The Slow-bama recovery continues its anemic pace. The 2008-09 recession officially ended in June 2009 according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. Now the Slow-bama recovery is into its third year and the economy still stinks. Trillions in Barry admin deficit spending and “stimulus” and Dem federal govt jobs bills and little to nothing to show for it. If the economy "grows" any slower, it will need a defibrillator.

Pathetic.

Barry 2012 bumper sticker:

YEAH, The Obama Economy Sucks,

But, So Do The Republicans

From CNBC.com:

GDP Growth Gets Upgrade

The U.S. economy grew slightly more than previously reported in the second quarter, helped by consumer spending and export growth that was stronger than earlier estimated, according to a government report on Thursday that pointed to slow growth rather than a recession.

Gross domestic product grew at annual rate of 1.3 percent, the Commerce Department said in its third and final estimate for the quarter, up from the previously estimated 1.0 percent.

The revision was a touch above economists' expectations for a 1.2 percent pace and took GDP growth back to the government's original estimate of 1.3 percent. The economy expanded at a 0.4 percent rate in the first three months of the year.

Number of people seeking unemployment benefits falls to lowest level in 5 months

The number of people seeking unemployment benefits fell sharply last week, an encouraging sign that layoffs are easing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/number-of-people-seeking-unemployment-benefits-falls-to-lowest-level-in-5-months/2011/09/29/gIQAxgQz6K_story.html

Forty Reasons Why President Obama Should Be Re-Elected

Obama’s top 40 accomplishments during his presidency:

1. Authorized the housing resucue plan and new FHA residential housing guarantees.

2. Authorized a $789 billion economic stimulus plan – 1/3 in tax cuts for working-class families; 1/3 to states for infrastructure projects; 1/3 to states to prevent the layoffs of police officers, teachers, etc., at risk of losing their jobs because of state budget shortfalls.

3. Instituted a new rule allowing the public to meet with federal housing insurers to refinance (in as quickly as one day) a mortgage if they are having trouble paying.

4. Authorized the “Cash for Clunkers” program that stimulated auto sales and removed old, inefficient, polluting cars from the road.

5. Convened a “jobs summit” to bring experts together to develop ideas for creating jobs.

6. Authorized the federal government to make more loans available to small businesses and ordered lower rates for federal loans to small businesses.

7. In November 2009, Obama extended unemployment benefits for one million workers.

8. Signed historic Wall Street reform bill – Designed to re-regulate and end abusive practices and promote consumer protections.

9. Instituted enforcements for equal pay for women (Lilly Ledbetter Bill).

10. Signed the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act (2010) - To curb wasteful spending.

11. Signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act which provides small tax cuts for 95% of “working families” - The tax cuts were not as big as was suggested during the 2008 campaign.

12. Reduced taxes for some small businesses to stimulate the economic recovery.

13. Extended the Home Buyers Credit for first-time home buyers.

14. Overturned the Bush-era practice of not listing certain federal programs in the federal budget –Bush did this (so did Reagan) in an effort to hide programs and make the budget look smaller; such “off budget” items are now included in the annual budget.

15. Ordered the Pentagon to cover expenses of families of fallen soldiers if they wish to be on site when the body arrives back in the US.

16. Working to increase pay and benefits for military personnel.

17. Fulfilled campaign promise to have combat troops (90,000) out of Iraq by August 31, 2010.

18. Appointed Sonia Sotomayor, the first Latina, to the Supreme Court.

19. Appointed a diverse Cabinet and diverse White House staff.

20. Spoke at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights organization.

21. Signed the first major piece of federal gay rights legislation that includes acts of violence against gays under the list of federal hate crimes.

22. Allowed the State Department of offer same-sex benefits for employees.

23. After eight years of neglect, the Justice Department and EEOC are again enforcing employment discrimination laws.

24. Increased funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities.

25. Programs to assist Spanish speakers with the US Census.

26. Increased funding available for student loans.

27. Expanded the national youth service program.

28. Initiated a “Race to the Top” competitive federal grant program for states who develop innovative policies.

29. Proposed that the Pentagon repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy; placed a “freeze” on current efforts to remove alleged homosexuals from the military.

30. Increased investment in technologies for schools/education.

31. Ordered a review of hurricane and natural disaster preparedness.

32. FEMA once again reports directly to the president – Bush removed FEMA (prior to the Hurricane Katrina disaster) from this status.

33. Visited more countries and met with more world leaders than any president in his first six months in office.

34. Health insurance plans must cover birth control as preventive care for women, with no copays.

35. Reversed some of the Bush-era restrictions that prevented Medicare from negotiating with pharmaceutical firms for cheaper drugs, allowing government to again competitively bid.

36. Individuals living at or below the poverty line were eligible for healthcare under Medicaid, but by 2014 individuals/families living slightly above (making up to $14,404/$29,327) the poverty line will also be eligible for benefits.

37. Individuals/families making less than $43,320/$88,200 per year will qualify for government subsidies to help purchase health insurance.

38. Families can keep their children in college on their healthcare plans through age 26.

39. Childhood Obesity Act (spearheaded by Michelle Obama) – purposed to subsidize free meals in low-income areas to ensure that children receive well-balanced and nutritious school meals; and also to provide free or reduced-price meals to nearly 31 million low-income children; and ultimately reduce childhood obesity.

40. Obama proposes Jobs Bill to help put Americans back to work.

http://newsone.com/newsone-original/nhardesty/40-reasons-to-be-proud-of-obamas-presidency/

the GOP SUCKS

Fantastic post Backhouse, and congratulations on your good timing to grab the top spot on FT this morning. It's a great piece that deserves to be highlighted.

Pass the American Jobs Act now.

Obama in 2012.

Some times it's just too easy to destroy the silly complaints of the wrong-wingers. This little gem appeared yesterday: "In February, multi billionaire John Doerr had a small little dinner for Obama at his home in Woodside, CA. Among the other 12 guest were Eric Schmidt (Google) worth $7 billion, Larry Elison (Oracle) worth $39.5 billion, Carol Bartz (Yahoo!) worth $47.2 million, Mark Zuckerman (Facebook) worth $13.5 billion, Dick Costolo (Twitter) worth $120 million, John Chambers (Cisco) worth $1 billion, Steve Jobs (Apple) worth $8.3 billion, Steve Westly worth $500 million, etc."

Appalling, isn't it? How could these brilliant entrepreneurs support our socialist, commie, pinko, Marxist, job-killer President? Well, as our wrong-wing writer points out, there's literally billions of reasons. It was government investment that made those folks billionaires. That's right, socialism made those guys very, very wealthy, and they know it.

Let's digress for just a moment. Yesterday, the Albany ideologue hammered us again with his most recent fixation - Solyndra. Solyndra may turn out to be a very expensive and failed government investment. However, it is worth remembering that Thomas Edison failed at least 700 times in his quest to invent the light bulb, which as a matter of fact, he did not invent. He was building on the work of others. Edison was simply the first to patent this wonderful invention. The road to success is paved with failures.

It is worth remembering that it was the government that pushed atomic energy. We are to this day trying to unlock the mysteries of the atom, yet it was the government that took a flier on atomic theory. Yes, how the atom functions was in the theoretical realm then, and it remains there today. Still, the government - that's us - invested in the Manhattan Project. A serious case can be made that there were many failures leading to the creation of the atomic bomb that essentially ended World War II. One success - one single success - tends to make us forget those failures, doesn't it? So it will be with solar energy.

Back to my point. Each of the wealthy folks at the Obama soiree are beneficiaries of government investment. Each of those people built their fortunes on the foundation of computers. Who was the primary driver behind computers? Who was the primary driver behind the Internet? Who created the need for all those wonderful computer applications we use every day on those computers? We did! That's right, us; you and I. We're the government, and we invested in all those wonderful things that we are using this very instant.

We have invested in railroads, in air travel, in outer space exploration, in the Interstate highway system, in our universities and our schools, and somehow we are told this is all thanks to the wealthy. Bull Sh!t. It's us - all of us.

It was the working class that built this stuff. It was labor that created the unfathomable wealth that the wealthy believe should go into their pockets. Let's not shy away from reality, from the truth. You bet this is class warfare. The wealthy class is stealing our wealth. We really need to take it back, because the truth is the wealthy are not creating jobs. That's something ALL of America has done and will continue to do, but we sure can't do it as the indentured servants of the rich.

GOP AWOL While Nation’s Work Awaits

The United States’ fiscal year begins on October 1 – and the only really serious proposals regarding budgets, revenues, and means of moving the nation forward have come from President Barack Obama and the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The Republican Party, infected with the regressive ideology of its handful of Tea Party officeholders, has offered nothing, preferring instead to hold the nation hostage to a political agenda.

Voters last November sent a batch of new Congress members and Senators to Washington with a message: Fix the economy, get more jobs going, and quit the petty bickering. Voters next November are going to remember that the Republican Party and the Tea Party betrayed their trust.

Speaker John Boehner sets a “work” calendar for the House that sees the chamber in session three days a week, three weeks a month. Why so much time off? Do the Republicans need all that time away from their jobs to get instructions from Grover Norquist, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, Karl Rove and the Koch Brothers? If the Republicans want to make any credible claims about their focus on the nation’s needs, they need to stay at the Capitol instead of at the country club bars.

Americans want serious attention to our national issues – not more mealy-mouthed repetition of failed ideological positions from the right wing. And Americans want an orderly, attentive process in Washington that shows the Republicans and Democrats are serious. The Democrats have come to the work table. The Republicans, however, sat down at the lobbyists’ dinner tables instead – out of sight, and, apparently, out of their minds.

There you go again Navy... err... I mean Backhouse highlighted those pesky FACTS!

That isn't going to sit with with the usual 'fabricators' around here. lol

PS: Nice work keeping the prime real estate secure! ;o)

Once again, "the place for politics" did not find a "place" to report the most serious, threatening ideas to come out of any political party in my memory.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/09/bev-perdue-congressional-elections-/1?csp=34news

Petter Orszag agrees

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/94940/peter-orszag-democracy?page=0,0&passthru=MGU3YjMxNDdlN2UyMjM2MTNhZGZjNDE2MjE2NjE2Nj

So, what do we learn?  Well, it seems to me that, when the far left, liberal lunatic wing of the democratic party learns that they do not have the support of the electorate, that the nation as a whole rejects their "vision", when the failures pile up and threaten their hold on power, their solution is the same as any despot's-

To hell with the people and the Constitution!  Call off the elections, shred the Constitution, and ram your agenda through by whatever means necessary!

How many Obama worshippers here support these methods?  

It should be interesting to see their reactions.  Oh- before you come back with "Perdue was joking", listen to the audio.  I have.  Others have.

That was no joke.  By the way, Orszag?  Was not joking either.  So, when he prescribes government by autopilot, what he is really describing is a government so powerful NOTHING can stop it.

Put this in the context of Obama's website, "AttackWatch".  Yes, I was one who joined in the general laughter and derision when it was announced-applauded those who flooded the site with nonsense "reports".  In light of this, however, I'm thinking that this was a far more  invidious move than at first glance.  What American President sets up a system whereby one American can inform on other Americans who oppose that president's policies?  When, before, have officials, elected and appointed, advocated taking elections from the American people, or the right to govern from their elected representatives? 

Generations of men from both sides of my family have shed their blood to protect the rights these two - one a governor, one a former highly placed official- would take from the American people.  Mindful of their sacrifice, I cannot-will not- let this be brushed aside.

Nor will I let go unmentioned the fact that the Fourth Estate, which should be howling over all of these statements and initiatives, remains eerily silent on this.  Do you not believe you are also in the crosshairs?  Do you not recall that this White House attempted to lock out one major news organization- a move that failed because the media stood as one against it- and has, in fact, locked out certain individual reporters, and, in some instances, individuals newspapers?  Are you so besotted by one man that you would let him destroy the rights that so many have sacrificed life and limb to protect?  Are you so devoted to one political party you would stand silent while the very fabric of this nation was in danger of being shredded by their single minded desire to retain the power to dictate and impose policies the American people reject?

This is no longer a discussion of media bias- but media complicity in an attack on this nation.  

You should be ashamed of your dereliction of the duties enshrined in the Constitution- the very thing under attack by this current democratic party.

To those who question why I am so "negative", or why, if Obama is "toast", I continue to post facts that reflect negatively on him, here is your answer.

I will continue to do so until this chapter in American history is closed.  

Liberals kill private jobs with their over-regulation and over-taxation. Unions kill jobs with cozy relationships with the Democrats that negotiate impossible deals that put businesses and the taxpayers on the hook to pay for the Union members pensions and benefits. Environmentalists kill jobs to "save the planet, save the whales, save the chipmunk, save the snail, save the <fill in the blank>".

And to all these extreme leftists, the Liberals, the Unions, and the Environmentalists, they say the big problem in the country is the Tea Party, the very people that hold government accountable for their actions.

How many jobs has the Tea Party destroyed? None.

How many jobs have the Liberals, the Unions, and the Environmentalists destroyed? Millions!!

Joe in Albany

The Slow-bama recovery continues its anemic pace. The 2008-09 recession officially ended in June 2009 according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. Now the Slow-bama recovery is into its third year and the economy still stinks. Trillions in Barry admin deficit spending and “stimulus” and Dem federal govt jobs bills and little to nothing to show for it.

Pathetic.

Barry 2012 bumper sticker:

YEAH, The Obama Economy Sucks,

But, So Do The Republicans

Joeey, It's good to see you concede.

All you need to do now is get your nutso GOP/ T-bagger bumper sticker. Then you will have leaned forward.

How many jobs has the Tea Party destroyed? None.

How many jobs have the Liberals, the Unions, and the Environmentalists destroyed? Millions!!

Of course, you have some proof of both, right?

Of course, you'll site all these wonderful unemployment numbers and all that. Well, let me tell you a story.

My brother worked for the last 18 years for a Stiefel Laboratories. Well, a couple of years ago, the company was acquired by GlaxoSmithKline. Sure enough, his job got phased out. Now, tell me, how are the unions, the EPA, Liberals, etc. to blame for that and not corporate greed as the rich get richer and acquire more and more to become larger and larger?

Bev-aroni:

9. Instituted enforcements for equal pay for women (Lilly Ledbetter Bill).

In January/2009, when the Ledbetter bill was signed, pay for women was 77% of that for men.

Two years later, at the end of 2010, pay for women was 77% of that for men.

Thank you President Obama!

Source: http://www.pay-equity.org/info-time.html

"...look at Romney's: Only six years ago, he supported abortion rights; in 1994, he sent a letter saying he'd be a stronger advocate for gay rights than Ted Kennedy; according to a 2006 article, he supported a path to citizenship for law-abiding illegal immigrants; he has said that his Massachusetts health-care law should be a model for other states; and he said back in June that humans have contributed to the world getting warmer -- and that it's important to reduce emissions to combat that."

And then Mittless says: "

"In the private sector, if you don't change your view when the facts change, well you'll get fired for being stubborn and stupid".

Mitt needs to explain point by point, what were the facts that changed, and whythey changed his views.

Thanks John B and Feisty, great posts David, John A, Bev+

By setting the stage for small businesses to hire and expland and by putting folks back to work and pronto, we can chug revenues back into the pot, circulate the cash and get America back on track.

Let's GO!!

What happened Backhouse? Somebody call you out in your alter ego as Navy for not being what you claimed to be??

"When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less.” Paul Brown.

Okay. LoL.

In the meantime, congratulations TBay. Incredible game you played last night. It was magical. Last regular game of the season. Coming from behind 7-0, tying the game and then on to extra innings. Wow. Baseball in September, with nothing short of everything on the line. It was one for the ages.

Great great game.

_______________________________

Speaking of celebrations, we saw photos yesterday of Wall Streeter employees on their office balconies watching the demonstrators - as they drank champagne.

Mitt Romney hasn't caught fire because no one likes him. He's plastic. He's phony. And creepy.

AWESOME list Bev!

You need to post that daily GF! ;o)

$800 billion of borrowed and wasted deficit money for the 2009 "Stimulus".

$500 billion of more of the same in 2011 for the "Son of Stimulus".

We just know the next winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics will be The Obama.

Obama 2012 - "Give Me My Next D*mn Nobel!"

Obama: "Pass the American Jobs Act Now"

Harry Reid:

Or in November, or later.

Maybe after this China thingy that the President doesn't agree with.

I promise we'll get to it. I just don't have the votes.

In January/2009, when the Ledbetter bill was signed, pay for women was 77% of that for men.

Two years later, at the end of 2010, pay for women was 77% of that for men.

Thank you President Obama!

Source:

Gee, Smiffy, maybe you should bring this up with all the corporations who still think a woman is worth 77% of a man. Who knows, maybe that's the issue!

Joe in Albany -- Something else about the GDP report:

The GDP report also showed after-tax corporate profits rising at a 4.3 percent rate in the second quarter, the largest increase in a year, instead of 4.1 percent. Profit ticked up 0.1 percent in the first quarter.

Yeah Bev, re-post that every day and then you'll have to re-register just like Navy/Backhouse did.

Still don't know how that works.......

You left off "Built a Swingset and Planted a Garde at the White House"

I will continue to do so until this chapter in American history is closed.

If that's the case - you really should get the broken I-Pad fixed or at the very least use the spell check feature First Read offers you!

There's hyperbole and then there's BADLY spelled hyperbole...

"BREAKING NEWS: Number seeking jobless benefits falls sharply; GDP grows faster than expected"

Uh, OH- better whip out the old 'teleprompter' or somthing...

Piers Morgan with Dionne Warwick last night -

Morgan: “I’ve had a lot of African Americans on the show – intelligent ones – who have all been disappointed in his delivery of the great promise.”

Intelligent ones. That's what Morgan said.

Our media is so screwed up it isn't even funny.

Oh, and before I forget one from yesterday....

