrats supported more of President Bush's programs than the Republicans have with President Obama.

Why would anyone be defending bush? The republicans for the first time in the history of our country started wars without raising taxes. In addition gave two tax cuts that included borrowing more money and even more debt.

The republicans knowingly and purposely drove our country into deep debt. If republicans are this stupid why would we defend or ever vote for someone to purposely destroy our country?

Then after the republicans do this to our country their answer is to make the poor suffer for what the rich republican politicians did. Cut spending, but by all means do not ask the richest in our nation for anything.

Steeler Fan Someone should give them a pep talk or all steeler fans may need pepto if they lose to seattle.

I am in agreement with you on loyal opposition and yes democrats did support some of President Bush's programs and policies. They even supported the war on terror. Now the democrats don't support that policy There was also overwhelming bi-partisan support for no child left behind but now the dems are critizing it like it was bad. Medicare part d same thing yet the reason they supported those programs was they had democrat co-author/sponsors with some of their ideas in the program. You are not seeing the same with this administration simply because the president does not really listen to different ideas. During the highly touted HC debate (6 hrs) the republicans had good ideas like tort reform and crossing state lines for different hc programs yet the president disregarded them because it did not fall into what he wanted. In order for real bi-partisan support there should dems and republicans co-authoring legislation yet that never happened.

As far as I can tell now, the president keeps giving speeches yet so far has nothing in writing for anyone to see. If it is in writing where it can be debated and changes made to to improve, I can see him getting support, but until then we are stuck. The Ryan plan is out there to discuss yet tabled immediately as have other proposed legislation from the House by Senator Reid. How can you foster any support just recently House sends cut, cap and trade, immediately tabled by Reid, then Reid says of his bill, good legislation deserves up and down vote. Until every bill gets a chance at up or down vote, support will be difficult.

Not impossible but difficult.

The Ryan plan? You want the ryan plan? It's main purpose was to get in the 2/3 vote to ever raise taxes again. Yes they wanted to privatize social security and medicare too, just a side benefit for the caring republicans and their rich backers.

If the republicans really cared about the debt they would know that raising taxes is part of it. In the rest of American history lawmakers knew we had to raise taxes in war time. Instead, the republicans try to insure taxes will never be raised and then claim they care about the debt and balancing the budget.

The republican house passing the Ryan bill proved to all us that they have become the party of the rich, for the rich, by the rich and the suckers that vote for them.

The problem is the Senate, and the Democrats there, are supposed to rewrite the bills sent to them by the House, and send them back. This is NOT happening. Instead they just get tabled. No discussion, no debate, no compromise. At least the House is writing and passing bills, whatever you may think of them. Why doesn't the Senate send them back rewritten to their liking? Then they could blame the House. As it stands, the Senate is the one holding everybody up. As an aside, Bush had a Democratic congress and House and was still able to do all that stuff you guys are still blaming him for. Why can't Obama? He controls The Presidency and The Senate, the Republicans hold only the House. Blaming The House still, which the Republicans have only held for 9 months, well.... it's pretty weak, don't you think? Was Bush more effective as President than Obama? I bet you hate to think about that.

What's to "rewrite"? How do you "rewrite" abolition of Medicare and its replacement with private insurance? How do you "rewrite" never again being able to raise taxes? The plan is so radical there's no rewriting, it's nothing but a fantasy to win a contest for a date with Ayn Rand.

As far as effectiveness is concerned, the Bush Recession at least succeeded in getting everyone's attention. To be fair that wasn't all him...it was the culmination of nearly 3 decades of Conservative economic policy.

Bush had a Democratic Senate and House and he still managed to do all that stuff everybody keeps blaming him for. Obama had a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate. Face it dude, he is full of fail.

A reporter reminded Lew that a Democratic-controlled House and Senate had chosen to not pass these measures in 2009 and 2010. “You had a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate and it went nowhere. So how are you going to get it done now with a Republican House?” he asked.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/13/7745889-gop-leaders-dismiss-revenue-raising-in-obama-plan

If Zandi’s estimates are correct, for example, the program would cost roughly $235,000 per worker to create jobs that would likely pay a quarter of that or less annually.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44489655/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy/

That's the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats are always trying to make government work better. Republicans are always trying to prove government can't work.

As far as the amount paid per worker is concerned that talking point started out stale and continues to get older. We aren't just paying people to be paying them, we're BUYING THINGS. When you go to McDonalds do you get your Big Mac for nothing more than the cost of the voice at the drive through? Of course not, there are meat, buns, and condiments to buy, a building to heat, light, and maintain, and a reasonable expectation of profit on the part of McD's. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT. THAT'S WHY IT WORKS.

