They simply going to go waste the peoples time and tax dollars in deliberating and carrying out Grover instructions.

Tough cookies old gal.

Your teams, Team Blue, and Team Green decided to spend all that money on solar panels and "green SHoots."

CHu dumped billions more down a giant sink hole.

So perhaps you ought to direct your ire toward your own guys.

Of course you would then have to ask yourself why Obama values solar panels and paying off Kaiser [Solyndra], the Pelosi family and other democratic donors more than "safe food" and "education."

Oh, and maybe you can tell us why Obama's jobs bill has exactly no co-sponsor in either the House or the Senate?

Sure does not seem like they like-y like the bill, eh?

Spanky-

Tough cookies old gal.

Your teams, Team Blue, and Team Green decided to spend all that money on solar panels and "green SHoots."

CHu dumped billions more down a giant sink hole.

Spanky, Why aren't you as concerned about the billion of dollars lost on a slab in Iraq?

Don't you think you righties should have Holder investigate how we can get our billions back from there instead of wasting tax dollars on Solandyra and fast & furious; Sweetie.

Cartoon the the paper this morning has an elephant telling a voter "we're attempting to soften our image". The elephant's t-shirt says "The Party of No thanks you".

A blanket call for elimination of regulations is just plain foolish.

Sure, speed limits and weight limits for trucks cost businesses money, but if we don't have those regulations, we know that more lives will be lost and our already distressed highways will become even more dilapidated, and potentially dangerous.

Before ANY existing government regulation is eliminated, there should be a full accounting TO THE PUBLIC of what its purpose is, what problems it supposedly creates, what costs are associated with those problems, and what elimination of the regulation would mean in terms of a full cost/benefit analysis.

If more people are going to die in accidents, and we're going to have to pay more taxes for road upkeep, we at least have the right to make an INFORMED decision.

Ignorance is NOT bliss.

I pray that the republicans hold thier ground and stop this adminstrations agenda. The senate says no to everything the house sends. Please hold your ground and don't give in. The name calling and your going to get fired, talk will be unleashed by the left, just don't buy into it and leave what you promised undone.

Bev. - I want us out ofIraq, Afghanistan and Libya right now. But Obama wants to stay and continue to dump money down those rat hols.

As for Holder - he and Chu have about a month left until both are gone. Chu just keeps wasting money on companies that are destined to fail, and Holder's go him a HUGE gun runner problem.

Of course so also now does the White House. I know you are up on the large document dump last Friday.

I sure am concerned about that White House Aid they sent to Iraq. Man that Chicago way thing is nasty.

And AM - Obama himself called for eliminating "un-necessary" regs. You don't think he was just jerking us around, do you?

MRWSR.

and that's how we move forward as nation.........obstructionism.

Spanky-

you want nothing order than not paying your fair share, mr job creator.

It seems that some folks choose to ignore the many successful "green" energy companies nationwide, including those receiving loans from the DOE. No surprise, conservatives like Spanky like to cherry pick to suit their narrative.

GOP Governor Branstad is talking up green energy, he wants to bring more clean, renewable energy companies to Iowa. Apparently not every conservative leader has oil propaganda running through their veins.

While companies may complain about regulation, most of those regulations benefit businesses by keeping workers safe and preventing expensive work-related injuries. We don't hear much discussion of the positives.

FR: Otherwise, the House is set to vote on a variety of bills to loosen regulations, particularly environmental and energy restrictions.

AM: A blanket call for elimination of regulations is just plain foolish.

Of course AM will be the first to forgive one of the most expensive regulations that was rescinded for smog limits.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/02/obama-halts-epa-regulation-smog-standards_n_946557.html

That was a $90 billion per year regulation that Obama thought the country just could not afford. You for that "loosening" of that regulation, or against it AM? Of course AM won't see this post because she doesn't like to let conflicting views enter that head of hers, it messes with her rock solid liberal beliefs and makes her feel bad.

PEN: And that's how we move forward as nation.........obstructionism.

No. Higher taxes and more regulations will move this country back to the land of prosperity.

It's Morning In America, only in reverse.

Spanky:

And AM - Obama himself called for eliminating "un-necessary" regs. You don't think he was just jerking us around, do you?

The word "unnecessary," by definition, calls for exactly the same cost/benefit analysis that I'm calling for.

Cost to business in dollars is not the only consideration to be made. Costs to taxpayers and costs in terms of lives saved are important considerations that should at least be made clear to people, so they know what it is they are saving, understand what it is they are losing, and decide on balance whether it is worth it.

Not every dollar by business saved justifies lives lost or costs shifted to taxpayers.