“Too funny Drive By - now off to that 5 bed, 3 bath, 5 car garage on 100 acres estate you got.”

See? Make a point about working hard and exercising self-reliance, and Spank keys only on this one part of the comment. I always suspected him of being shallow and phony, but now I can remove all doubt. Agree, Smiffie??

I'll believe corporations are people too once the State of TX executes one...

Let her repost. That has to be the most pitiful list I have ever seen. Those are the Top 40 reasons for -- Obama Gone 2012.

A GREAT list Bev. Thank GOD for President Obama.

John B Pass the Jobs Act Why don't you tell Harry Reid, He is the one holding it up in the Senate. He has other more pressing legislation to pass or maybe not enough dems to pass the jobs act.

Backhouse,

A GREAT Post with facts.

US Backhouse Navy,

that Big corporations are not hiring?

But big corporations funded Obama's election, are funding his re-election. He had to take care of them, well and the other guys that don't create jobs ...big unions, big banking and big government first.

Sheez .... and how many years have we been telling you that.

BTW - "Big Green" the big business of green industry (Solyndra, Fisker, Tesla, etc.) doesn't create jobs either unless you count jobs in the UK, Finland, Spain, China ....

SURE DOES FUND RE-ELECTIONS THOUGH.

However, it is worth remembering that Thomas Edison failed at least 700 times in his quest to invent the light bulb

______________________________________________________

And the amazing thing is that he didn't even need a dollar of govt grants and loan guarantees in doing that.

Noids: maybe you should bring this up with all the corporations who still think a woman is worth 77% of a man.

No, I'm bringing it up to you low-information Libs who genuflect to Obama on all his "accomplishments", but for some reason you are mysteriously absent when the results come in.

David Walker -

You are aware that John Doerr is part of Kleiner Perkins.

Why is that important?

Kleiner Perkins is invested in Fisker Automotive.

Why is that important?

Fisker Automotive was given a $528 Million dollar "Loan" by the Obama Administration

Fisker currently builds it's vehicles at Valemt in Uusikaupunki, Finland.

Why is that important?

Yes David why?

Joe in Albany -- Something else about the GDP report:

The GDP report also showed after-tax corporate profits rising at a 4.3 percent rate in the second quarter, the largest increase in a year, instead of 4.1 percent. Profit ticked up 0.1 percent in the first quarter.

_______________________________________________

Don't: Yes, more bad news because "corporations are bad".

Thanks for pointing that out.

I'll believe corporations are people too once the State of TX executes one...

I'll believe corporations are people when someone can give me statistics that show that corporations headed by women earn 77% of what corporations headed by men earn.

(See #1.12 from our pal Smiffy above!)

Looks like we are in for a lot more Obama temper tantrums

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149759/Democrats-Dispirited-Voting-2012.aspx?utm_source=add%2Bthis&utm_medium=addthis.com&utm_campaign=sharing#.ToRqO7ewBsU.twitter

I guess he'll be telling a lot more of you to take off your slippers.

Or, maybe, he'll just try to cancel the election.. .

While Tax Breaks are nice as a former small business owner I let my accountant handle that; it rarely influenced my hiring decisions. Here's the secret sauce: My whole life was spent trying to get access to capital!!!! Without access to capital, you cannot seed or fund or grow a small business. It is difficult and was a constant necessity to maintain a line of credit. Common sense today is there is little or no access to capital. Homes do not have enough equity to use as collateral for new business and you can tax break till you're blue in the face, that won't put in permanent workers, I need a customer base and positive long term economic outlook for that but most importantly: I NEED ACCESS TO CAPITAL!

BTW, the SBA is a pain in the arse' (the gov. small business administrative) so that is not a good option. Banks are stingy and that is the sauce. Banks are in lock down. Small biz needs access to seed money; how that is done today with little or no collateral, is the 800 billion dollar question.

Make it easier for seed money and you have yourself a plan. Involve the department of Bureaucracy and it'll never happen.

the list of 40 is proof that he has not done very much, even # 38 keeps kids hanging on mommies apron

sounds harsh, kids need to be on there own, and oh ya there is exception to every rule

this list of 40 looks awful to me

keep on posting it, it will throw cold water on the pres.

Job1-

You are going to get in really big trouble with your buddies for thanking "GOD".

They don't believe in him, ya know.

All the "plastic Jesus" and "Invisible Man in the Sky" stuff.

No, I'm bringing it up to you low-information Libs who genuflect to Obama on all his "accomplishments", but for some reason you are mysteriously absent when the results come in.

...and in doing so you completely miss the point, Smiffers! Way to keep your eye on the ball!

You noticed that Backhouse never posted a link to the CNN polls and what they said exactly.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/14/cnn-poll-jobs-act_n_962502.html

What does this tell us? Well, it reminds us once again that polls like this often tell one story in their headline and a different story entirely below the fold. In turn, this promotes a call for better practices when it comes to collecting information and then reporting on the collection. In terms of politics, it certainly suggests a strong support for the component parts of the bill -- which would tend to bolster a common GOP argument that these wide-ranging measures are best passed by breaking them down into parts and doing it one step at a time.

The Lefties are angry today. Even more than with their vacant state rants and chants against corporations, rich people, the Koch brother, their Consipracy of the Day, Grover Norquist, fat jokes at Christie, their awesome lists of Obama's awesome "accomplihments", their brother getting laid off, on and on it goes.

Even the Libs are now seeing it all slip away on them.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

I'll believe corporations are people too once the State of TX executes one...

________________________________________

Nasty, you obviously don't recall the federal govts execution of accounting firm Arthur Andersen after the Enron collapse and its conviction on obstruction of justice charges.

85,000 PEOPLE lost their jobs after AA was executed.

Fuuny thing about it though, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction UNANIMOUSLY, which means the liberal justices sided with Arthur Andersen too. Of course, by then it was too late, Arthur Andersen was alredy dead.

On May 31, 2005, in the case Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously reversed Andersen's conviction due to what it saw as serious flaws in the jury instructions.^[6] In the court's view, the instructions were far too vague to allow a jury to find obstruction of justice had really occurred.

Backhouse:

The American Jobs Act is projected to create 2 million jobs and raise our GDP by two points.

But that's merely economists who are saying that. Media Matters reported that less than 5% of guests discussing economic issues on cable news are economists. From what I've seen, the guests are mostly Republican politicians parading nonstop onto CNN and Fox to denounce Obama's plan as "class warfare". Why invite guests who know what they're talking about if they're not going to stick with the corporate media's agenda?

From the LTCi Partnership Training:

As of 2006, there are an estimated 7.7 million majority-owned, privately-held women-owned firms. This accounts for 30 percent of all businesses in the United States. Women-owned firms in general employ 12.8 million people and generate $1.9 trillion in sales. Between 1997 and 2006, the number of majority women-owned employer firms (51 percent or more) achieved twice the growth rate of all employer firms!⁴¹ It's fair to say, women have made monumental progress in the workforce in the last twenty or so years.

bob,

That big corporations are not hiring is common knowledge.

For example:

In 2007 Koch Oil made $34Billion in profits. In 2011, Koch Oil profits are at $50Billion. Their profits are sky high.

If the 'money=job creator' myth had any truth to it, Koch employment figures would rise along with the profits, right? You'd think they'd be hiring more workers. But they did not. They let thousands of workers go.

Koch Oil employee numbers have fallen in a big way ~~ from 80,000 to 67,000.

Perry's wife supports him for the nomination. Boy, that's enlightening. I was really curious about that one.

I especially liked her comment about the debate performances. My translation, of course, but I read it as, "Yes, my husband is dumb as a bag of rocks but he's going to be better coached next time". Maybe the little radio communications Bush used would help.

Is it just me or do some of the length comments, both left and right, above feel suspiciously like they are professional? In other words, campaign staffers working the blogs. I find that very offensive from either side. Also, when I see a six inch plus long entry with bullet points, I tend to not read it. Just saying, guys...

Awww Joe....Corporations are not bad it's just their rhetoric never seems to align with their bottom line. They continue to make money despite all those pesky taxes and regulations.

A little disappointed in Coke however. It seems the top guy there feels China is a much better place to do business. Pretty stupid for an American company, enjoying America's protections, to say. Wouldn't you agree?

Albany Joe, the Great Recession began in Dec 2007--long before Candidate Obama was the democratic presidential nominee. You can't fool us, Joe, we know your incorrect dates were intentional mistakes. Please tell us what the GOPTP has done to help improve the economy? Go ahead, give it your best effort.

Great post, Backhouse. Republicans keep telling us they are "listening to the American people" but it is obvious they're wearing hearing protection.

Chrysler and General Motors have both drastically reduced their workforce in order to become profitable.

The government actually forced them to in order to secure their financing.

So tell me, how do you reconcile that with your hate for Big Business?

Business economists lower expectations

By Peter Schroeder - 09/12/11 11:57 AM ET

A new group of economists have trimmed their economic expectations for the next two years, and are growing increasingly concerned about the viability of the recovery.

And on the same day the president sent to Congress his comprehensive plan to boost jobs in America, the National Association of Business Economics (NABE) predicted the unemployment rate would not fall back to more normal levels for at least four more years and will hover between 8.5 percent and 9 percent during the presidential election.

Alongside the Federal Reserve and the White House, the group trimmed economic growth expectations for the rest of the year and 2012 in a new survey. It now expects the economy to grow 1.7 percent, down from a May prediction of 2.8 percent. And 2012 will see growth of just 2.3 percent, not the 3.2 percent previously expected.

However, in recognition of the widespread economic uncertainty that has gripped policymakers and financial markets, the economists also were highly uncertain of their predictions. Eighty-six percent of those surveyed said they were "much more" or "somewhat more" uncertain than usual about their prognostications.

It was clear that the prolonged battles in Washington are taking their toll on economists, as "uncertainty about future economic policies" was identified as a leading restriction on growth going forward by NABE's president-elect and the chief economist for FedEx, Gene Huang.

A weak housing market, dwindling consumer and business confidence, and tight credit conditions were also contributing factors.

And in an indication of how little hope there is for a major economic boost, Huang said "growth in the rest of the world" was a factor supporting growth. Further monetary accommodation from the Federal Reserve and pent-up consumer demand were also positives in that category.

The amount of economists that view the recovery as "subpar" has nearly tripled since May — up from 11 percent to 30 percent. And the number of economists expecting a double-dip recession has more than quadrupled, from 3 percent to 13 percent.

Twenty-nine percent of those surveyed in May expected the economy to beat the economic headwinds. That number now stands at 7 percent.

Most of those surveyed did not expect a return to an unemployment rate consistent with full employment until 2015, and 17 percent did not expect to reach that point until after 2017.

Fifty-two economists were surveyed in August for the report.

Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/801-economy/180893-business-economists-lower-expectations

David Walker,

I didn't respond to the nitwit that posted that tripe yesterday because if they can't even get Mark Zuckerberg's name right,...I assume the rest of it is chain email tripe. But thanks for pointing out some of the more obvious 'issues' that Republicans have with smart business owners who are innovating and bringing technological advances to the market. How DARE they?

Pat, Boston --

In the meantime, congratulations TBay. Incredible game you played last night. It was magical. Last regular game of the season. Coming from behind 7-0, tying the game and then on to extra innings. Wow. Baseball in September, with nothing short of everything on the line. It was one for the ages.

What a good sport you are, Pat. Bravo to you, and better luck to the Red Sox next year.

Albany Joe:

On May 31, 2005, in the case Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously reversed Andersen's conviction due to what it saw as serious flaws in the jury instructions.^[6] In the court's view, the instructions were far too vague to allow a jury to find obstruction of justice had really occurred.

WOW. What a vindication for Enron. A conviction thrown out because the jury instructions were too vague to permit the jury to find what they found.

Some things make me ashamed to be a lawyer.

So Clara, David Walker has gone silent regarding my assertions of John Doerr and Fisker.

Have you got any comment?

Pat, Boston, MA

Piers Morgan with Dionne Warwick last night -

Morgan: “I’ve had a lot of African Americans on the show – intelligent ones – who have all been disappointed in his delivery of the great promise.”

CNN should get a few "intelligent ones" to host its programs. I don't know what his ratings are, but I suspect that Morgan's show is going to be off the air in the not-too-distant future.

Anna Molly,

Only "some things"???

You guys do realize that the Lily Ledbetter was a gift by Obama to one of his biggest constituents the Trial Lawyers lobby right? It had nothing to do with addressing any pay inequities that are generally due to behaviorial choices rather than actual women getting paid less for the same job same title and same work hours. Current law already makes it illegal to discriminate based on sex and additional legal protection is unnecessary. The new bill would make it easier for plantiff lawyers to sue based on statistics and not actual facts or a specific instance of discrimination. In other words another jobs killer as corporations just have more regulatory burden to deal with.

Albany Joe, the Great Recession began in Dec 2007--long before Candidate Obama was the democratic presidential nominee. You can't fool us, Joe, we know your incorrect dates were intentional mistakes.

________________________________________________________

Jody, you are right. According to the NBER the recession began in 12/07, so my 2008-09 dates were off by ONE MONTH. Nothing "intentional", just rounding it off.

However, the point of my post that the Slow-bama recovery is now in its third year and, despite all of Barry's deficit spending, America has little to nothing to show for it, is still true.

How about commenting on that??

Loving those lists libbies, although it is sad you have to remind people of "accomplishments."

Funny thing is we got Feisty, Bev. Navy, John B. Drive By, all chiming in about jobs, and job creation. Each day, and every day. It's very like Obama and his advisors - none of you have ever created a job, nor has he, or his advisors.

Look at Navy's post at #1.49. Kock Ind. has increased profits and lowered it's biggest fixed cost - wages, salaries and benefits.

Navy doesn't get that is success, but then gain, Navy has no idea how to run a business, so is clueless.

Navy and libbies - a business is not in business to employee people. It's goal is to make profits.

The fact that the most basic premise continues to baffle you all is astounding.

You all really need to get a clue.

But tell us Navy - who does employ people? You?

Rick, take it from one of those sometimes "length" posters, the ones from the left you see here daily are not paid by anyone, not WH or MSNBC staffers but my saying that does not alleviate the insistence by some that we are paid by ??? We simply enjoy politics, enjoy writing opinions, sharing information and posting facts. Now I can't comment about the lengthy ones on the right for obvious reasons.

Bev,

100% endorsement from here to post your 40 points every day!

You know 67,000 employed people in one company is something. Those are families with kids in school and people to feed and clothe. So, if you want to do them a favor and let them keep their employment -- shut your pie-hole that continually harps on Koch Industries.

It's good to see you endorse laughable failures and borderline accomplishments.

Houston - you do realize CNN is about to pass MSNBC in the ratings? Morgan is doing pretty good, whereas O'Donnell is way off Olbermann's numbers, which is effecting Maddow.

Then of course Ed, The REv. Al and Mathew's collective ratings are horrid.

Come on gang - we all need to support the fantastic line up on MSNBC. Pure comedy gold.

Speaking of comedy gold - Hey John B. what the happening on the Buffett Bill today?

Gosh gang - any word on Obama's jobs bill? He did say "pass it now" so I assume all the dems are on it?

No, not so much, why is that? We need another item on that list of assume-ness.

It is funny that the gimme gimme gang is chomping at the go go go bit and poor Harry is still pulling up his pants and giving it that final shake. Harry is so go go go about this..... Who needs votes when you have late night secret and we dont even have to read it!

WOW. What a vindication for Enron. A conviction thrown out because the jury instructions were too vague to permit the jury to find what they found.

Some things make me ashamed to be a lawyer.

__________________________________________

Enron??

The case was about Arthur Andersen and the fact that the SC ruled unanimously that they didn't get a fair trial.

Am I going out on a limb to think you do believe in fair trials??

What WCA said. LOL!!!

WCA: So Clara, David Walker has gone silent regarding

David, much like Skip, has everyone on "Ignore", except himself. He does enjoy re-reading all his posts, ehh, his works. All the rest of the other folk's "works" just don't measure up to dear Davids, at least according to David, and Skip.

Plunk your magic twanger David.

Well, here comes another old chestnut:

Rick-1103809

Is it just me or do some of the length comments, both left and right, above feel suspiciously like they are professional? In other words, campaign staffers working the blogs. I find that very offensive from either side. Also, when I see a six inch plus long entry with bullet points, I tend to not read it. Just saying, guys...

Rick, some of us indeed are professional writers - I certainly am, for pretty much my entire long life. But I'm not paid by anyone to post here, it's strictly from conviction and passion. And I am absolutely certain that a number of others who post from the "liberal" perspective are not paid bloggers as well, inasmuchas I know them. And while some of us harbor suspicions about certain right-wing bloggers, many of whose posts are simply smears, dismissive, and insubstantial, I wouldn't point a finger at any specific one.

As for long posts, there are times when in order to present, develop, and implement an argument, it takes time, thoought, and explanation. One-liners are great for broadcast "sound bites," but they are also almost always inadequate in dealing with complex subjects. You can learn to skim, and some of us use font styles to make it easy to catch key points that you can subsequently read more about if you choose.

See my next post for an example.

White Collar Auto:

I know this is going to come as a shock, but I have interests beyond sitting in front of my monitor waiting to hear from the likes of you.

As to your questions - I give up! Why don't you tell me the answers?

"Hi ya, kids." Froggy (not feeling so good this morning)

Good job everyone. You are really knocking it out of the park today. I will be brief.

I was right, HAHA, I was right, HAHA.

Perry is imploding, Romney is maintaining despite the ho-hum response from the GOP/TP/LDS. Christie is too smart to run this time around, he'll wait for 2016.

The Axis of Evil ticket will be Romney/Pawlenty and the winner will be Obama/Biden.

"Plunk your magic twanger Froggy."