John, you are ASSuming. I am a Democrat. But to deny the failure of this Presidency is to deny all Reality. See what he has done. Could he run on his record? He means well, sure, but he is outclassed at every turn, and big money is gaming him all the time. Face it, he had no experience going in, and we are paying for his training. Hopefully, we survive.

Congratulations to the cowards who aren't able to countenance an opposing point of view and choose instead to collapse those they disagree with.

That’s what these Right Wing collapse bast@rds love to do.

Imagine what'd they do if they won the WH? Think about what is at stake, we would have no chance to recover any of what has been lost from the last admistration's faulty and expensive mistakes....no chance. Anyone who is sitting on the fence, needs to think about the stakes.

Want another republican administration who lies its way into wars, coddles their rich supporters. Make no mistake, they are Romney and Perry's base, the poor uneducated, mostly white evangelicals don't count in a conservative's world, you are just being used to spread their gospel but you dont factor into how much poorer and less educated they will make you in their efforts to gain power and riches.

President Obama isn't perfect, he is very concerned for the average American and our future, I support him 100% because he is sincere in his efforts, the bill hasn't been presented yet you denigrate what you suppose it will contain, and then y'all get offended when we point that out.

Steeler fan,

How bout them Steelers? They got routed by their archrivals the Ravens; Steelers QB Ben R. was horrible.

It is bad karma, for the Obama-loving Steelers owners, the Rooneys.

The Steelers are going down this fall, as low as Obama's poll numbers...

In a karma world, Bob numbers, I would rather have the karma of the Rooneys and the Steelers than that of the Ravens or you. Not our best day yesterday, for sure, but we will regroup and come back stronger. Kind of like the President will.

Bob and Steeler Fan, more importantly.... how about them Packers! What a game that was on Thursday night! Green Bay is on track to a Super Bowl repeat! I do not, however, expect the President to achieve a White House repeat!

I just don't get it. Why do the Republicans hate this President? He's more Republican than Reagan was, and Reagan broke PATCO. And you far left people, why do you love this guy so much? He's no Liberal. He really isn't. Use your big brains... What's so Liberal about him? Not what he said.... What has he DONE??? He's adopted for the most part everything Bush did, from running up the deficit, continuing free trade agreements that benefit foriegn workers at the expense of American Jobs, continuing to turn a blind eye to Illegal Immigrants who only benefit Big Business, cutting SS taxes when the system is in desperate need of funding, seriously talking about cutting medicare/medicaid and social security for our seniors.... The list is endless. Left wingers, he is selling you all out! Republicans, Conservatives, He is advancing your agenda!!! Wake up people!

This jobs bill is just Obama's attempt to get reelected. Another government funded "sugar" high that will result in debt. Obama's "hope" is that if there is a temporary bump, he can say see, things are getting better, stick with me. This is all about reelection not lasting jobs.

We need jobs that create tax revenue, not jobs funded by tax revenue. ( I read this somewhere else and it says it all)

Where's the GOPTP jobs plan? They promised jobs in Nov 2010 if folks would just elect them....crickets.

You also might try actually checking on how effective the initial stimulus package was instead of just listening and repeating what you are told.

Facts and figures prove that the first stimulus did work. Had we not had the first one we would have been in worst shape. The first stimulus should have been twice the size.

Jody, just how effective was stimulus I? Seems to me unemployment is still high and teachers and state and local workers are being laid off after the money ran out.

@job1, so if we made it twice as large, the teachers firemen and policemen would be working for two years instead of one before being laid off. Wow that would really work!!!!

Ask Harry Reid. Every proposal passed in the House is on Harry Reid's desk and he will not allow a vote in the senate. You need to keep up with the Democratic "talking points" you are falling behind. Obama has been in office for 32 months, and the economy is in terrible shape. The next 16 will be no different.

Tony C. The GOP House did not pass any jobs bills but they renamed a lot of post offices.

The facts show that the economy was in such bad shape when W. Bush left office that without the stimulus the unemployment numbers could have been doubled.

"Ask Harry Reid" isn't an answer, it's an evasion. The Republican Conservatives have done NOTHING to improve the economy, at direct opposition to the promises they made to the American people in the last election.

Did you republicans not see what happened in NY 26, did you not see republicans recalled in WI, do you think that was a referendum on Obama's policies? These were solid republican districts that flipped, do you think that was just because of democrats, plenty of former republican voters flipped to make that happen. Do you think these people are now going to vote for a republican president. I will clue you in on something just in case you have forgotten, even republicans, conservatives, and independents have to eat.

Not true Jody. In any event the President won't sign any Republican jobs initiative. Harry Reid will make sure nothing gets that far.