But that's not the same kind of analysis most Republicans are calling for. As for the President, saying you will remove unnecessary regulations is very easy to say.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Pen,

Ostructionism. If that means stoping this administrations and the senate's agenda. I am ok with what ever you want to call it. Let your vocabulary increase.

Sure it is PEN.

But do tell - what is my "fair share" and how are the amounts I already pay in taxes not "fair?"

PEN, what should the rates be, and how come Obama lowered them just last December?

You do know if he would have done nothing the rates would have gone back to Clinton rates, but he created a new bill keeping then at the Bush levels.

So, PEN, is Obama anti-fair share?

Jody - what are some of the successful "green" companies? And more importantly why are you treating them different than any other companies?

Is it cause the gov. is so good at picking winners? Really?

Jody, Iowa: It seems that some folks choose to ignore the many successful "green" energy companies nationwide,

Which ones would those be Jody? Which ones are producing a product at competitive prices without any additional government subsides? Which ones are paying off their government loans? Which ones don't have political connections to Obama and the Democratic party?

Those qualifications would produce a very short list, or no list at all.

Jody our Teapublican governor in Maine had to be restrained by his own party and administraion from making remarks that gave investors the impression Maine doesn't welcome companies developing wind technology. One of the bright spots in Maine's future has been investors' interest in our fledging energy industry - and our governor's big mouth, as usual, put that at risk.

http://www.pressherald.com/news/doubt-cast-on-wind-message_2011-06-08.html

http://bangordailynews.com/2011/05/31/politics/lepage-administration-questions-feasibility-of-offshore-wind-power/

This article, cited by JoAnna above, merely reinforces what I've always said about Republicans' alleged concerns for what we're passing along to the next generation.

It isn't really the next generation they worry about.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/02/obama-halts-epa-regulation-smog-standards_n_946557.html

In fact, Republicans' cost/benefit analysis goes something like this:

If they can save a buck today, they don't care WHAT they pass along to their children and grandchildren in terms of deteriorated infrastructure, or even whether the environment will be livable.

Thanks, JoAnna. And now back to ignore.

Amy,

Why not drill, there are some great resources under your state and off your coast line. That should help rebuild your fledging energy industry.

spanky

fairness is having the poor and middle class have some purchasing power and the status quo, favored by GOP/TP, does not support that.

Only you and the ever denying GOP/TP do not know why Obama kept bush tax in place but the rest of us know the truth. Mr job creator, pay your fair share.

A long time ago, when the earth was new, Governor Jerry Brown - in his first tern - ordered a complete review of California laws for the express purpose of eliminating unneeded regulations. Like the old "blue laws" there were plenty that were found and eliminated.

There is no reason we can't review all of the laws, regulations, and rules at all levels, as a routine matter, for the express purpose of keeping our government lean, effective, and efficient. As a matter of fact, in California, the law mandates reviews of rules, policies, procedures and the like in its political subdivisions to this day.

Now, for all those who make it a habit to wake up in the morning and start the day by bitching about needless regulations that have no purpose except to lay horrible and terrifying costs on business - please post one.

AM: It isn't really the next generation they [Republicans]worry about.

It was Obama's decision AM. No one elses. Even Obama recognizes his regulations and out of control EPA are killing businesses and millions of jobs.

Of course Obama is spending $1.4 trillion in deficit spending of the next generations money every year of his presidency, that really shows he cares about the future generations, but I digress.

And what does 'Ignore' mean to you AM? Obviously it doesn't.

Back to your insulated little world sweetie.

A little balance would be good. Its ok to criticise Solyndra and any investment of tax funds should be scrutinized carefully. There have certainly been enough successful green industries like wind projects, biofuels, new battery plants in Michigan, etc to render arguements rediculous that one failure doesn't condemn a whole class of development. Another kind of balance is also called for and that is, alternatives. If we're talking about energy, we should be comparing the 5.3 million lost in Solyndra to the multi-millions pissed down a rat hole in Oil co subsidies to an industry piling up the biggest profits in the history of the planet while bending us over at the pump. Another comparison would be collateral damage ie: environmental harm, wars waged over oil, national independence.

JoAnna:

It was Obama's decision AM. No one elses. Even Obama recognizes his regulations and out of control EPA are killing businesses and millions of jobs.

No, it doesn't mean that he doesn't see value in the regulation. It means he simply recognizes that he's in big political trouble if some jobs don't get created, and soon. It means he's balanced the two considerations, and politics come out the winner.

Which is why I told Spanky I'd believe it when I see it.

We're probably more than half way to agreement on that one, but from completely different angles.

And what does 'Ignore' mean to you AM? Obviously it doesn't.