America held hostage, day 272

Obama/Biden 2012

JoAnnaSmith1

The Lefties are angry today. Even more than with their vacant state rants and chants against corporations, rich people, the Koch brother, their Consipracy of the Day, Grover Norquist, fat jokes at Christie, their awesome lists of Obama's awesome "accomplihments", their brother getting laid off, on and on it goes.

Even the Libs are now seeing it all slip away on them.

what Liberals see slipping away is the middle class, which you joanna are one of, in 10 years we will have 2 classes, the rich and the poor kind of like it was when the depression hit. Now i know when you were a teenager in the 1920s it seems like it was ok, but in the 30s when you were looking for work i know working in a sweat shop making dresses for 2 dollars a week was not too good considering the person who owned the shop was making 20 times more selling the dress.

Joanna please remember how hard it was for you getting though the depression and not wish that on any body, i must say your showing your age a woman of almost 100

It's a shame that the Democrat party has been hijacked by a bunch of progressive LWNJs that only want to live off the sweat and toil of others. John F. Kennedy has turned over in his grave in shame and disgust. These people can't lead this country with their socialistic and communist ideals except down the path of destruction.

If the Democrat party would move back to the sound principles of its forefathers, I would have more respect. The party needs to take a close look at Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV). He is a strong Democrat with family and moral values.

Joe, the stimulus worked; the economy was improving until--Jan 2011 when the GOP House took over Congress and began cutting government spending which resulted in less money to the states and local governments which caused layoffs in the public sector and thus halted the recovery. All one needs to do is read the economists' analysis to find that statement true. Now my telling you that the stimulus worked is a waste of time because you choose to believe those who tell you it didn't. One only has to look at the photo ops of GOP Governors, GOP legislators nationwide with giant checks touting the number of jobs the stimulus money created in the respective states and districts. You also fail to acknowledge that the GREAT Recession is the worse economic collapse since the Great Depression. Anyone who thought it could be turned around in a year or two was naive. The country had been heading down that slippery economic slope for a good number of years. The housing bubble was discussed often in the media several years before the economy collapsed.

We're still waiting for you to tell us what the GOP has done to help improve the economy but I see, as usual, you ignored that challenge because you know in your heart the answer is the GOP has done nothing.

Have a good day everyone. See you later.

Jolly - the gimme gang is passionate, put then again their numbers have thinned so much was are down to the true believers.

I love these guys. They talk about jobs, taxes and the economy like they have knowledge skill and training in the topics. Yet we all know they have never started a business, created a job, had to provide health insurance to others. Heck they are all W-2 employees and I doubt any even run income through a Schedule C.

It is also kinda funny that they all love them some green energy, but almost none have solar or drive a hybrid.

How about you Drive By - you running a a solar system out at the big house? Still no Volt? I don't know if you have seen the sales numbers but Chevy could really use your support.

Wait, I bet a man of your accomplishments is holding out for the Caddy version, right.

JoAnnaSmith1

Noids: maybe you should bring this up with all the corporations who still think a woman is worth 77% of a man.

No, I'm bringing it up to you low-information Libs who genuflect to Obama on all his "accomplishments", but for some reason you are mysteriously absent when the results come in.

After all, we know what the results were when the Republicans were in charge - we were LOSING 700,000 jobs a month and the economy was in a tail-spin.

Where are the jobs, Boehner/Cantor/Ryan?

COMPETING VISIONS OF AMERICA, CONTINUED: WHAT THE TEA PARTY WANTS
AND WHY IT IS FAILED OLD RHETORIC

“Tear It Down and
Start over” –

But the Tea Party’s Methods Are Proven Disasters – WHY Try It in America?

Tea Party followers in Wisconsin, at a rally Aug. 8, cheered the downgrade of U.S.
bond ratings and the massive drop in the Dow Jones average earlier in the day.
To the right-wing economic fundamentalists, “tear it down and start over” is an
honored principle, and thus seeing a government and economic system they
despise struggling, the cheers make perfectly good sense.

While not all adherents to the Tea Party movement have been motivated by the economic
doctrines as articulated by Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of
Economics, or the radical positions long advocated by Grover Norquist’s
Americans for Tax Reform, or the Heritage Foundation and the Club for Growth, a
hard central core of the movement is absolutely wedded to those positions.

Critics of the Tea Party movement cry dire warnings if the right-wing agenda were to
take full shape. For its part, the Tea Party and conservatives generally reply
that the warnings are “fear mongering.”

The conservative answer is that the economy would rapidly improve, and jobs
flourish, if only the country adopted a form of “pure capitalism,” including:

ü eliminating government interference in markets,

ü downsizing government size and spending,

ü sharply reducing taxes, eliminating public debt and balancing the Federal budget,

ü privatizing anything now done by government that a corporation could operate more efficiently, and

ü “freeing” workers to be more competitive and mobile by stripping all outside obstructions between employers and employees.

Those five points cover a great deal of actual territory, of course. But they
accurately describe what various states, now governed by Tea Party governors
and lawmakers, have been doing.

The actual events have included limiting or eliminating unions’ power, proposals to
eliminate minimum wage and child labor laws, privatizing public education,
selling or leasing public infrastructure to private interests, closing or
sharply cutting funding and staffing of regulatory agencies, cutting public
payrolls, and much more.

Ostensibly, economic distress underlies the states’ actions. Most states’ constitutions
require balanced annual budgets, or there are statutes to require that. The
conservatives point to the example of the states, and call for a comparable
approach to the national government in all respects.

However, the description of an ideal economy and government is not the kind of
“paradise” the conservatives idealize – because it will not become reality, and
never has existed. In fact, there have been many attempts at creating exactly
such an idealized condition, all complete and horrifying failures – except for
a very small group that became fabulously wealthy, powerful to the point of
absolutism, and ultimately corrupted thoroughly.

And what the Tea Party seeks has also already failed entirely in the United
States.

30 Years of Failure in the U.S. and a Global Recession

The United States has been something of a “laboratory” for the Friedman – Chicago
School since at least the Reagan Administration. Some writers, such as Thomas Frank, claim that the effort to implement the social and economic philosophy in the U.S. dates back much further (see The
Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Ruined Government, Enriched Themselves, and
Beggared America, ISBN 0805090908). Frank, by the way, does not discuss the
Friedman perspective too much – he instead addresses the strategies and tactics
employed by conservative operatives including Jack Abramoff and Grover Norquist
to link corporations and the state in almost exactly the way that the Tea Party
idealizes today.

Nonetheless, as other analyses have shown, the Friedman principle has been in effect, if
somewhat imperfectly according to its “purist” adherents, since 1981. Only the
pesky resistance of political opponents and unfortunate economic problems
prevented the complete program from taking full root.

Among the problems were two recessions during the Reagan Administration, the 1988
stock market crash, a successive series of corporate scandals including the
savings and loan debacle, the Enron mess, the Worldcom mess, the dot-com bubble
and subsequent recession, and the 9/11 terror attack and subsequent recession,
to name but a few. And, of course, the Reagan Administration did not reduce
deficits and debt as the Friedman principles require – quite the opposite, in
fact. (Similarly, the second Bush Administration also preferred extremely high
loads of deficit and debt to the more austere aspect of Friedman’s program.)

Even so, some of the key Friedman principles were implemented – most especially
effective deregulation, not only of the insurance, investment banking and
commercial banking sectors, but also energy, transportation, thrift (the
savings and loan sector), workplace safety, environmental protection, major
aspects of labor relations, natural resources production (forestry, mining, oil
and gas), and still more.

In addition, although the Reagan Administration was forced to reverse its early
sharp tax cuts with a series of tax increases, as was the first Bush
Administration, major tax incentives dramatically altered corporate finance and
governance. Changes to capital gains levies encouraged a shift of
business management focus from long-term stability and steady business growth
to a quarter-by-quarter performance standard – and, at the same time, created
the “day trader” phenomenon in the stock market.

That simple change in tax policy led to the breakup of corporations to generate
“shareholder value,” incredible bonuses and benefits to corporate executives,
and a sharp squeeze on the labor market to reduce or limit growth in wages.

The Reagan Administration also encouraged globalization of American business,
removing barriers for transferring production to other regions and creating
incentives to do so. And by deregulating the process of mergers and
acquisitions, another Friedman principle, the Administration launched a massive
shift in the business landscape. By the end of the Reagan years, America had
substantially become de-industrialized.

In the Clinton Administration, some of the same process continued. The crowning
moment for Friedman followers occurred when Sen. Phil Gramm engineered the
merger of Citicorp with financial conglomerate The Travelers Group – in
violation of the Glass-Steagall Act. But the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, known as
the Financial Services Modernization Act, was handily ready. By presenting the
Clinton Administration with the fait accompli of the illegal merger,
Gramm ensured the bill would be approved and signed. It was a masterstroke of
manipulation to fulfill a Friedman goal, and the result was almost complete
deregulation of the finance and banking sectors.

Matt Taibbi, in Griftopia: Bubble Machines, Vampire Squids and the Long Con That
Is Breaking America (ISBN 0385529953), takes the tale of the bank merger
forward, showing how Friedman principles were followed to virtually abolish
all oversight of mortgage lending, capital markets, business insurance, and
other factors that had “inhibited” the free flow of financial products and
capital in U.S. and global markets. The idea that markets would be
“self-regulating” underlay the philosophy – a point that Tea Party advocates
espouse today.

The second Bush Administration enthusiastically embraced the approach and built a
very close relationship with the leaders of the major banking and investment
capital companies. That ensured that the firms were allowed free rein in their
business without bothersome interference from government.

The cumulative effect of following Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics
philosophy for 30 years in the U.S., the ideology of Tea Party advocates now,
was the global economic collapse.

Nope – Poor People Didn’t Cause the Problem Today, Either

Conservatives attempt to re-write history and blame a worldwide, $14 trillion meltdown on
unwise lending to poor people who couldn’t afford their mortgages – they point
to the Community Reinvestment Act as the evil root of the entire collapse.

Unfortunately, this argument is completely false.

The 1977 law aimed at the practice of “redlining,” a technique used by banks and
other businesses to either completely refuse lending, or offer loans at
excessive rates, in poor neighborhoods. The law, however, mandated sound
lending practices, and a study has shown that default rates in CRA loans were
within predictable and historical ranges. The lending practices did not produce
the 2007-2009 Great Recession.

Rather than argue the point, however, there is another way to see whether the Friedman
philosophy has been successful and offers a basis for reforming American
government, economics, and society. Friedman and the Chicago School of
Economics were directly involved in such revolutions in Latin America – Chile,
Argentina, Ecuador and Brazil. In all cases, the entire approach to laissez
faire capitalism was enthusiastically and wholly implemented.

So what was the success rate? In a word, dismal.

The Shock Therapy of the Tea Party Has Been
Tried Elsewhere – and Created a Horror Show

The “tear it down and start over” Friedman method failed in every possible aspect –
social, political and economic. It wrecked untold millions of lives, cost
hundreds of lives directly, and destroyed stable, progressive, developing
nations. And that is what the Tea Party advocates for the United States?

The entire sordid story, a tale of upheaval, oppression, genocide, and corporate
looting of half a continent, is told in unrelenting detail by Naomi Klein in The
Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (ISBN 0312427999).

The first field of operations was in Chile, where using the excuse – later shown to
be completely false – that socialist President Salvador Allende intended to
turn the nation into a Communist state, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency
and a cabal of corporations engineered a military coup. Chile at the time was a
relatively prosperous nation with a sizeable middle class and an extremely low
poverty rate.

Significantly, the Chilean coup took place on 9/11 – of 1973. Even before the actual
revolution, a major plan for reforming the nation along line of the Friedman
philosophy had been compiled and put on every Chilean general’s desk (Klein, P.
96). While brutally killing thousands to silence dissent in a reign of terror,
coup leader Gen. Augusto Pinochet also faithfully followed the Friedman
program. From the outset, it failed (Klein, pp. 97, 101).

Eventually in March, 1975, Pinochet welcomed Milton Friedman personally in Santiago,
Chile. The economist literally took over managing the nation’s economy – and
failed. Soon more than half the nation was in poverty, inflation was rampant,
public resources had been sold to a group of American companies, and the
once-flowering country of Chile was on its way to more than three decades of
bloody misery.

The scenario was essentially repeated in Argentina, Brazil, and Ecuador. The master
handbook created for Chile was employed in almost identical fashion. And the
results were largely the same.

The economic and political agenda of the Tea Party and conservatives in America has
been tried, repeatedly. It has never worked. It is a prescription for disaster.

I'll believe corporations are people too once the State of TX executes one...

ROTFLMAO

Sorry, the state of Texas is too busy executing the government, in order to hurt Americans, to get to corporations. It is what the Douchebag Party is all about!

You know I find the extreme left almost as offensive as the Douchebaggers, but this was one funny comment.

Oh, and speaking of Arthur Anderson, yeah, that comment was like not understanding at all how corporations work. Here's what really happened. Corporations, the ones everybody loves, do NOT hire accountants who get them in legal trouble. What AA did was have an accountant who shredded documents to try to protect himself from going to jail for the illegal activity he did for Enron. AA, the company, which should have been watching, didn't and therefore nobody wanted to do business with them again. So those employees who were honest simply went to other accounting firms where they were readily hired.

Please, you don't have to LIE to be a conservative or Republican. Unless you are a Douchebagger and your real goal is to destroy conservatism, in which case, well done, liar.

I'm still waiting to see what the Republican / T-Party plan is to increase jobs? Do they even have a plan? If so, please point us to it. The only thing I see is the Democrats trying to better our economic situation. If the republicans have something perhaps people can weigh in on which looks like the better option.

The only thing I see coming from the republicans is negativity. Negativity towards the President and constituents.

StC: Where are the jobs, Boehner/Cantor/Ryan?

Silly, they're in the latest Obama jobs scheme, the "American Jobs Act". Obama is promising "millions of jobs" with this latest bit of magic from him.

The Dems are all onboard with this, but yet the Senate won't vote it through. Why is that, besides the fact they don't have the votes.

Yep Jody t worked great. So good we have to do the exact same thing again.

Government money runs out and government jobs end.

Private jobs are created due to a need. They are not dependent on government money.

Oh yeah, we ain't got no more government money - $4billion per day.

Come on libbies say it with me - $3million per minute of new debt.

Fantastic, right Jody?

Ray,

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/09/13/rel15d.pdf

CNN Poll September 14/11.

Too long to print it all out here.

StoptheCannibals-2908428

Where are the jobs, Boehner/Cantor/Ryan?

Ok now i think your right about asking where the jobs are, but don't you know that was not the purpose if the GOP when they took control of the congress, they were not put there to creat jobs now matter what they said before last november, there were put there to stall everything except war funding and HLC money so that in 2012 they could go back and blame the president that there were no jobs, isn't it strange that the unemployment rate has goan back up since they took over congress. come on now.

Jody Iowa,

I agree with everything you said, the stimulus wasn't a solution, but it definitely had its impact and help us head in the right direction. Just to be fair, (hopefully not at the risk of having the conservatives eyes start rolling) when you say one had to be foolish or naive to think it could be turned around in just a few years, don't forget our president did. Though he has not been great i would give President Obama a rating of good as far as his handing of whats come to him. I would understand someone saying he has done little (average). But, anyone who says he did poorly obviously just did not understand how bad things were in 2007-2008, or simply refuses to accept it.

@John A.-400474

that was some well written smack down you wrote a few posts ago. I tunnel these blogs looking for good arguments from both sides; As an older American, I can easily sense the childishness of some of the crummier posts on this site by some of the brats (grown men and women at that!) looking for a quick one up. I admire a well written argument; there is still hope for some intelligent conversation....

(oh and I finally found that Ignore Button!)

We were promised by the Republicans in their "landslide victory" in 2010 that they would come through on their "Path to Prosperity" and haven't done one thing to keep their promise.

What part of "prosperity" do Republicans not know?

Kirk

Lily Ledbetter has as much to do with the statute of limitations as anything. And the law was already written and shelved,...that's how it happened so quickly. What happened to Lily was a CRIME; but the BENCH decided that an arbitrary date, that of when she first was made aware of a discriminative act would determine being able to proceed. Ledbetter makes EACH pay violation a reset of the statute clock, thus making it more likely that someone who has been discriminated against can actually collect on damages.

I don't really understand the Stale, Male and Pale objection to this, other than that they want to "keep women in their place". Republican men will NEVER (without fear of legal retribution) make fair decisions in employment (or anywhere that women are involved); because as evidenced on this board DAILY, they don't seem to think women are their equals. Even as they attempt to 'support' Bachmann and Palin, their comments are mysogonistic and belittlling. Some certainly far worse than others. Looking at you Bill "Me First".

All Lily Ledbetter does is highlight one more time that Corporations (predominantly run by MEN) cannot operate FAIRLY without regulations.

David Walker - "Why don't you tell me the answers?"

Typical Lib. What a waste. I told you all the answers except one.

How about this:

Yes or No. Is John Doerr's relationship with Fisker Automotive in any way a problem given the fact that he is a large donor to the Obama Campaign and also given that the Obama Administration gave Fisker Automotive $528 million dollars to build Luxury EvEr vehicles in Finland?

Is that simple enough for you? One word answer will suffice. Try to show me just how smart you are.

Bakehose: Too long to print it all out here.

Never stopped you before.

You should know, what is the buffer limit on copy and pastes?

Jeff-1541632

Where are the jobs, Boehner/Cantor/Ryan?

Ok now i think your right about asking where the jobs are, but don't you know that was not the purpose if the GOP when they took control of the congress, they were not put there to creat jobs now matter what they said before last november, there were put there to stall everything except war funding and HLC money so that in 2012 they could go back and blame the president that there were no jobs, isn't it strange that the unemployment rate has goan back up since they took over congress. come on now.

That's got to be the funniest post I've read on here.