Forrest

Democrats are facing the very real possibility that they are at serious risk of losing a House race in New York City that few thought would be close, and campaign officials are already close to writing off a Nevada House race they had once hoped to contest.

You can talk about NY-26 all you want but these were Democrat seats (at least the NYC one is).

What is your excuse for this - stupid old folks not knowing what they were doing and voting Republican??

They have not lost anything yet, by the time the general election comes around it will be a presidential election the voting numbers will be much higher, than these elections and even the mid terms, presidential elections always have a higher turnout and almost always favors democrats. Plus Obama will be out there rallying his supporters and hanging shame and blame on republicans until they pass the bill, the bully pulpit has an effect, people want to rally around the prez it is the patriotic thing to do.

Keep dreaming. It must be nice to live in a dream world.

Facts and figures prove that the first stimulus did work. Had we not had the first one we would have been in worst shape. The first stimulus should have been twice the size.

Of course the Republican-Tea Potty plan of low taxes for the so call job producers has not worked.

Slick Rick Perry used the Stimulus to help plug the big hole in the deficit in Texas which stood around 25 Billion at the time.

Then proceeded to fire/lay off thousands of teachers and other public employees!

Simply put, Slick Rick misused the stimulus money which he disavowed!

The only goal Obama has is re-election and he will do anything and everything to achieve this goal.

It seems to me that reducing unemployment - creating jobs - would go a long ways towards ensuring his re-election. So - it also seems to me that he'd also 'do anything and everything' to create jobs. I think that's what he's doing. We may quibble over his rationale - but it leads to the same conclusion - he's trying to create jobs.

The only goal Obama has is re-election ...

And the only goal McConnell has is to make Obama a one term President;

And the only goal Boehner and Cantor have is to keep their promises to Grover Norquist;

And the only goal Perry, Romney, Paul, Caine, Bachmann, Palin, Huntsman, and a slew of other Republicans and t-baggers have is to get Obama's job...

What exactly is your point mikeljhn? Did you even have a point (other than Obama bashing)???????

Where are your facts? How did Obama's failed stimulus succeed? Unemployment increased. The national debt increased, substantially. Companies laid people off instead of hiring. On and on. You have to be delusional or insane or a damnable liar to tell me with impunity that Obama's dumbass stimulus plan did anything of value. The far-left is so determined to re-elect Obama that it will tell any lies or distort any truth to try to accomplish their goals. When Obama is accused of his downright un-American policies and plans, all the far-left can do is start their name calling and fact distortion to try to divert attention from the failed incompetent Obama. That's what we called a red herring with a stench. To you left-wing nutsackers, that's a big pile of horse @!$%#.

Here you go, mikeljohn, straight from John McCain's chief economic adviser. http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf

It does not matter what you think, even republicans, conservatives, and independents have to eat too, either republicans pass a jobs bill that spends on infrastructure or they are toast. Hunger trumps ideology every time, impending foreclosure will trump ideology every time. Do you really think they threw the democrats out because average Joe was so very concerned with corporate tax rate being to high, do you really believe they were thrown out because many people felt taxes were too high on the wealthy, do you really think they got rid of house democrats, because they really wanted their SS and medicare dismantled. It is about jobs, it always was, and it still is, republicans have 14 months to put some people to work or John Boehner, will be handing that big gavel back to Nancy Pelosi, republicans will have what they did not want Obama as the president and Nancy as the Speaker, if you don't want that your only hope is to call your rep and tell him to hurry up and pass the jobs bill.

Forest, didn't you say "stupid is as stupid does"? Obama is president. Increasing jobs is in his court. Obama is the one to blame for this economic depression, along with the Democrats. What is it about this scenario that you don't grasp? What the hell is wrong with you? Oh, I forgot. Stupid is as stupid does. And why won't you left wing nutsackers answer the question "In what sense did Obama's stimulus fiasco succeed?".

You think the electorate is going to give house republicans a free pass, if unemployment does not improve. Good luck with that they are already turning out republicans in WI and they are not even waiting for the election, and how about NY26 a solid republican district that flipped youthink that people that recalled republicans are going to vote republican for president. Even republicans, have to eat, so you wait and see what happens if their is no jobs bill.

I am f**king tired of idiots telling me to wait and see what happens. I have waited almost three years for this failed incompetent president to do just one thing to help the economy. All he has done is take it further down the road to our destruction. And I am just as f**king tired of idiot far left nutsackers complaining about republicans. One thing I know. Obama is a failed incompetent president who has evil intent for this country. I will vote for a crumpled tin can or any other person with blood running through their veins as long as it is not Obama or Biden. So stop your stupidity by switching the conversation from Obama to republicans. I don't give a tinkers damn about republicans or democrats as long as Barack Obama is defeated one way or another in 2012. Forrest, you do exemplify "stupid is as stupid does".