JoAnnaSmith1

The Lefties are angry today. Even more than with their vacant state rants and chants against corporations, rich people, the Koch brother, their Consipracy of the Day, Grover Norquist, fat jokes at Christie, their awesome lists of Obama's awesome "accomplihments", their brother getting laid off, on and on it goes.

if you don't like the fat jokes about christie, then write him and tell him to listion to the first lady and eat much healthier, I'm being serious, he has young kids that would like to have dad see his grand kids.

ok. he is in the wrong line of work to be over weight.

lmao...Spanky I love the verbal version of poking the hornets nest with a large stick. All those buzzing bees swirling bumping into each other stinging themselves. Then the queen bee flies out all angry with butter dripping down her double chin! hahahaha old joke (More Chins than a San Francisco Phone Book)

Rick,

When you copy something for a direct quote, sometimes the print comes up extra-large when you put it on FR. Have noticed government sites copy up like that sometimes.

It wasn't sent in extra-large font from me, if that's what you mean.

Jeff

Joanna please remember how hard it was for you getting though the depression and not wish that on any body, i must say your showing your age a woman of almost 100

It's not just the AGE that she's showing; but a mental 'acuity' that should really not be left unsupervised,...but yeah, the age thing is truly a give away.

Hunter from W, Virginia -

Thanks for your observant comments. And it is difficult, in this environment, to assemble and deliver information in longer posts. If you tunnel the blogs, you'll come across some who are really very concise and grasp the heart of the issue clearly and effectively. Glad you are able to winnow the chaff from the wheat, despite the gales coming from the blowhards!

Stop: the part where "prosperity" applies to the working people instead of just the wealthiest .1 of the population.

Dear Froggy, Feel better.

Seems to me as I read this blog, after a lovely five mile outing with my collie, that the panic and hysteria is on the right. Quite the uptick in fear from the usual suspects, which manifests in their daily rants, none of which make much sense.

One must deduce from these diatribes that the right wing is genuinely worried about the lack of depth, charisma and ability of the current candidates that are trying to seek the Presidency. When your own voters are desperately trying to get someone, ANYONE else to run, there are significant problems that the fringe right wing have created, and the Republicans are trying to control. But, it may be too late. Hard to stop a run away train.

Poor Clara. Another day, and still she has nothing to say.

Tell us Clara, why hasn't Harry Reid passed the American Jobs Act in his Senate? The President did say "Pass this bill" and to do it now, did he not? And can you direct us to a copy of President Obama's "Buffett Rule". Obama sure talks about it a lot, we're all kind of interested in what it really says.

Thanks so much dearest.

Backhouse

You forgot to mention the tax increases in the American Jobs Act. President Obama knows damn well that tax increase won't fly at this time unless spending is cut. This Jobs Act is nothing more than a POS designed to give him something to demonize the republicans. If our President was serious he would insist that Harry Reid bring it to a vote. Seems like he doesn't even have any control over people in his own party or he is a liar who really doesn't want a vote on his ideas. I'll go with both.

Beverly

You sure have a fine list of accomplishments of President Obama. But doesn't that blow away the fact that you libs say "the republicans blocked everything"?

What is wrong with the far left these days? Will they ever learn to tell the truth? HELL NO, then they would never win an election.

NDD -

Nice image about going out with the dog and taking some time to reflect. Tends to keep your blood pressure low and your rational posting quotient high.

Although some here complain that the perceived "weakness" of the GOP field is purely a media contrivance, most political professionals independently see the same thing: Unless a very srong GOP candidate jumps in (and I don't consider Christie one), there's no contest next year. In fact, a polarizing, weak candidate could well discourage GOP turnout.

America is clearly behind Obama's jobs plan. Get over it Repubs/TP. Several economists give it a thumbs up. Go Obama.

All this talk about a weak field in the GOP. Have you seen the weak candidate for the Democrats?

Thanks Dawn, Froggy will feel better tomorrow. Today, he's a sick froggy.

My best to you and Sey. I envy you getting to walk with him this morning. A good collie is the best medicine there is and you are always a joy.

Froggy

Obama/Biden 2012

JoAnnaSmith1

$800 billion of borrowed and wasted deficit money for the 2009 "Stimulus".

$500 billion of more of the same in 2011 for the "Son of Stimulus".

We just know the next winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics will be The Obama.

Obama 2012 - "Give Me My Next D*mn Nobel!"

Lets see,

1.2 trillion in tax cuts

Trillions for war

6 trillion for medicade Part D

all not paid for

wow you would think this is from a liberal according to joanna we are the only ones who spend what we don't have, but no, we got this from wacked out former texas governor who people seem to have forgotten.

between Bush and LBJ we should know better than to put another former texas governor in the white house. Rick perry Hell no!!!!!

John A. and Skip: No better time to be outside! Beautiful fall foliage, playful pup, what more can you ask? Later!

White Collar Auto:

Whether I am smart is not at issue, is it? Whether I understand the import of the issue IS important.

First though, let me address a ridiculous post you made earlier about Job1's thanking God for President Obama. You should understand that atheists who took the oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic do so without including any provisos. Atheists are bound by oath to uphold ALL of the Constitution, not just the portions they like. If Job1 chooses to believe in God, that is his right, and I will defend that right.

Secondly, I'll move on to the question, but I would like to know what is a "Typical Lib". A lot of people like you toss that term around. What the hell does it mean?

Now to your question. Without knowing the specific terms of the "loan", I would be rather foolish to give you a "yes" or "no" answer. I don't live in the black-and-white world you share with your silly brethren and sistren. How will licensing rights - if any - be handled? How will patent royalties and the like - if any - be handled? Did the Obama Administration simply GIVE them that money? If the recipients of government investment give us cleaner air, does that count as a worthwhile return? If our reliance on foreign oil is diminished, does that count as a worthwhile return?

Come on now WCA. You've been pointing out that the terms of the assistance given to General Motors and Chrysler included the requirement that they pare their work forces. Clearly, there are terms.

So, no you didn't answer the questions you asked. All you did was offer the standard right-wing innuendo - "LOAN".

Finally, the entire investment may turn out to be a poor one. That's what happens when one takes risks. When we learn to walk, we fall, but we get back and try again. That's how it works.

Is Smiffy under the misguided perception that I give a crap about her BS?

I sure hope she's not wasting her Senior Moments awaiting a response from me.

Go bark up a tree that gives a damn about your lies, Smiffy. We're all full up on laughter watching you chase your tail and lift your leg on every other post.

Hey, Feisty, can I get a clean up over here,...the porch pest is laying down some doozies.

You liberals don't seem to understand what's going on here. Obama-mania is dead. The oceans haven't receded, the Greek columns are gone, the economy sucks, people have come to realize that Obama is what he is: a community organizer with no past record to keep him from being elected who WAS elected so America could feel good about themselves for electing a black man. It's over. Once the campaign starts, Romney OR Perry (more so Romney) can beat him handily.

I love how the clowns in the earlier posts consider Piers Morgan the "media." That was funny.

Hey, Feisty, can I get a clean up over here,...the porch pest is laying down some doozies.

Floyd's on his way with the back-ho! lol

Poor selfish redhead - sleeping with dogs who have fleas has caused her uncontrollable itching for attention...

Joanna: You completely misunderstand the Lilly Ledbetter bill if you expected immediate fixes to pay discrmination for women. (you aren't trying to argue AGAINST that are you?) The law simply reverses a Surpeme Court decision which basically required women claiming discrimination to file complaints BEFORE they were aware they were being discriminated against. You think getting rid of that piece of absurdity in itself is going to guarantee equal pay?

Clara: Is Smiffy under the misguided perception that I give a crap about her BS?

My Clara, you are over the top today. "BS", "damn", "crap". Such language.

And I do very much care what you say Clara, cause you're just so darn funny!

Hey Clara, just another question you won't answer. What is it with your defense of Obama's super big accomplishment Ledbetter bill? As you say: "All Lily Ledbetter does is highlight one more time that Corporations (predominantly run by MEN) cannot operate FAIRLY without regulations."

So these super big accomplishments of Obama are just just meant to "highlight" all the injustices rattling around in your head? Kind of lame dearie, don't you think? 77% when the bill passed. 77% today. Yeah, we know, it would have been worse without it. Sure.

Now run off and go play with your friend Feisty. And please, don't play in the street.

"How about you Drive By - you running a a solar system out at the big house? Still no Volt? I don't know if you have seen the sales numbers but Chevy could really use your support."

As usual- completly irrelevant. But what else is new? Spanks been haning with Smiffy too long, I guess.

JH,

The leadership strategy on the right is to avoid, deny, negate, mislead and misinform. That trickles down of course, but ordinary folks are tired of it from every side.

Now as for your cynicism. Senator Reid has said he'll bring the AJA up for a vote in October. You'll see that First Read wrote: that the imminentSenate discussion is about Chinese monetary issues.

Lots of us, including the President want to see folks back at work, thriving and taking care of their families. We are the 98% of America. That's a lot of people. No mystery.

AP-1414066

Joanna: You completely misunderstand the Lilly Ledbetter bill if you expected immediate fixes to pay discrmination for women. (you aren't trying to argue AGAINST that are you?)

This is what happens when your almost 100, things just don't come through right all the time.

Perry came out throwing punches at our Government, SS and the Fed, now its backfired.. The only people who wanted to hear that crap was the White Old Contingency of the Tea Party.. Go away no knuckle head so your party can get on with finding the next big thing...

In the Background Huntsman is building some momentum with actual voters and may be a factor.. For the record I think he is the most qualified candidate who actually seems reasonable..

Jeff & AP,

She doesn't read for comprehension,...she just randomly pisses herself wherever she goes. I wouldn't waste any more time trying to educate her. She's a hater who has her half empty skull made up,...to go with her 'facts' and her opinions. All prescripted, predigested and regurgitated, daily.

But, thanks for getting the BIG picture.

AP - Joanna: You completely misunderstand the Lilly Ledbetter bill if you expected immediate fixes to pay discrmination for women.

You see AP, it's kind of like this. If you list something as an "accomplishment" like Bevvy did, and many leftwingnuts agreed with, you would hope it accomplished something. It's kind of like Obama's 2009 Reinvestment and Recovery Act, the one that promised jobs, that didn't produce jobs, so now we need the 2011 American Jobs Act to produce jobs, which it won't.

That's the thing with Obama's "accomplishments", they're really not.

Clara, you are on a roll today sweetie! I love it!

I'll waste my time with you hon. You're just too much fun to ignore!

Still not answering questions I see. Good for you, because you have none. Stick to the cussin (that's how Obama would say it), because you seem good at that.

My personal, favorite, accomplishments were on the list Mickey posted.

Putting up a swing set at the White House was one. Did Daddy Obama do it himself?

The other was the garden- although, I thought that was the wife. Actually, it was the White House gardeners- but, what the heck.

The liberals have set the bar so low for this guy we have to dig to find it.

JAS 00000-00

Yes that would explain it. You get extra dollars calculated on the slimey/evil scale from your boss. Bad for your health.

1. We don't always have a say how the print comes out on posts.

2. The response to RAY was about not enough space here to print out the whole CNN poll.

Backhouse

You are wrong about the right. The leadership on the right are doing their job as requested by the ones who elected them. The leadership on the left , in the Senate, are the ones denying them their say. Plenty of bills have gone to the Senate only ot be swept under the rug by the dems. And there are plenty of Americans who are sick of it. Why is Senator Reid waitng until October to bring a vote when Obama is out there saying pass this bill now? Does the good senator think that our President needs the extra time to demonize the opponents because he has nothing else to campaign on?

You are right about the fact that most American want people to get back to work. But we have had a Congress since January 2007 that hasn't been able to accomplish that and now we have a Senate that won't let our duly elected House do anyhting about it. The lie about the right being the party of NO is just that, a lie. This administration has failed the American people and they continue to fail us by being so one sided and divisive. I hope we see the end of progressive/liberal policies soon. This greast country can't take any more division from our leader, the community organizer. Or should I say the communty divider.

JH,

No. Remember the vote last November was all about Jobs.

Congressional Republicans voted down 4 jobs bills this year. They have demonstrated zero interest in creating jobs for the 98%.

The President is working hard to create jobs via the American Jobs Act.

Republicans have filibustered the Senate at 3 times the pace ever seen in American history since January 2009 and blocked American progress on all levels. The filibuster record alone demonstrates the GOP relentless NO.

And it is a NO Leader McConnell is very proud of and that he repeats to the Press early and often.

it wont end even with a republican as a president,and if perry becomes president say hello to g.w.bush jr, even his own with wife even said he was stupid.

Backhouse -

Some technical observations here, about fonts, layout, etc.

If we compose our posts online in the "enter your comment" box, and select either "ordered list" (indented with numbering) or "unordered list" indented with bullets), it looks perfectly clean and consistent as we write. But upon posting, those particular formatted elements immediately become about twice the font size as the rest, and sometimes don't even show the bullets or numbers. MOST irritating.

As you noted, importing text from other sites is also a sometimes proposition with comparable results.

Composing texts offline, in a program such as Microsoft Word, also ends up looking pretty odd when the formatted material is pasted into the comment window. Some of us are experimenting with different ways to do that so we don't devote a lot of added time to painstakingly clearing away huge extra paragraph spacing, bad line breaks, and zany font formatting. Some recommend using XHTML mode, but I found it ineffective. When and if, you'll find out.

In general about formatting posts: LONG paragraphs are near-impossible to read. Use the newspaper trick of just putting a sentence or two per paragraph. The High School English comp rules about "topic sentence" and then all supporting material in a single 'graph are only obstacles to understanding in here.

Use bold face to set some key points or subheadings apart. Entire posts in boldface are not really much easier to read. Long posts with key points in bold enable readers to get the gist and then choose whether to delve more into the relaed content.

Bold Caps is helpful for principal headings or subheadings.

Underline does not apply here as a rule.

David -- Nice response to WCA as it hard to argue with someone in a tunnel.

Hunter:

I admire a well written argument; there is still hope for some intelligent conversation....

Something I enjoy as well. John A and some others here write beautifully and with an exceptional ability to make very reasoned arguments. Compelling. So many thanks guys and gals for taking the time to write compelling and passionate arguments for your positions. Keep on keeping on. Some of us are here to learn, share observations, and occasionally comment until we find our voice. So thanks for having patience with people like me. ; )

Now run off and go play with your friend Feisty.

There you have it folks - the green-eyed, three haired mole has risen her ugly head!

'Friendship' is a foreign concept to the right wing haters...

Albany Joe:

The case was about Arthur Andersen and the fact that the SC ruled unanimously that they didn't get a fair trial.

Am I going out on a limb to think you do believe in fair trials??

Most of the time I do. In my humble, uneducated opinion, however, there is a significant difference between getting a fair "trial" and the jury getting fair instructions. What the Court did was substitute its judgment, after the fact, that a jury that had found obstruction couldn't reasonably have found obstruction.

A jury is a finder of fact, and I don't particularly like it when a court -- any court -- substitutes its own analysis of the facts for that of the jury that actually heard the evidence and was charged with finding the facts.

But it's okay. Laugh at that if you want to.

Backouse -

In your #1.123, you correctly observed that last November's balloting was not about radical, revolutionary changes to government, the debt, or the deficit. I also addressed that in my post #1.6, http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/29/8034456-first-thoughts-the-frozen-campaign?threadId=3233648&commentId=58496676#c58489661.

But just to flesh out the figures a bit:

On Election Day, 2010, exit polls found that 22% of voters credited Tea Party positions with their choices ... 56% said the Tea Party had no influence on them whatsoever ... and the latest poll numbers still support that conclusion.

What WERE the leading issues on voters' minds?

1. The economy.

2. Jobs.

3. Gridlock in Washington, and particularly partisan bickering.

It is utterly insane for the GOP to allow its small number of Tea Party adherents to set the agenda. Out of total GOP Congressional seats (both Houses), the Tea Party represents about 8%. In overall terms of the entire Congress, only 5%. Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader McConnell are literally holding the knives with which the Republican Party is now committing suicide.

John A,

Thanks a lot for your time. What's happened a couple of times when making a direct quote from a govt site on FR is....It looks OK/normal on my computer. Then when it comes through on FR, it has morphed into Gigantic mode.

The fixing it gets worse and the text messier and messier~ until like the yesterday ~ ran out of time and no time for fixups. Not sure if that covers it. So, today.... took a load off.... and just let it ride!

A good while back in this string Spanky said "Navy and libbies - a business is not in business to employee people. It's goal is to make profits."

but, don't you also say that we shouldn't tax those businesses a few percentage points more because they will have less money to hire people?

It seems a bit contradictory for a business to lay folks off, run more efficiently and increase their profits - that's fine - but then when the US needs more money to pay off a debt aggravated by 2 -previously-unfunded wars, a stimulus package intended to halt the bleeding of a crashing economy, etc. we don't dare tax them because they need the money to hire more people.

the gop might end up like the wig party if they dont stand together.

Backhouse -

Next time you do a text transfer from such a site, consider using one of the different "basic" text apps on your computer as sort of a staircase landing. These have different names between Mac and PCs but "Notebook" is typical ("textedit" is another, I think).

Usually stuff that lands there is saved as a "plain text" file. It might help avert the issue, and if it does, TELL US. Thanks.

David Walker,

The loan was to build and design a vehicle, the second generation Karma called the Nina. It included a provision that Fisker buy the GM Wilmington Delaware plant, but no provision that they had to re-hire laid off Union workers. See Fisker has privately stated that they will not hire those workers due to "work ethic" concerns.

Problem is they can't seem to get the Karma off the ground in Finland so that money is being poured into that program. All kinds of technical problems with the heat from the inverters and the batteries melting wire harnesses and other assorted plastic parts in the engine box.

They have also secured about another $500 million from guys like John Doerr. So why do they need government money?

Risks are fine to take if you take them with your money. Not so much when you take them with other peoples money. That pretty much eliminates the meaning of "risk" now doesn't it?

The answer to the question of "Is it OK for the Administration to prop up companies that are heavily invested in their campaign by their biggest doners?" is no, David. It is not OK

Solyndra proved that and the DOE and Chu are about to find that out.

I notice today that ABC, of all networks, is ramping up the investigation to all the "green" companies that the Obama Administration has invested in.

Seems quite a few are large donors to the Obama campaign and the DNC.

Kind of reeks of a money laundering scheme to me.

And you don't have to be smart to figure that out. It is Black and White.

John A,

Will reply to your 1.29 by Newsvine address, if that's OK.

All for now,

JoAnna: I would disagree that the Lidbetter law is not an "accomplishment".

It just doesn't obviously rank up there with the appointments of two outstanding women for the US Supreme Court and with pulling the US back from the brink of a would-be depression or winding down two wars that should have been ended a long time ago.

If you want to hit Obama good grief, there are plenty of things to go after besides righting some inequities for women. Surely there are a FEW things that might transcend politics.

Now, this opens up an interesting line of thought:

the liberal

the gop might end up like the wig party if they dont stand together.

(Please don't take my use of the corrected spelling as a swipe ... we historians are at times just silly nit-pickers)

The Whig Party only lasted from about 1830 to 1852, when it broke up over the issue of slavery. In 1856, the Republican Party emerged from its shreds, and in 1860 the split in the Democratic Party over slavery enable the election of Abraham Lincoln. The "whig" name originated in Elgland sometime duringthe reign of Charles II, but wasn' really much of an entity until James II's breif reign, when the Whig and Tory factions (not parties at the time) coalesced over the battle for religious tolerance versus a more adamantine Established Church (Church of England).

The details from that are tedious, but to those who care to understand a LOT abouot the basis for many aspects of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and background of American political parties there is a great book on the topic. Craig Rose, England in the 1690s is obscure but quite good.

So "Liberal" makes a good point, and it is only reinforced by the eventual fate of the ancient order of the Whigs in English politics. By the early 20th century, the party was simply obviated by developments in politics and society, and gave way to the Liberals and the Labour Party. The Tories, by the way, became the Conservative Party in the UK.

Since the 1850's the U.S. political landscape has seen some divisons of the main parties that resulted in significant changes in power. The 1912 split of the GOP between Taft supporters and Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose branch handed the election to Woodrow Wilson. In 1948, Southern Democrats splitting off nearly prevented the re-election of Harry Truman. In 1968, George Wallace and the American Independent Party, with Gen. Curtis LeMay as his running mate, ran candidates in every state and significantly altered the electoral outcome. When Ross Perot and his United We Stand coalition bolted from Republican ranks (with a few Democrats and a number of independents), Bill Clinton took office with a plurality vote.

What ARE the chances of the same occurring in 2012? The Tea Party, if it is immensely dissatisfied with GOP performance in Congress and the eventual candidate, might undertake to sepeately offer a candidate. That would almost entirely depend on the desire of the big-money groups backing the Tea Party to attempt to draw off as many independent or available GOP votes as possible from defecting to President Obama.

And then, a split-party candidate would have to target big electoral vote count states, because a 50-state strategy would not be possible. If mounted effectively, the strategy could hand the election to an otherwise unelectable GOP candidate. And that would be the first time in American history - since the era of the Whig Party.

Here's the secret sauce: My whole life was spent trying to get access to capital!!!! Without access to capital, you cannot seed or fund or grow a small business.

Great post Hunter, and one that was probably lost on the majority. I helped guide a small business through the worst of the Bush Recession, working at all times to maintain revenue levels in a narrow space between a minimum that wouldn't cover costs and a maximum that would be covered by our line of credit. Margins were so slim that growing available cash through that avenue was temporarily out of the question. Tough times.

Come on Republicans / T-Partiers? Not one thing regarding your parties plan on growing jobs? I guess not since not one of you replied to my post waaaayyyy up there. Pretty much goes to show who is trying to better society and who is holding up progress.

I'm still waiting on the Repub/T-party's plan on growing jobs...

Beverly in Chicago

Forty Reasons Why President Obama Should Be Re-Elected

Obama's top 40 accomplishments during his presidency:

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

Hey Bev... Where are these items and why are they missing?

1. Brought unemployment down (even if for just 1 month) to a level below 9% (well... nevermind)

2. Successfully enticed Congress to pass a Budget (any budget) ON TIME (or at all)

3. Reduced the national debt (did I say reduced?)

4. Eliminated the National Budget Deficit (wait we need a budget to do that)

5. Unified our Great Country... bringing us TOGETHER! (Hey there King Samir Shabazz! What up ma brutha?)

On and on and on.....

onesoul4u2

I'm still waiting on the Repub/T-party's plan on growing jobs...

The Republican House has proposed MANY plans that would grow jobs... unfortunately Harry Reid is sitting on them in the Senate...

It's the only way a small man like him can sit in that chair and actually see over the desk!

JohnB. and Hunter -

The real reason some of us didn't get into the meat of that was that it is sometimes hard to switch course for a follow-up discussion.

But OK ... first, one of the most persistent complaints since late 2008 is that despite the bailouts, banks have chosen to tighten up on business credit and have not been lending. That's still true. It was one of the flaws in the way that Bush set up the bank bailouts without restrictions, and the President hs been unable to crack loose bank lending since then.

The problem is actually more complex, since a great deal of small business lending doesn't go through B of A, CitiBank, or the other biggies. A lot of it goes through community banks, who don't really have the big amounts of cash held by the fat banks. And since the crash those smaller banks (the ones which have survived) are taking an extremely conservative line toward lending.

Now, the complaint about the Small Business Administration is one of good news and bad news. The bad, of course, is that the SBA has ALWAYS been a nit-picking pain in the kiester. And that is despite efforts since at least the Clinton Administration to "simplfy and streamline" that somehow never quite took hold.

On the other hand, the good news: the SBA now has many new tools and incentives to work with existing or new small businesses, thanks to the bill the President pushed through last year just before the election. Coupled with a capital investment tax credit - which encourages long-term growth and development - for small businesses, loans should be easier to obtin. A good strategy would be to focus capital development on such business investment and re-direct business funds reserved for that to increasing reserves to sustain day-to-day variations in receipts and expenses, reducing the need for short-term credit to manage cash flow.

Hunter, if you really meant your complaints about capital, go back and take a gander at the mutiple initiatives the President managed to emplace last year. There's something there for you. And for other small businesses.

John B and A and Hunter -- The point was a good one and not lost here. The fact that the banks are enjoying free money right now and using it to further their profits while freezing out lending is a crime in my opinion! Yes, we the consumers would benefit from these lower rates but the banks have another agenda and I think we are the pawns in their game.

Damn classy of you there Pat. This year's team is special. Now if we just beat CJ Wilson once...

Continuing to talk around ones elbow just to speak from ones ass finally becomes tiring. Those who like, can spout all their right wing, tea party, conservative, republican blather until hell brims with water. The current crop of republicans aren't worth a can of "pork n beans" relative to the alleviation of the countries needs. The people need the Presidents jobs bill and we need it now. We need universal health care and we need it now. We need the reinstatement of "Glass Steagall" or a parallel law now. The president gets a helluva lot of heat as He tries to move the country toward a more sustainable position while at the same time undoing past republican "plutocratic" directives and keeping the sons-a-bitches from killing the fruits of his intent and the peoples welfare by their continued obstruction of quality product, and in turn, offers of their legislative junk. Gaseous and regressive bulls**t.

Ray-4054460 -- Your post #1.74 is HI-larious. As we watch the radical fringe Teabaggers hijack the Republican Party, forcing their extreme minority agenda on the Republican Party, which then forces Democrats to mover further to the right (e.g., Blue Dogs), we find that most Americans are more liberal than the policies being enacted in congress.

And I think it was NJNB or maybe JS1 (they are pretty interchangeable) who posted how progressives would shred the Constitution and impose a dictatorship--that was pretty funny too. Andrew Breitbart is out there talking about outnumbering liberals and having more guns while the "scary" tree-huggers are getting pepper sprayed in New York by fascist police. Fascism is pro-corporatist, pro-military, pro-symbolism (you know like flag pins), and everything associated with Teapublicans. If there's any tyranny to fear, it is that of the right-wing.

the dinh

Damn classy of you there Pat. This year's team is special. Now if we just beat CJ Wilson once...

I agree. When I went to bed last night, the score was Yankees 7, Rays 0. Imagine the delighted surprise when I got up!

The trying tale of the Bosox has been recounted wonderfully by venerated baseball columnist Roger Angell in a couple of his books. He's especially good in Late Innings - a wonderful read that any baseball fan (or any fan of absolutely delicious writing) should find.

List Continued.

#41 Helping GM build new plants.....in CHINA

#42 China is getting GM's technology for the"Volt"

#43 Just gave $737 million to a company run by Nanacy Pelosi's brother, what a coincidence. I'm sure that money would never end up in Pelosi's and Obama war chest.

#44 Solyndra

#45 lightsquared

#46 keeping Bush tax cuts

#47 oh it's endless

Hillary wouldn't have been this stupid . You kow I'm right

White Collar Auto:

That's some very interesting information you have there. I am curious how you know about the "privately stated " concerns about the work ethic. Regardless, I have more than once expressed, quite publicly, my concerns about the work ethic of Americans, but that is a topic for another day.

I was not being sarcastic about the value of your information. However, I have a different viewpoint from yours. I would expect problems - many problems - in getting a new vehicle to market. Moreso, given the method of propulsion. As an aside, even if this entire program ends up a fabulous success, there is still the matter of generating electricity from a clean feedstock. It is still primarily coal that comes out of the gazinta. Coal is a loser - at least for the time being.

That John Doerr and other venture capitalists have ponied up $500-million is a fine thing. That's how the system would work in a perfect capitalist world - but we don't live in a perfect capitalist world. It's hardly a secret that there's plenty of money out there for investment, but it sits there because the vaunted "capitalists" DEMAND guarantees and indemnification from risk. They got no guts, and that's really how it is. That's nothing new. Check out how hard Tesla had to fight to get money.

As a consequence, it is up to the government to come up with such funds. We are talking a massive change in the way we use and create our energy. That's not going to be cheap. I'd be tickled pink if the government wasn't the investor of last resort, but again, that's the way it is.

As far as whether it is right to prop up political contributors, it is unfortunate, but again, that is hardly as black and white as it may seem at first blush. It is smart to elect a candidate who shares your views, no? One is far more likely to find a friendly ear with respect to "green solutions" in the Democratic Party as opposed to the Republican Party.

Good grief, consider the subsidies to "Big Oil". The bulk of their contributions go to Republicans. Why? I can summarize the answer in two words - Grover Norquist. That's being a bit simplistic of course, but the reality is that Republicans will fight tooth and nail to protect any and all favorable tax treatment for "Big Oil".

As far as Solyndra, it is important to remember that the request for support began during the Bush Administration. Further, there appears to be evidence that Solyndra has engaged in questionable conduct at best and illegal conduct at worst. If the latter is the case, I will want their heads as much as I wanted with Enron and as much as I still want the heads of the "bankers" who have damned near destroyed this country. Yeah - typical liberals can get very angry. I have no problems prosecuting criminals.

Right now, there are so many approaches to finding and creating new sources of energy, how it's used, how it's stored, and how it's transmitted, it is inevitable that there will be failures. Many of them. However, the reality is this: Whoever comes up with the best solutions will rule the world economy. Honestly, if the primary responsibility to the government is to provide for the defense of this nation, this is a legitimate means to that end.

Bravo John A. You were spot on

Thanks to the fickleness, I call it the Trump affect. Who's next, step right on up...

Got to do better than Romney. In the south, they are serious about their religions. Mormons don't fit in their equations - though it would be funny watching Alabama go for Obama because the social conservatives stayed home. :)

David Walker#1.149: Very clear and truthful insight. Always risk with new things. Historically the US government has always been there to indemnify those willing to take the risks. Historical has it been worth it? I say it has in multiplicity of worth, not the least of which is national wealth and security.

The answer to the question of "Is it OK for the Administration to prop up companies that are heavily invested in their campaign by their biggest doners?" is no, David. It is not OK

Be very, very careful WCA. You're treading on sacred GOP cow ground there.

What an amazing seed:

It tells me what I usually see here. The Dems know how to find facts, figures, and make arguments.

The GOTPrs know how to point to tactics used by the GOP and blame them on the Dems, Call people names, appolgize for Big Corporations not following the law by blaming the government on enforcement, and most importantly, that they need to GROW UP and JOIN THE HUMAN RACE.

Sorry if that amounts to name calling, but my motto is, "Call a bigot a bigot."

When, before, have officials, elected and appointed, advocated taking elections from the American people, or the right to govern from their elected?

Example #1: A recording obtained by One Wisconsin Now of a meeting of Wisconsin Tea Party leaders. Here's the plot:

According to the statements made on the recordings, Dake lays out the plans, detailing contact between himself and Reince Preibus, the Republican Party of Wisconsin Chair and Mark Block, state director of Americans for Prosperity-Wisconsin:

The Republican Party of Wisconsin will use its "Voter Vault" state-wide voter file to compile a list of minority and student voters in targeted Wisconsin communities.
Americans for Prosperity will use this list to send mail to these voters indicating the voter must call and confirm their registration information, and telling them if they do not call the number provided they could be removed from the voter lists.
The Tea Party organizations will recruit and place individuals as official poll workers in selected municipalities in order to be able to make the challenges as official poll workers.
On Election Day, these organizations will then "make use" of any postcards that are returned as undeliverable to challenge voters at the polls, utilizing law enforcement, as well as attorneys trained and provided by the RPW, to support their challenges.

Example #2: Michigan, April 16, 2011 - In what is likely to be just the first of several dissolutions of democratically elected city governments and school boards in Michigan, the Emergency Financial Manager of Benton Harbor, Joseph Harris, just took away all authority from the city's elected government.

Which party took those actions? Any questions?

Thanks, guys. I had minimal time for FR yesterday so didn't get real active in this discussion of capital. I'd like to note my agreement with the difference in availability of capital for small businesses as opposed to big companies. I've worked for both and the difference is really striking. Big companies can get their hands on plenty of capital but will discontinue lines of business or even sell assets if it'll prop up the profit & loss statement in the short term. Small businesses believe in what they do and are passionate about continuing and growing, but can't get capital. John A, you're correct that local banks have limited capitalization for firms that are capital-intensive, while the big banksters won't even set a meeting. It's all a matter of Wall Street v Main Street and it's clear that Conservatives only give lip service to Main Street.

No doubt, Feisty. It's a bad sign when the Republicans have 8 candidates already in the race and are still casting about for someone else to enter. Even Conservatives realize deep down just how weak is their field.

and are still casting about for someone else to enter

No kidding JohnB -- and publicly stating their only hope is a morbidly obsese, arrogant, education hating, Tony Soprano wannaba isn't helping the case... ;o)

You think maybe that's why instead of the usual suspects defending the field of (R) clowns, they revert to bashing President Obama 24/7?

Not a very winning strategy... then again, they're not the brightest bulbs in the chandelier...

It’s such a shame in what the Radical Right and Big Business is doing to America and our Citizens. What is sad are the marching orders Big Business is given to this Radical Right supporters who are just being played.

The big shots pick a target, give the order and suddenly the FOX News folks and the Radical Right radio show jump on board and the issue at hand is demonized.

Now, of course the latest is the attempt is to go after the United States Postal Service.

Oh just wait, the Radical Right will spin the spin and the little foot solders will suddenly be taking up the fight and the Radical Rights target list will grow again in demonizing yet another target that the Radical Right and Big Business Bosses, want placed in the cross hairs.

It’s a fact that these little Radical Right foot solders don’t think for themselves but instead follow in the same pattern of believing anything these bosses tell them.

Just wait and see.

Don't pick on Boner,he may be the biggest factor in Obama's re-election.People can not stand him and he will only get more colorful as the tea party continues to pull his strings.If Boner is still speaker in 2013,Obama will still be president in 2013,Thanks John

Yeah, not thrilled at all with the front runners in the Republican campaign. They've got the breakfast club of has been and "want nots". I've said it before, I don't just give my vote away, you've got to earn it. That Romney is G.D. RINO and Perry, well, the shoe don't throw far from the horse; I already sampled the Texas Tobacco and my gums still ache; If I wanted a dumb president, I'd run. Where did all of the good candidates go? Well the TeaParty is not having it so good bye to righteousness and to tell the truth, who would want to be president during a time like this anyway? Either you're a really REALLY patriotic human being or you're in it for absolute Power! And I smell absolute power with the Republican Front Runners. You want my vote you've got earn it and in Perry's case you've got to "learn it".

You guys give Christie a harder time than neccessary. Though I disagree with many things he has done for New Jersey, there are a few things I support. I do atleast like how he atleast stands behind the decision he makes and gives very reasonable reasons for them.

However, I will still be voting Obama because the right is FAR too much for me at the time. My only bother is that as far as all the republican candidates go, if I was forced to have any of them as my president it would be Christie by a landslide.

During the race 4 years ago I was really torn among several of the Democratic candidates---did my homework, watched debates and speeches and eventually came to support then-Senator Obama. But I always took comfort in knowing that there were other qualified individuals who I could have supported. The Republicans have all these people running and aren't satisfied with any of them so they yearn after Christie---or Jeb Bush (as if we'd elect a third member of the Bush family) or Daniels or........anyone else. Yet they don't do their research on them. They fell in love with Perry and then found out he's not ideologically pure enough for the Tea Party and not competent enough for the establishment.

Tell us Steeler what was it about Obama?

His experience in government?

In business?

His education and grades?

Do you recall that the hillary supporters were satisfied with Obama, and vice versa?

Your revisionism is just silly.

But pay no mind to the republicans. And really you don't need to speak for us as to what research we have or have not done.