Gee mike you sound a little angry or upset are you having financial troubles or something what is with all the effing idiot and nutsackers BS, it makes you sound like a punk. Are you a punk Mike , you sound like one. I guess if you sound like a punk then you must be a punk. Punky is as punky does right mike. Are you a plain little punk, or are you an effing idiot punk. You like that mike does that make me right, now that I have insulted you, does that give my post more credibility now because I talk to you like your are a punk. No need to reply, but you have a nice day and good luck to you punk.

You should change your name because you are more stupid than Forrest. I am angry at Obama and if you are not angry then either you pay no taxes whatsoever or else you are totally on the government dole. Which one is it, stupid?

Ha I don't know why I even bother sometimes but if you want to be a little more civil and not insult people you don't even know, I'll tell you a little about me. I have a job, and a small consulting business, I have not worked full time at either in 3 years that is why I have some time to waste here. When I work at my job I make just a little over 50 bucks an hour, when I do basically the same thing as a consultant I charge 150 bucks an hour and do not touch a tool. I am a patented inventor, I have made new and unique contributions to my industry (some people would disagree with your assessment that I am stupid) and those patents still generate some income for me. Except for collecting unemployment for 5 weeks in February and some of March in 1991 I have never been on the government "dole". I paid taxes on $124,000 in income last year. I don't mind paying my share of taxes. I am mad that my tax money is given to oil companies, wall street, and bankers, all have received, and continue to receive huge gifts of tax payer money. I would like to see my tax money spent on roads, bridges, parks, schools, teachers, cops, fireman, and other things needed in this country that all citizens benefit from. I would like to see old people treated with dignity and respect. I do not like to see republican politicians now calling the only thing that many old people have left to live on a Ponzi scheme as if it is illegal or crooked to give them what we owe them for paying into SS and Medicare all their lives. I think it is a damn shame the median income in Texas is 11.20 an hour when I quit a job over 30 years ago making more than that because I did not feel it was enough money to raise a family. I paid a bigger percentage of taxes on my stinking $124,000, than hedge fund managers and CEO's who make that kind of money each week, because they get tax breaks. I'm tired of being told they deserve that and we can afford that but we have no money to fix this countries infrastructure that is crumbling. I'm tired of being told we don't have money for those things the country needs and which will employ some people who just want to earn a buck and feed their family, but we have 4 billion a year to subsidize the poor struggling oil companies who posting the biggest quarterly profits the world has ever seen, and a zero tax rate for many corporations. I'm tired of guys like you who vote republican so they can take your tax money and beat you over the head with it, and you love it. I think only chumps would vote for more of that, but I still do not call them names and insult them unless they start with the name calling first. So now you know just a little bit more about me mikeljhn.

You revealed far more than anyone needs to know. Then again, how do I know that you are telling the truth? I don't. All I really know is that you are an Obama supporter. Obama has created a voter class in three years that makes any election that he is involved in very close. Almost 50% of American voters now pay no taxes whatsoever or else they are on the government dole. There are exceptions to this rule. For example, over 70% of atheists and agnostics support Obama. Almost 35% of people making more than $10M per year support Obama. But still there is the general rule, and if you are telling the truth you are an exception, but in the minority by far. As far as being stupid, I simply argue that anyone who supports Barack Obama must be stupid because there is no rational reason to do so. And, I have discovered that civil discourse with the far-left is an unattainable goal, one that I will no longer be involved in. You support Obama and nothing you can say will change the basic opinion of you. All this @!$%# does not matter.

Damage-- I suppose you think he and his kind ought to sit in the back of that bus. Right?

curious Tom, what are his kind, Presidents?

You read my mind, Tom.

Republicans focused on attacking President Obama from the moment he won the Democratic primary. Making President Obama a one term President has been their one and only goal since the inauguration - not working with him to improve the economy, not working with him to wrap up two wars efficiently, not working with him to create jobs or re-build American manufacturing. Republicans won a majority in the House in 2010 and they have done nothing with it except nearly allow our country to default on its loans. Republicans do not deserve to win anymore elections. Let them roam around in the wilderness, meditating on their failed polices for awhile.

September 8, Obama tied our nation's fiscal recovery to the passage of three free trade agreements (FTA) currently awaiting approval. These measures that could immediately spur job growth, if only Congress would approve them to become law. The only problem: the White House has not yet formally sent the deals to Congress for a vote.” (Obama Says Congress Can Approve Trade Deals ‘Right Now.

So why is Obama holding on to them?