Speculation is a waste of time Steeler, you know that.

Job1, has it ever occured to you that you are just getting played by your radical progressive views and that the rest of us actually critically think for ourselves and truly believe that Obama's fiscal policies are making this country worse? That his goal of a nanny state and destruction to our standard of living for our kids and grandkids is something we need to reverse. I dont even know what a foot soldier for corporations even means. Do you just spout off things that you dont even understand? Are you saying the guy who made good choices in life worked hard got an education became successful under the criteria he set is a foot soldier because he doesnt want more than 50% of his income going to pay taxes to a government that clearly cant spend it productively and efficiently to support welfare entitlements to people who made less fiscally beneficial life choices? or to seniors who already control 80% of this countrys wealth, for green jobs that take money from private capital and waste it. David Walker likes to say that the wealthy got rich off the backs of labor using government created ideas so they deserve to have to pay all their money back to the government. Well if it was so easy why dont all you progressives start your own business, quit griping about punishing the successful and go out and do it yourself. This country gives you the freedom to be successful. Look at the so called poor, have you seen the Michigan study that shows after 16 years less than 5% of the poor in the lowest quintile have moved up into higher wealth brackets. The poor really do benefit from our capitalistic society (at least until Obama policies because government trickle down never works) but due to legal and illegal immigration we always have new source of the bottom quintile. So job1, who is the foot soldier--the person who wants personal responsibility and accountability and freedom of choice to be our economic policies or you the person who blindly wants the nanny state to hold his hand and make everything ok for him and have no personal stake in the outcome.

I was talking to the Alumni Affairs office at my alma matter over the homecoming weekend and we were talking about donations in this economy. That led to the giving statistics. So they have data that goes back over 50 years and it stays very static. So what percentage of alumni who either fully paid or had student loans contribute back to the school? What percentage of alumni who got academic or athletic scholarships and didnt pay a dime for their education gave back to the university? The answer is the same also based on the eventual success of the alumni. Its a small financial behaviorial study that I opine applies in all economic situations. Those that had to pay and had an ownership interest in their education gave back to the school and the giving percentages of even a little bit of money was over 50%. Those that got their education for free including wealthy successful athletes the donation rate was less than 5%. In addition the statistics dont change based on race or gender.

Christie has said time and time and time and time again that he isn't running. He said he wasn't running just a few days ago in a speech. The media, of course, interprets this as "leaving the door open for a presidential bid."

I really hate the news.

To be realistic, I would rather have someone with absolutely no experience running the country then the clowns bidding for the election. I would rather have someone with no political experience running for office then the corrupt politicians we currently have that are lining their pockets from corporations. At least we would have a minuscule chance of these people with no experience doing the right thing for our country and not the greed monger puppets.

Call me crazy but continuing down this current path will obviously lead to the destruction of our country. What we have now is not democracy. It's turning into "we the corporations." We need to get it back to "we the people."

I'm sorry Kirk, but I have to disagree with you. I stand 100% behind the argument that the Radical Right and Big Business Bosses call the shots and the foot solders fall in line, such as the Tea Party does.

Just listen to Right Wing talk radio and you will see how the talking heads spin nothing but miss-truths and lies that can easily be fact checked and proven false.

Research, reasoning and thinking are so very taxing, aren't they? And we know the GOP/TP would have none of that, don't we?

Pass the American Jobs Act

Obama/Biden 2012

Job1, yeah those same lies and half truths fill up progressive blogs like this one. Every fact is embellished to the nth degree to make a point that doesnt address the majority. Those same radical left progressive foot soldiers do exactly the same thing which is why politics is so polarizing. Nobody is representing the middle 60% of america. There is the far right radical agenda--which I dont consider the Tea Party to necessarily be in. I dont find fiscal conservative views to be radical. There is the radical left agenda. I just dont understand what shots are being called and what as a result that means? Again you just state weird conspiracy theory stuff as if people cant think on their own.

Kirk: uh ok...so those agendas you don't believe in are "radical" and those agendas you do, aren't. Gee, and you claim others have a lose grasp on reality......

AP-duh that was my point. Did you not notice Job1 using he words Radical Right? So I assume you think he has lost his grip on reality? Is it that tough to understand? Clearly most progressives on here think that anyone that doesnt agree with them is radical so I am pointing out the hypocrisy. I actually dont think that someone who wants green energy is anymore radical than someone who is pro life but thats me. I was trying to point out to Job1 that for every person you think is radical there is someone who thinks he is based on his definition so maybe its really just differences of opinions and not foot soldier crap

I call them what they are, the Radical Right. Fact check prove this to be the case.

Job1 and I then assume you call loony progressives the Radical Left? I really dont have a problem with that as long as you understand that there is radical agendas on both sides and no foot soldiers unless you meant community organizers or ACORN or Jehovahs Witnesses

Job1, I agree about the postal service. How in the world can they be expected to fully fund retirement for the next 75 years and still be viable? I wonder how many members of the GOP congress and senate UPS and FedEx had to buy to push that thru.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=25l33240l0l33706l89l73l0l40l0l0l1200l2391l5-2.0.1l4l0&q=POSTal%20service%20forced%20to%20fully%20fund%20retirement%20for%2075%20years&spell=1&sa=X

Kirk: you are over 12, right? The "duh" ought to be held for just a moment, until you get a grasp on the hypocrasy of your over-generalization to supposedly counter an over-generalization. "clearly most progressives on here think that anyone who doesn't agree with them is radical" --Pot, meet Kettle.

AP, definitely older than 12 even older than 50 and my guess your comprehension skills are not the greatest. Did you read my post? There is no hypocrisy in my post because I wasnt stating personal opinions on radical? Duh? So when I point out that name calling and using adjectives to inflame passions are silly because they can be applied both ways, thats POINTING out hypocrisy. Not sure that there is any kettle here. Job1 was trying to act like people he disagree with are lemmings that have no ability to come to opposite positions on their own and I was indicating thats what people think of progressives. So maybe instead of name calling lets find out why there is a big disconnect and why people feel the way they do. But instead of critical thought out discussions of positions, most of progressive bloggers just cut and paste "radical" web sites and want to advocate a person like Obama. Me I would rather discuss issues than people but tough to do here. But thanks AP for your kind words your a fine representative of the left.

Kirk: I can see you're having a little trouble with the concept: namecalling under the guise of "finding out why there is a disconnect" is still namecalling. If you don't like namecalling, then don't engage in it. (there's the kettle).

Kirk,

Just look at what the Republican-Tea Potty folks running for President stand for, along with the people that back them? Huntsman is the only one that is not a complete crazy cake.

Job1, there you go just spouting off left media opinion to sway voters. I agree that many such as Bachmann are socially conservative, but have you actually looked at the political positions of Huntsmann, Romney and Perry? There is little if any difference in their social conservative views. They are all running on fiscal conservatism with basically the same platform. For whatever reason whether it be religious affiliation, state of residence, personal appearance, oratory skills etc, you may not like any of the candidates but there is very little difference in actual political positions. In fact, both Romney and Huntsmann give the appearance of being more moderate to pander to the middle independent vote but only Perry and Romney have actually governed as more moderates. So not sure what crazy cakes your talking about. Thats just left wing propoganda to make the GOP seem less credible because they want Obama to win. Sounds like you must be a foot soldier because you havent actually done any homework.

AP--again not sure if you actually read or comprehend, calling someone out for being a hypocrite by showing how both sides can name call is not a kettle. Its just that the left doesnt like it when someone can push back. When someone like Job1 embellishes using the personal attacks to create a stigma or doubt as opinionated argument, no different than John A, David Walker John B, Navy etc you have to call them out on it and show the fallacy of their mischaracterizations. If your interested in actual discussion then lets have it but my guess is your point is I should just go to a different blog. However, unlike them, I have no interest in listening to a choir from the right that isnt interested in debate either. I learn something from a few people here as to why they feel they way they do

Kirk,

Go ahead and call us out. We know what the Radical Right stands for and it isn't pretty.

I always thought that were 87 Tea Party members in Congress and there are 535 members total......so....what's the big deal? Don't the remaning 448 members of Congress matter?

Job1, huh? Who cares if the radical right isnt pretty? I dont care if the radical looney left is pretty. Thats your answer to telling me what GOP political positions held by Huntsman that are different from Romney and Perry that make him more viable? Does that mean you are a foot soldier and dont know and just stated left wing propaganda? You really dont have any idea do you?

So Christie's the new star this week, eh? Don't know about you all, but I would have liked to btch slap that woman at his Reagan Library speech who shouted from the rafters "Please run, you're country needs you!" No!!! What this country needs is for a bi-partisan congress to get off it's duff, work with this President who has brought forth a workable, doable plan for job creation, and earn the money they're paid by us, the taxpayers. But that won't happen because a certain segment with a conservative agenda refuses to budge. Nice, isn't it? Well, I guess he's the right choice, being a fat whiner, for a nation of fat whiners. Funny how the GOP used to poke fun at Bill Clinton when he was a bit overweight, yet have sensitive ears for this obese pig. This guy is disgusting looking and if he's really serious about running for President, he had better enroll in Medical Weight Loss Clinic before declaring his candidacy.

Tonybeeerm, its not bipartisan if the GOP who fundamentally disagrees with you that the President has brought forth a workable, doable plan for job creation. Bipartisan means that both sides have common views. So far the democrats havent budged an inch from the the workable, doable job creation plan by the GOP that involves the private sector rather than government created jobs. Providing incentives for investment at least in their mind work better and an even better job creator would to stop fiscal deficit government spending in which the democrats so far refuse to even cut a dollar of entitlements. By the way the approach you like has been tried earlier by this president nationwide and has been tried in California, Illinois and New York. Those are great guinea pigs for whether this jobs plan will work. How do you think those states have performed so far? Maybe the GOP is on to something called fiscal discipline and sanity.

or maybe the GOP is just yanking our chain just like they've done before. After all, they care so much about working people, don't they (sarc)? And btw, bi-partisan means putting aside your differences for a greater cause. Something the GOP refuses to do. We know their agenda and it's only for political purposes. Obama's is too, but at least it will help people back on their feet. You can live in your Faux la la land and keep shouting "entitlements", but we know that is not the only problem we face.

Well Kirk, it's certainly fair to ask if the President's previous actions were effective. As it happens any number of people have examined that objectively. Here's what private economist, government and business rating agency Moody's Analytics had to say in July 2010;

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

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

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office announced similar conclusions, as have others. So yes, everyplace except within the political world President Obama's policies are acknowledged to have had a positive impact. Thanks for asking.

John B, I have never said the stimulus didnt have some positive impact. The real question is at what cost. I dont thing the money was spent effectively and could have been done with less and targeted better.

OK, that is a fair debate. I'll meet you at agreement that it wasn't a perfect plan, and err on the side that action was necessary to prevent a second Great Depression.

Nice work JohnB!

I'll keep it simple for the stuck on stupid crowd...

IF TAX CUTS created jobs - WTF are they after 10 years & the lowest tax rates in 50 FREAKIN years?

TAX CUTS have resulted in nothing more then the rich getting richer who are NOW sitting on 3 trillion dollars!

The Job Creators my God this line is so worn out. It's nothing more than Radical Right and Big Business Bosses lies. Many of these Big Business Bosses should be in jail for what they have done to the working class of America.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/23/7927178-the-koch-brothers-graph

So there you have it folks, looks like the “job creators” Conservatives so love to tell us about seem to live in the same mythical land as unicorns…at least they’re about as elusive.

Pass the American Jobs Act.

Write the Buffett Rule into the tax code.

John - how come nobody seems to be mentioning the Buffett tax anymore?

Could it be they realize it would be impossible?

And gosh John - all my "extra" cash goes into my pocket - just like you.

So how about it Joh, if job creators are mythical - who created your job? We know it was not you.

Was it a unicorn?

The tax discussions focus on the marginal rates for earned income and whether they should be increased to the Clinton rates. But they forget the other component of our present tax system, which is that interest, dividends and capital gains are taxed at 15% while earned income like salaries has a top rate of 35%. And after 10 years of these rates, where are the jobs that we were promised they'd create? It sends the wrong message and confers a benefit on the wealthy that we can't afford to give them.

So where is the buffett law Steeler?

I don't suppose you know whose ides it was to create the current rate, when it was done, or why?

How many times do you want to tax the same money?

Spanky;

You seem to be all worked up on this Buffet tax and all...and I don't exactly blame you.

Just remember, not all Dems are from the same mold.

All democrats are not progressive.

All progressives are democrats :D

Keep your ire focused, because a lot of us Dems do, indeed, create jobs. We're just not the 'progressive Dems', we're the 'Blue Dog Dems'. Big difference.

Spanky I think you either missed the point or are simply ignoring it. No one denies the idea that the rich do hire people. The problem is the right costnatly complains that raising taxes kills jobs and lowering taxes increases them. The point that John is making that lower taxes do not create jobs. Business drivers involve many factors in hiring and I honestly do not think tax has a benefit.

(my opinion)

Taxes besides payroll, are competely driven off income. If a business decided to hire someone it is because the person is adding value to the company. If that position was *needed* (especially for larger companies)the hire's value would exceed any tax obligation or salary by the company. And income taxes are actually ignored here, because if the employer was not contributing his actual salary, he woulld actually give a tax savings (The cost of the employee and the lack of resulting income causes income to go down creating less taxable income) and if the employee did ad value each dollar is taxed at a percentage so the employer would still make a profit.

Given that logic, except in very complex situations, I don't see how raising or lowering taxes has a large impact on SMART business owners. I understand why people like the Koch brother want lower taxes, higher profits. The thing is the right will also tell you how these lower taxes create jobs... well they don't.

Akeem, you are so very wrong when it comes to small business. 70% of corporations are owned via flow through entities taxed to the individual owners. Income tax increases come right out of the net cash flow of the business and make a huge impact on the net remaining cash flow on an after tax basis in which is available for reinvestment. It also impacts the cost of opening up a new location and expanding and I know this because I grew up in a small business and tax rates, cost were an annual part of the decision making process.

As for the progressives cant you get off the same old talking points and your fascination with the Koch brothers. The tax rates are not the lowest in 50 years its the tax as a percentage of GDP that is the lowest and guess why that is? Because the economy sucks as a result of Obama policies. As for raising taxes on dividends and interest--you do realize that the corporations that pay this have been taxed once at state and federal rates averaging about 38% so lets keep things in perspective and the people who will be paying this increase in tax are the same people all you progressives are fighting to keep their social security--SENIORS. Seniors live on interest and dividends so why are you against social security reform and entitlement. You guys do realize that there was job creation prior to Obama's failure to create any?

Kirk how am I wrong? ( I will admit I have never ran a business but as an accounting graduate I FULLY understand how taxable income and profits work). First I did admit this holds better for larger companies than for small business but the dynamic works mostly the same way as far as hiring goes. Small businesses like large ones hire by demand not just to hire people. The tax consequences for the hire works the same, if the new hire is going to benefit you and your bottem line you hire them, if not you dont. (Lets ignore regulations that would cause employees to have to hire people that are not neccessarily needed, because I think that is a different debate). The problem is as the business gets smaller the fluctuations in you income statement change.

If a small business lets say had 20 workers and profits were not that large I can see your point. The busines may only need 20.4 people to deal with the new demand, but you cant hire half a person. In this case the increase in profits does not justify the increase in tax and salary and leaves the busineess person with a tough decision because they are essentialy, through personal income, paying for the .6 of idle capacity. That is not a flaw in taxes that is simply a problem with scale. As these business get larger marginal inefficiencies such as the one I mention have less and less of an impact on the bottom line.

I read over what you said again Kirk and I did not fully understand your argument, however; it relies heavily on how much personal profit the owner takes home through the business amd also how much the employees make. This would be different from case to case, and we would probably disagree on who is rich and who is not and thats where that "fair share" nonsense comes in which I am sure at the end of the day we would be divided on.

KIRK -- The economy is recovering from the greatest recession since the great depression. In all your wisdom how long will it take to get back to a healthy GDP? What policies will push it in that direction? What will make people spend more? (Projections at the beginning of that recession predicted slow growth far into the future, pre-Obama policies, so it is a little short-sighted to blame only Obama and not other factors such as the EU crisis or the disaster in Japan as having altered that path to growth.) Looking forward to your reply.

Kirk, "Because the economy sucks as a result of Obama policies." That's BS.

How do you rationalize your way around the fact that the economy was dropping like a rock when Obama took office and at least leveled off after the stimulus? The economy sucks because of a whole lot of factors from before Obama took office.

Akeem, you get EXACTLY what I was trying to get across, and exactly describe what I've seen in 20 years of management, as pertains to decisions on whether or not to hire.

The Koch brothers aren't stupid, no matter how I dislike them. If it resulted in more money for them they'd have 100,000 employees instead of 67,000. The fact that they've decreased employment rather than increasing only backstops the argument that the economy is suffering a lack of demand. They have no reason to even care about that, however, because our current structure is so favorable to the ultra wealthy that they become richer even while the rest of us become poorer.

Akeem, I can give you a real life example from today as my dad called and asked me some financial questions. He started his own business when I was a kid--a Hallmark store-working 7 days a week 14 hours a day. Now 35 years later, he owns 3 and has owned 5 but 2 eventually didnt make any money. He is up 5% for the year and his expenses are up 5% for the year so he will make around the same as last year. He is always looking to expand to new stores which takes investment capital. His taxable income on his personal return is taxed to him personally. But investment capital is not a deduction from his tax returns as you may know but comes over time in the form of depreciation or inventory cost of sales which can be same year but sometimes over several years. If he makes $150k in taxable income, he might be taxed at least 75k in federal, state, and self employment taxes. You want to raise those taxes because he isnt paying his fair share. He has $75 left over to reinvest and for personal expenses. When you take more money by raising the cap on payroll taxes and raising the rates, he has less after tax cash in which to reinvest and open a new store and hire new people. That is the formula used by all small businesses. Even if you raise the stakes and make it the local Dunkin Donuts owner that has 10 stores and a gas station. He is making a $1 million a year so when you reduce his after tax cash flow, do you really think you are making it easier and incentivizing him to open store number 11? I happen to know that person today who isnt opening number 11 for that very reason because he doesnt see any benefit to doing so when he opens number 11 and his net after tax cash flow due to tax increases is actually less with 11 than with 10. I just dont understand this passionate belief that the working wealthy small business owners dont pay their fair share.

Dont carry it all and Michigan voter-this recession isnt any worse than the one in 1979-1981. In fact I would say that one was far worse with 20% inflation, 20% interest rates and much higher unemployment with the destruction of a good part of our midwestern manufacturing base. We basically eliminated the US steel industry. I agree that this one was bad as Obama took office and I certainly dont blame him for it. I also am not a partisan GOP hack that thinks the stimulus had no impact. It clearly helped but the cost/benefit analysis is skewed because so much of the money went into getting back at the GOP for denying the democratic congresspeople their pet projects for ever. I also dont think short term temporary tax cuts that arent targeted for specific investment criteria matter. So I dont think Bush's tax cuts nor Obama's are doing anything but creating small short term consumer spending thats only a blip. But I also dont think anything that Obama is doing is helping and in fact its making it much worse not solely because of deficits as its the whole idealology. Everything he is doing makes it tougher not easier to get the economy back on track. His policies and EPA is killing the oil and gas industry and job growth, his deficit spending and attempts to take the band aid off slowly with the real estate industry is just prolonging the pain rather than taking it off fast and taking the pain and moving on. His failure to tackle real tax reform is making this class warfare even worse for no reason. Yes we do need targeted tax credits or reduction that is meant to create incentives to invest like investment tax credits, accelerated depreciation, reducing the corporate rate but eliminating all loopholes and corporate welfare, making it easier to do business and compete overseas by eliminating the US tax on foreign earnings which traps cash overseas preventing US investment, his regulatory burdens such as insurance mandates in Obamacare hurt jobs, his pandering to unions (no I am not anti union but you have to allow freedom of choice here in the US where to set up shop) with bullying tactics, pandering to trial lawyers by refusing to deal with tort reform and there is alot more. I just fundamentally disagree with his financial policies.

John B, how are the rest of us getting poorer? Do you mean at the hands of the current economic policies or before Obama when people in the lower economic quintiles were moving up the economic ladders faster than the rich were getting richer. The problem is that the lower quintile continues to fill up with legal, illegal immigrants and people stuck on entitlement programs. Once your stuck as Obama has found out, its much harder to get them to work and move up.

Again, I didn't mention a number of what fair share was or is percieved all I said was we would disagree. I only even used the term "fair share" because of its popularity I dont like it either. The point I made to your reinvesting argument was it was case by case. For the owner you said that is looking to expand there may be one who is not who is just collecting profits and keeping them. A tax increase would effect these two owners very differently. One may compensate their employees well the other may not, again like I said those issues are case by case.

As far as depreciation and things go I am very confused by your examples. If these were healthy businesses a lot of these problems could be solved by financing but even so, to SMART businessmen this would not matter. Your expansion example would only be relevant in situations where taxes are going to change(which does make sense in this climate) whether up or down (either way a business can end up losing potential profits). A steady high or low tax rate would be factored into the NPV in the beggining evaluation of the project.

I guess what you are saying is that lower taxes make it less of a struggle to have a positive Net Present Value making a business owner more likely to expand? Here is where we have a fundamental disagreement. Can I sit here and tell you taxes have no effect on the future earnigns of a project? No. Still I feel like taxes are far more predictable than two big drivers that would be involved interest rates and demand. These are far less predictable and I feel either one has a much more sizeable impact on decisions to expand or not. Like the Dunkin Donuts example. There is a certain level of demand that would make it worth while. And even so, you never said whether that 11th store would be profitable, it is more so is it worth the effort given the low level of return.

If iterest rates are 5% lets say, taxes are at 33% and he knows based on demand he can generate a 8% return on investment from the store there is a (.3 * 1-.33) 2% profit (this is very simplified of course). The interest rate on the loan is pretty fixed and the taxes probably wont take any big leaps so what are the BIG factors. First the strongest is that demand number real? How will it fluctuate what will cause it to fluctuate and why? The behind the scenes killer is inflation (and simlar expenses like increase cost of inventory rising, employees wages). Both demand and inflationary pressures lower that return number and fluctuate much more than the other two. If you really want to say that the business owners you speak to worry about taxes more than those, I simply dont believe you. They only care about it because unlike the other ones its the only thing they have a "say" in. So when election time comes they hoot and holler even though that number has probably the smallest impact (compared to others) on financial success.

I say success and not earnings because unitelligent owners may not have factored some of these concepts in when they started. They only looked at the cost of the loan and their expected return without taxes figuring they would bridge the difference. Next thing you know they are in the red(due to cost increases or inflation) and realize without taxes they would be in the black, when in reality it wasnt the taxes that put them in red.

Wake up to the Lame Stream Media Lie! Ron Paul is Top Tier! http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-15-2011/indecision-2012---corn-polled-edition---ron-paul---the-top-tier

Akeem, in both examples I gave the business owners do finance their operations but I am not sure in this example how that factors in my example. Your thinking too much like an MBA who is looking at IRR returns on investment and not like a small business owner. They dont look at IRRs but if they can make money on the investment without generally using a risk based approach to the investment. Guys like my dad and the dunkin donuts owner feel they have the overall experience to know whether a location and price are fair. None of these guys look at inflation but your just wrong if you think they dont look at net after tax cash flow. Taxes are just another cost of doing business no different than if you said we are going to double the rent for their lease for the stores. Do you really think increasing the rent doesnt factor into whether its a good investment return or not? Its just not reality to think tax rates dont matter. Furthermore, I have been part of the real estate industry forever dating back to the Reagan era. When accelerated depreciation and investment tax credits were a huge part of the tax code, all real estate deals were done on an after tax IRR because the tax benefits could tilt the deal in favor of investment. Currently, you are correct that tax rates are not looked at in terms of ongoing cash flow returns on operations say fees from building management as the investment decision is generally done on a pre tax basis but the capital gains rate is definitely taken into account in attracting investors for the deals. Why do you think real estate funds and investors are very attractive for wealthy individual investors, certain foreign investors and depending on the type tax exempt money like pensions etc. That helps drive up values which I assume you know and helps the real estate industry attract investment capital as the types of returns in real estate are generally much lower for the risk associated with it at least compared to equities.

I do agree with you that as businesses get bigger and more sophisticated that the tax rate that the individual shareholder will pay on profits generally has very little if any impact on investment decisions. But at the small business level and where so much hiring and job creation takes place, its a big factor.

Kirk -- While I appreciate that you have fundamental disagreement with Obama's economic policies your argument loses merit when you say things like below:

But I also dont think anything that Obama is doing is helping and in fact its making it much worse

May I direct you to this site: http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=233824,00.html

The difference in the latest recession as opposed to your example is the disappearance of trillions of dollars wiped clean off the books. Monopoly money it seems took the place of real money for almost a decade. Taxes??? Yeah would love total reform. But any good business plan leaves room for fluctuations and as the dynamics change every few years in Congress I would argue that nothing is certain when it comes to taxes. Ever. In addition to that some businesses are thriving. What are they doing right with things so uncertain? Study that. I would guess they have relevant, in demand products or services.

What's interesting about your answer to me is you never answered my questions. Another thing I find funny is that business in general complains about government yet they always have their hand out wanting the government to support them. Free markets mean standing on your own with no support so you must not be a free market advocate. Some points you made I can agree with but when laced with rhetoric its hard to find the merits.

The following is pure speculation on my part and feel free to enlighten me. Also forgive my ignorance as I have never been a franchise owner and Hallmarks and Dunkin Donuts are franchises. My guess is franchises are under certain guidelines and rules from their respective corporate partners, thus subject to those entities' business structures which may be limiting growth. So the franchise owner is a well paid partner but subject to restrictions. It seems wealth comes from owning many franchises and running them well but demand is key here. Nobody or should I say very few people have extra money right now and I am afraid things like donuts and cards got scratched off the list. Thus supporting any opportunity for job creation, especially in the construction industry, would greatly support businesses like Dunkin Donuts and to some degree a Hallmark.

Wow Kirk, I realize your tone is intended to convey credibility, but you should at least TRY not to say things that are totally untrue. The 2007 recession wasn't as bad as the 1979 recession...REALLY?

Here http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/image.axd?picture=2010%2F8%2F100802+thirlwell1.png is a comparison of all the recessions since WWII and it CLEARLY shows that your statement is false. In fact even the image I've linked understates the full scope of the recession. The number for GDP drop have been revised upward to 5.1%, but I couldn't find a good comparative image. So you're wrong in terms of GDP drop.

Maybe you're referring to job losses. You've REALLY told a whopper with this one. Here http://www.evernote.com/shard/s17/res/34f31c69-8c21-4622-b7e9-ba8f264d19ba.gif is a graphic that shows the change in unemployment rate by recession. As you can see the unemployment rate increased by 1 percentage point in the 1980 recession, 6 percentage points in the 2007 recession. Add to that business changed fundamentally in the intervening years, with business moving heavily toward part time employment in a way that didn't exist for earlier generations.

Then you express ignorance of the falling wealth and income of the American people, something we've discussed EXTENSIVELY in the past. I realize that you just deny the facts, but every time you do I'll be here to point it out. Here http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/ is the information you've disregarded before showing rapid concentration of wealth at the very top NOT since the election of Barack Obama, but since the election of Ronald Reagan. Here http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/34-pieces-of-evidence-that-prove-that-the-middle-class-in-america-is-rapidly-shrinking are 34 factual references attesting to the long term decline of the middle class.

And oh, hey, how about the plain and simple fact that median income was declining BEFORE the Bush Recession? http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/34-pieces-of-evidence-that-prove-that-the-middle-class-in-america-is-rapidly-shrinking

A couple of things to both John and Dont Carry it all--just because I dont agree with you doesnt mean that I have no credibility because you guys use a different set of facts to prove your point. What questions did I not answer Dont? Not sure what you are referring to but if both of you always frame things in such stark black and white terms and there is one huge basic factual assumption that we both differ in. You look back from our current economic position and say this is the worst recession since the 30s and ignore my opinion that with a different economic path, we wouldnt be in at best a slow growth environment and at worst a double dip. If you view us as never getting out of our current economic problems well of course its worse than the late 70s. John B, you are cherry picking facts and you know it. Unemployment as a percentage was much higher in the 80s and I suppose it depends on whether you consider the loss of manufacturing union jobs worse than white collar jobs (this recession). I consider losing our middle class wage base in that recession far worse than this one. I also see interest rates and inflation in the high teens to be much worse than zero interest rates and 2% inflation. Yes we had a much sharper dip in GDP at the beginning of this one but our upward projections and GDP growth should have been higher as a result and its not.

Sorry Dont carry it all that I didnt answer your questions but no I dont blame this recession on Obama at all and in fact I would say he has had nothing to do with it and many of the additional economic issues that he has faced he couldnt do anything about. However, I dont think his policies to meet our economic problems have helped, will help and are making things worse. Obamacare was a huge mistake (not that he didnt try to address health care issues), huge deficit spending is a big mistake, his expansion of the government such as the EPA shutting down our energy jobs, cap and trade that has killed our cement industry and sent thousands of jobs to china, his tax policy of short term temporary cuts are useless just as Bush's were. His entitlement society ideas are antithetical to the american view of self reliance, personal accountability is going to bankrupt us. At least my opinion.

John, yes I agree wealth and income have been skewed but as always you continue to ignore the fact in you studies of government benefits, illegal and legal immigration and the aging population in that 80% of that wealth is held by our seniors as they retire. Look at the recent University of Michigan study that showed that within 16 years, 80% of the people in bottom quintile have moved up to the next quintile in income and up the chain. So the poor get rich faster than the rich, the problem is that the people at the bottom get replaced by new illegal and legal immigrants and behaviorial choices such as generational welfare and bad lifestyle choices keep people stuck at the bottom.

Where we disagree is that you want government to provide entitlements in some form to so call level the field or fix inequality. I believe self reliance is the only way to fix it and that we will have always have inequality because of behaviorial choices. The great thing about this country is if you dont like how much money you are making, you can go open your own business or change jobs. Nobody said you had to be a teacher or a doctor or had to have 3 children or 1 or 10? I dont believe in government trying to fix these problems.

Dont carry it all--Hallmark isnt a franchise and there are no limits. You get approved as a store owner and from that point on you just buy inventory from them and agree not to see competing products. So there are no franchise fees nor any restrictions on growth. So if your an approved owner, you can open a new location or buy and existing location without Hallmark's approval or input (they will give it if you ask though). From their perspective, the more places a card can be sold the better. I dont ahve a clue on Dunkin Donuts but my guess is that there are more restrictions but not sure how that impacts the fact that tax rates and increasing taxes on successful small business owners is a job loser. That said most would trade higher taxes for a much simpler, fair tax code that eliminates all tax welfare, loopholes etc.

Kirk -- The questions: In all your wisdom how long will it take to get back to a healthy GDP? What policies will push it in that direction? What will make people spend more?

You make no mention of the link I sent you concerning tax relief for small businesses. Any thoughts?

You said:

That said most would trade higher taxes for a much simpler, fair tax code that eliminates all tax welfare, loopholes etc.

Something we are in agreement on.

Dont carry it all--we might agree on more as you might be surprised how less conservative I am except for finances. I am not sure I have wisdom as you like to say but I do have 30 years of legal and finance related experience and was raised in a small midwestern town by small business owners. In terms of a more healthy GDP, in terms of government stimulus, I am all for government spending on infrastructure projects that put people to work but the last stimulus didnt provide the bang for the buck because it was just political cronyism. The reason why the cost per job was so high is that so much of the money went to fund various constituent paybacks. The best example is in the town I live in where I am a local finance commissioner for our village. We have gigantic unfunded liabilities for local government union pensions and retiree health care based on state mandates. In the 2009 and 2010 budget we had so called shovel ready cap ex projects based on our long range plans to fix streets, sewers and such. When the Obama stimulus got passed, all we did was move money allocated for those projects, apply for state and federal stimulus money to fund cap ex that was already going to be done anyway and reallocate the funds for union pension plans. Not one new job was created and through budget gimmickery we used federal stimulus money to put in union hands. Basically the whole state of illinois did that and its my understanding nationwide is what happened. Thats why new jobs werent created. But if we could target real projects that could create real new jobs, we should do it.

As for tax policy, I would get rid of these short term tax cuts, reform the tax code and use targeted and focused tax incentives for investment not just putting cash in someones pocket. Use the investment tax credit to get companies to accelerate new investment, use accelerated depreciation so they are willing to replace stuff faster, reduce the corporate tax rate and get rid of the international US tax on foreign earnings. At the same time, eliminate all loopholes and subsidies. Bring back the research and development tax credit rather than provide stupid loan guarantees which try to pick winners and losers. Let the market pick them not the government.

I am all for tax relief on small businesses if its permanant and not temporary but I would tilt it towards investment rather than tax rates on profits. If a small business reinvests profits provide relief etc. I am not anti Obama against many but not all his economic policies.

Dont carry it all--we might agree on more as you might be surprised how less conservative I am except for finances. I am not sure I have wisdom as you like to say but I do have 30 years of legal and finance related experience and was raised in a small midwestern town by small business owners. In terms of a more healthy GDP, in terms of government stimulus, I am all for government spending on infrastructure projects that put people to work but the last stimulus didnt provide the bang for the buck because it was just political cronyism. The reason why the cost per job was so high is that so much of the money went to fund various constituent paybacks. The best example is in the town I live in where I am a local finance commissioner for our village. We have gigantic unfunded liabilities for local government union pensions and retiree health care based on state mandates. In the 2009 and 2010 budget we had so called shovel ready cap ex projects based on our long range plans to fix streets, sewers and such. When the Obama stimulus got passed, all we did was move money allocated for those projects, apply for state and federal stimulus money to fund cap ex that was already going to be done anyway and reallocate the funds for union pension plans. Not one new job was created and through budget gimmickery we used federal stimulus money to put in union hands. Basically the whole state of illinois did that and its my understanding nationwide is what happened. Thats why new jobs werent created. But if we could target real projects that could create real new jobs, we should do it.

As for tax policy, I would get rid of these short term tax cuts, reform the tax code and use targeted and focused tax incentives for investment not just putting cash in someones pocket. Use the investment tax credit to get companies to accelerate new investment, use accelerated depreciation so they are willing to replace stuff faster, reduce the corporate tax rate and get rid of the international US tax on foreign earnings. At the same time, eliminate all loopholes and subsidies. Bring back the research and development tax credit rather than provide stupid loan guarantees which try to pick winners and losers. Let the market pick them not the government.

I am all for tax relief on small businesses if its permanant and not temporary but I would tilt it towards investment rather than tax rates on profits. If a small business reinvests profits provide relief etc. I am not anti Obama against many but not all his economic policies.

Great post M Fisher. You've stated exactly why the genius of America has ALWAYS been partnering the creative drive of Capitalism with reasonable regulation. The tea drinkers just threw out that second, critical factor in an effort to recreate the brilliant free market economies of Malaysia or Dickensian England.

M Fisher

I agree, the current Republican talking point is the old talking point: Greed is Good. Republican politicians are doubling down on their attitude that if you have gazillion dollars, you deserve more breaks than if you are merely talented, skilled, hardworking and educated. The psychopaths are running the show. "Job creators" my azz.

M Fisher,

Your are 100% percent correct. Thank You for the facts.

M. Fisher:

A wonderful post. If you can find the time, I would suggest that you get hold of two of Thomas Frank's books, The Wrecking Crew and What's the Matter with Kansas.

I agree, good post M Fisher. You've managed to completely stump the reichwing trolls on this one. Got 'em scratchin' their heads. Not even a "welfare check" barb. Good on ya'

Ahh, Republicans have found a NEW game! Whack a Job. Everytime a person moves off unemployment,...they bitch that it didn't happen fast enough, vast enough or in other words more quickly.

LOL, Tony, as you were. You all better hope the economy doesn't turn around by next October,...it's really the ONLY hope you all have left.

Republicans, holding millions of jobs hostage to insure ONE man loses his...

(not too transparent at all...)

Clara, The unemployment number is still above 9% and one week where only 391,000 people applied for unemployment is really a stretch when it comes to having a celebration. The only "hope" involved in terms of the economy turning around by next October is the "hope" that is in the White House. Real jobs will not be created unless the uncertainty is removed in terms of taxes, regulations and the demonization of wealth and business comes to an end. No possibility of that happening with Obama. Talk about holding jobs hostage. Take a good look at the energy sector where thousands of jobs are being held hostage that would not cost one tax payer dollar. By the way, another billion out the door to two solar companies that represents 52 jobs which will more than likely disappear along with the billion dollars. The The person responsibile for losing his job or her job is usually that person, no different in Obama's case. By the way I bet Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were in favor of a Democrat in the White House and wanted McCain to be defeated.

Tony, Clara is just ranting, spouting the same old lame talking points of the Left.

Let her go, it's entertaining.

The drop in the number of new claims for unemployment is NOT indicative of anyone finding a job, Clara. In fact, 391,000 newly unemployed people FILED claims.

No wonder liberals screw up the economy so badly. They don't even understand the fundamentals.

Tony, have you asked Boehner WHERE THE JOBS ARE? I mean, if you will RECALL the 'uncertainty' of taxation was the PREVIOUS excuse,...now your team has decided to RETREAD that, too? Really? Either Repubs have a plan and they are holding it 'hostage' or they don't have a clue (My personal belief) and they are grasping at any ole' talking point that will stick. Uncertainty seems to be your flavor du jour.

PS. Had a GREAT Merlot the other night,...made me SMILE!

Clara, most business leaders, and the list is growing, are on the same page in terms of what it is that is hampering this economy. They are starting to speak out. Obama is out to prove that government is the solution. Obama's government solutions have failed for 33 months now. The net result has been more national debt. The economic numbers support that fact. Also Harry Reid will not even allow a vote on Republican proposals. Even if he did, Obama won't sign a Republican proposal. As I stated, government's role is to provide a favorable environment for risk taking and investment in order the the economy to improve. That will take a Republican President. Look at the states with Republican Governors and you will see states that are in better shape than those with a Democratic Governor. I bet people in Florida are happy that Debbie Wasserman Shultz is not their governor. Reid doesn't have enough Democratic votes in the senate to pass Obama's latest "stimulus" bill. Even some Democrats know that another temp. "sugar" pill won't make a difference.

Not really a Merlot fan myself. I prefer California Cabs and Italian wines. I am on a Cab Franc kick lately. The French ones are labeled "Chinon" and are not too expensive.

Tony,

Don't worry about the cost of the wine, baby, I'm not as 'down on my luck' as you must think I am. I like California Cabs; but I think I prefer the body of the merlot. When done right.

"Most" business leaders like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Mark Zuckerberg? Ahh, have we learned NOTHING about generalities?

atleast he is trying some of those teabagers made allot of promises all of them broken i think next year you will see alot of empty gop seats.

Clara ..... D'abord, vous devez essayer de découvrir l'essence de fines bouteilles de Pomerol Grand Cru Classé 1983 ... il est magnifique .......

Clara, you certainly read into my comment incorrectly. I was only commenting on the fact that the Cab Franc's from "Chinon" in France are good and are not that expensive. No other meaning. What your, I guess you mean financial situation, is or isn't never crossed my mind. I like a good bargin now and then. What am I saying? I like a good bargain all the time. I said most business leaders, and the list is growing. OK, the list doesn't include the three of them.

Don't be defensive, it is not necessary. Put down the shoe, don't throw it......

Hey Clara - does old IReckon remind you of anyone?

Tick Tock allwaysfaithful - frosty and the rest of the alias you've used...

Clara, whoever this "feisty" is, is a bitter, hateful, jealous individual who probably spent their whole life trying to drag folks down to their level.

Time for a "nice" bottle of wine with dinner.....

This Ayn Rand fantasy of how the economy work has been disproven so many times, in so many ways it's just mind boggling that the Tea Party bunch can't even acknowledge the possibility of being wrong. It just illustrates that Conservatism isn't consistency of thought or principle, it's about selling a series of policies beneficial to the rich.

Chrysler and General Motors have both drastically reduced their workforce in order to become profitable. The government actually forced them to in order to secure their financing.

So tell me, how do you reconcile that with your hate for Big Business?

GM and Chrysler had to do reduce jobs to become profitable, and some of those who were laid off have returned to work. The Koch's did it out of pure greed...they were already extremely profitable. That is the difference

No kidding and as a side note to your comment on media as a puppet master, what happened to the whole Rupert Murdoch voice and email hacking scandal?? Guess the media obeyed the master and swept that whole mess under the rug, eh?

You betcha!

barbarian

I don't think so. I personally don't think Christie holds up to the sniff test on the white hot light of the national stage. His political incorrectness might seem funny off the cuff; but no way he manages the glare of the media.

Can you imagine the Disney World fiasco as PRESIDENT? LOL, altough I am sure there aren't ANY hypocritical repubs who would let THAT pass. PS. Does ANYONE get a good cell signal at "the World"? I know I didn't last year.

Think he'd order the bombing of another country, then hop a plane for Rio?

Barbarian, Wait until the pitchfork crowd finds out that Christie was strongly pro-choice as recently as the last election and that he's not a "put up a fence around America" kind of guy. He said he's not ready to be President. I believe him. (and those screaming the loudest for him to run are doing so out of desperation for a candidate, not I submit, because they're actually aware of his positions). As usual your points are completely obliterated by your need to revert to middle school name calling about the President you love to hate. Try simply disagreeing with him and you might stand a chance of being taken more seriously.

Flash Bang pop pop!

Lets see, the common sense "radicals" on the right want to see fiscal responsibility in Washington in order to save this nation from a financial collapse. The real radicals, the "Radical Left" want to see socialism and more borrowing, printing of money and spending when we already have a 14 trillion dollar debt that will catch up to us all.

Bottom line is that the "radical left" will take us back alright. Backwards!

We'd settle for LESS dishonesty from the 'right' and perhaps even an actual JOBS bill that we could digest. Of course that would require the Republicans to stay in DC and actually WORK for a couple of weeks. Not going to happen in THIS legislative cycle, eh?

Clara, Lack of jobs is the "symptom". The economy and job creation will not improve while Obama is in office. The last 33 months proves that fact and the next 15 will confirm it. As much as Obama dislikes free markets, free markets are the engine of real economic growth, not the government. We need more wealth creation in this country, not less. We need more people to aspire to become wealthy, not aspire to be taken care of by government. Do you really want this nation to follow in the foot steps of Greece?

Come on, Obama has gotten all the "stimulus" programs he has wanted to date. Whether it be the mortgage program, cash for clunkers, you name it, and the results have been that after the "sugar" wears off, we are back where we started. The model Obama is following has failed all over the world. Again, the spruce goose looked good on paper too.

The only way what you say is TRUE is if it were DELIBERATELY being rigged. The last 33 months is BS. The economy was in FREEFALL based on the PREVIOUS policies. Everything that has been passed has been WATERED down. I stand by my remark,...Republicans are holding MILLIONS of jobs hostage to make sure one man loses his.

This economy is like no other preceding it. The partial gloabalization without a standardized taxation, etc. to continually compare now to any other point in history is not even remotely rational. To compare TRUE free markets to the bastardized, partially applied regulatory of GLOBALIZATION is naive on its face and dishonest.

Obama has gotten JACK compared to what was wanted and needed and it was STATED by MANY economists on both sides back in 2009. The inherent flaw in the Mortgage Program was that it left BANKERS with too much power. Cash for Clunkers by ANY measure was successful,...The stimulus was too small for the free fall. Obama has been far too pragmatic and what you refuse to even discuss is how many of his proposals were PREVIOUSLY TOUTED by Republicans. If you guys can't paint him as EXTREME you know what a hard row you have to hoe to get him unelected.

Anemic growth is still growth and is still a success; by ANY measure compared to where we were when he took office.

I've never heard the spruce goose looked good on paper. Just a rich man's dream for Air Domination. I guess next you'll be telling me that Chris Christie looks good on paper, too? As long as it isn't photograph paper,...LOL

Nuclear weopons?....bubonic plaque?.....or make them watch reruns of Rachel Maddow (who SNL thinks her hair do makes her look like a 12 year old boy?) until their brains explode?

Wow Clara, do you feel better now. Any President in office "owns" the time he is in office. You seem to forget, Obama made two statement that he now is back pedaling over. Obama was going to "fix" the economy in 3 years and cut the deficit in half. Obama has accomplished neither. Explain to me just what jobs are being held hostage? The energy sector jobs are there and are being held hostage. You can poke fun at Christie if you like. But Christie shows leadership ability and is not afraid to make difficult decisions. His approval rating is now at 55% in NJ. Folks in NJ are waking-up and can see he is working for the good of everyone in NJ. Big difference when it comes to Obama. You may not agree, but Obama really has and still does make comments that just serve to divide Americans. The policies of the last 33 months are the problem. You Bush bashers need to realize the majority of Americans are not going to accept "it is Bush's fault" come next November. I will continue to criticize Obama's policies and lack of leadership ability and refer to the facts on the economy and hold Obama accountable for his time in office. Bush made stupid mistakes and when his term ended his responsibility ended, Obama's began and he is responsibile from that day forward. You cannot accept someone's failures because the last guy failed. Obama doesn't need your help making excuses, he is really good at it. Looks like Obama will spend the next 14 months trying to "talk" his way out of all his failures. I do think it will work. Time will tell.

...and this is why he is attractive to independents. Attempting to bring fiscal responsibility to a state government whose spending is/was out of control. But has common sense positions on social issues, and in fact does not believe its governments job to poke it's nose into peoples personal lives.

BTW I don't really care about the fat jokes, but what they do show is a dearth of intelligent policy debate by the wanna be comedians.

@John / AM (from Yesterday)

I do not want to end/privatize SS. Here is my position

I want an end to situations where a politician can create liabilities for future taxpayers. To use the example of public service pensions. Unions purpose is to get the best deal they can for their members. Politicians use union support for re-election. If they give the union too much in present compensation they have to raise taxes and may not be re-elected. So, they agree to give generous future benefits. Win for the politician, win for the union, win for current taxpayers who are paying less for services.

Losers are future taxpayers who are picking up the real cost of current services.

Same with SS. Politicians can use current surplus funds to pay for services lowering the cost to current taxpayers. In both systems it has to be changed so that liabilities cannot be pushed on to future taxpayers. In the case of SS if this means the government creates an individual IRA/401(k) account, and has fiduciary responsibilities, or creates an actual pension fund, backed by real assets I don't care.

At the end of the day government services are going to be cut AND taxes are going to be increased to pay for our past fiscal actions.

Obama's constant "Not my fault" excuses sound like the dog ate my homework.

Excusing Bush for 8 years and then insisting his disastrous two terms had no impact probably taught you something about the use of excuses. Unfortunately for the Republicans, the 'Anything to see this president fail' just isn't going to be enough to win.

why would you want to see a president fail this will hurt a country. in my honest opinion this is unamerican we should want the president to succeed to make our country look good not the other way around. and the gop want him to fail i guess money is the root of all evil.

Here an article on the other sites: Of course you won't see it on MSNBC...so I posted it.

Joe Biden: Obama administration–not Bush –owns the economy’s problems

President Obama's administration has long cited decisions made under George W. Bush as one of the main reasons why today's economy is in such turmoil. But Vice President Joe Biden dismissed that argument Thursday, telling Miami radio station WLRN that's not relevant.

"Even though 50-some percent of the American people think the economy tanked because of the last administration, that's not relevant," the vice president said. "What's relevant is we're in charge."

Biden added that he doesn't blame people who are mad at the administration, and said it is understandable and "totally legitimate" for the 2012 presidential election to be "a referendum on Obama and Biden and the nature and state of the economy."

Voters will not buy this excuse next November. You cannot keep justifying your failures because the guy before you failed. This is an attempt by Obama to try to move beyond the point that is true, which is that Obama's focus has been to blame Bush for the economy and then expect voters to vote for him. Kind of an insult to believe voters will give you a pass when you were hired to fix the situation and after 4 years you don't have what it takes. No surprise, Obama does not have what it takes.

Romney is the strongest candidate yes but teabaggers will not support him,maybe a third party candidate?Whatever happens sure seems to favor Obama.Keep up the good work teabaggers

fdr was a physically weak president but his leadership made him one of the best presidents in usa history so it dosent matter on apperence but the content and leadership he has. thats just like judging a book by its cover.

Are you talking about the Gingrich who led to the shutdown of government? THAT Gingrich knows how to "balance budgets"??? Must be a parallel planet you're referring to...

fail u said gingrich to manage budgets lol funny.

It's no more RACIST that calling the president a TAR BABY.

RIGHT?

which congressperson called the prez a tar baby? I must have missed it or you're just full of Sh@t

Rob, "rocketing poll numbers"?? Wow...you need to do some reading up. His "rocketing" numbers represent nothing more than a straw poll vote and will disappear as quickly as they appeared. Cain is not a viable candidate and even he knows that...he's already talking about who he'll endorse when he pulls out andreturns to making pizza. Come on...THIS is an indication of the lack of racism in the right wing??

Rob: It wasn't a congressman who used that racist language in a flyer. It was a Republican Party official in California as I recall (the Congressman who later apologized instead used language about watermelon, chicken and rap in talking about Obama's fundraisers.)

umm, Rob in ma lotsanumbers:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/02/national/main20086724.shtml

You mean the Republican Congressman from Colorado? Are you really this daft? Or does even FAUX have the ability to SPIN this to being a Democratic problem? I mean what is your argument here, that President Obama FORCED Lamborn to be a complete ass? Wow,...

carry on,...

(PS. her comment was BIGOTTED, perhaps; but not racist, please educate yourself on the difference. Lamborn's comment? Yeah,...definitely RASCIST)

Hmmm, Perry reminds me of that old TV show, Gomer Pyle, in more than one way--"Surprise, surprise, surprise"!

Clarie: (PS. her comment was BIGOTTED, perhaps; but not racist, please educate yourself on the difference. Lamborn's comment? Yeah,...definitely RASCIST)

That would be "bigoted" and "racist" dearie. And you should know.

Try to at least act intelligent hon.

Why dontcha Google "tar baby" and SEE what you GET, ROB in MA?

Are you CHICKEN?

I just google it.....

came up with Congressman sends letter of apology to the president.

It's interesting that you defend bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.

Do you know if the "Oreo" congresswoman apologized for her comments yet?

And back to the main point are you okay with her comment?

I certainly don't approve of the tar baby comment.

I'll attempt to answer your questions barbarian, but first I must say that the line about "Liberals are scared to death of so and so"...is getting to be quite a joke. I read the same line about Trump, Bachman, Palin, Gingrich, Perry....it truely is ridiculous to think that liberals are scared to death of anyone in the Republican field at this point because even Republicans seem to think none of them are good enough.

Now...If you objectively look at the federal spending by administrations rather than by the amount of time either party controlled Congress you see that Republican administrations have grown that deficit more than Democratic admins have...by a large margin...which brings an interesting point. Republican administrations, despite all their rhetoric about being fiscally conservative and small government advocates...grew the deficit by a greater amount than their opponents did...DESPITE BEING IN POWER FOR HALF THE TIME! Now, which party is truely more fiscally conservative...and not just talking "out of the other side of their mouth"?

"The liberals"

Realize that Christie is just the NEXT in a LONG LINE of candidates on the Conservative merry-go-round of DISSATISFACTION.

We thought Anybody But Obama was a SLOGAN....

not a CAMPAIGN STRATEGY.

Actually Kevin, you are a liar. The federal spending by the democrats far exceeds anything that has ever occured in this country. Obama has increased the deficit more than all of the previous administrations (democrat and republican) put together. 15 Trillion dollars is unforgivable. What is even worse are people like you that are so entrenched in the belief that your messiah Obama is doing great things, that you do not either realize or care what he is really doing to this country. "Being in power half the time" Obama has done more to damage this country than any man in history. Frankly, he should be tried for treason.

Don't let the facts get in your way, black knight. Reagan increased the National Debt by 189%. First Bush - 55%. Clinton left office with a surplus, and only increased the debt load by 37%. Then Party Boy came to town and increased it by 115%. Obama, so far - 16%, and that should be regarded as pretty good considering the mess Dumbya left.

Barbarian: actually "liberals" are chomping at the bit for a Perry or a Christie nomination (neither of which will unfortunately for Obama, happen). Perry is sort of a Bachman without the lipstick and would be the best possible choice for scaring independents into the Obama fold--and Christie will just implode when the far right realizes he doesn't swallow the radical line on immigration and abortion. I've afraid your side is stuck with the stiff suit whose been running non-stop for 5 years and not yet "catching fire".

AP

Did you catch the comment on Morning Joe that most Republicans are treating Romney like it is an 'arranged marriage that they don't want any part of'?

Seems an apt description.

Clara...and an interesting analysis in the Washington Post this morning on why Romney has been relegated to "best man" status for so long (in short, mostly the flip-flop stuff...)

Starderup---I've done some researching as much as I would like those numbers , I think you need to check Carter,Reagan, and Obama again