Well, unlike you, I'm not perfect. But most of the time it does. And trust me, I feel SO much better for it.

Uh, PEN - whats does the middles class's "purchasing power" have to do with taxes?

But let me make it easier for you - what rate would you consider "fair?' What's the matter, easier for you to just say "pay your fair share?"

Come on PEN, actually try to say something.

And Jody and Amy - wind power costs 5 times what coal and traditional power costs. Are you going to buy it? Volts cost far more than rears an even despite heavy subsidies, NO ONE is buying them.

Spanky:

Is it cause the gov. is so good at picking winners? Really?

Are you calling for the federal government to do away with the Small Business Administration and all loans to small businesses?

Because every time the goverment approves -- or conversely, disapproves -- an SBA loan, they've obviously picked winners, right?

And despite all the vetting that the SBA does, some SBA loans fail, right? Meaning that the federal government pays out on the guarantee, right?

So, what's new, Spanky?

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

The headline should of read;

The headline should HAVE read: Public finds it hard to take Fisty seriously until she takes an English class!

(now show me that big clown nose GF!)

Spanky:

And Jody and Amy - wind power costs 5 times what coal and traditional power costs. Are you going to buy it? Volts cost far more than rears an even despite heavy subsidies, NO ONE is buying them.

Let's see what you're saying ten years from now. Every new technology starts somewhere.

I had a colleague back in the 90s who told me, in response to my request, that attorneys would never have PCs on their desks when they could rely on those good-old-fashioned -- and much cheaper -- dictaphones.

LoL

Good thing I didn't take no for an answer and walked right down the hallway to the next partner's office. Shortly thereafter, I had a shiny new PC on my desk, and shortly after that, so did my former colleague.

Why, I'll bet even you have one now. ;-)

Here's a question: why doesn't Boehner and Reid just "deem it passed" and get the budget done ?

Why even bother giving the tea baggers the opportunity to screw things up ?

PEN-24

fairness is having the poor and middle class have some purchasing power

Actually, Pen...

Fairness is having the poor and middle class EARN some purchasing power. You seem think they have an inherent right to purchasing power...

I believe they have an inherent right to EARN it!

There is a BIG difference in those two beliefs.

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

dirp101

Here's a question: why doesn't Boehner and Reid just "deem it passed" and get the budget done ?

Why even bother giving the tea baggers the opportunity to screw things up ?

Hey dirp... (hehehe great name for you...)

Maybe a little thing called the LAW!

You guys are very entertaining!! I bet those whining about 'excessive regulations' would be the first to demand regulating the lawyers with 'tort' reform. You do realize that a lot of those 'excessive regulations' were lobbied into place by 'special interests' to protect their business.

AM: And trust me, I feel SO much better for it.

Unicorns and fair dust.

AM: No, it doesn't mean that he [Obama] doesn't see value in the regulation.

The value of it? I guess Obama could continue to regulate industries out of existence, at least in this country. The fact remains though, does Obama continue to drive more workers to the unemployment lines, drive more people into poverty, drive more people on to the dependence and diminishing government safety net, or does he consider that people have to work, eat, and have shelter. That is a cost/benefit equation that needs to be considered, and by the looks of things, Obama has chosen badly.

I recently started to do research into the regulations issue. One thing is clear is that no one likes pollution in their back yard but as long as it is somewhere else is seems to be okay. The latest is on cement.....well it seems 20% of these plants cannot afford the cost of complying to the latest EPA standards yet 80% of our plants can. The argument is that these regs will force these companies overseas where they will pollute there and that pollution will reach us anyway. That was the argument made by both the politicians against stricter standards and from an industry head. They don't dispute the fact that it is harmful however just the fact that jobs will be lost. (90% of this pollution comes from the mercury used in limestone) Perhaps this is one area the government could help business stay here by covering the cost of this mandate for those unable to do so. Complying will save 2500 lives a year, prevent or lesson asthma and heart health issues. A good use of taxpayer dollars in my opinion.

Spanky -- Catch Tesla's news release? It seems they are kicking butt over there. Go for a test drive, c'mon it might change your mind. There is a dealer in Mountain View or Palo Alto on El Camino.

In case you missed it here is link:

http://autos.yahoo.com/news/tesla-motors-model-s-electric-sedan-will-be-faster-than-porsche-911-20111002.html

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20114723-17/tesla-shows-off-model-s-to-future-owners/?part=rss&subj=cartech&tag=title

@ JoAnna --

Maybe, if Republicans are so worried about making sure that working people have shelter, they could work on loosening up THESE regulations --

http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/03/news/economy/mortgage_unemployed/index.htm?iid=Lead

A $1 billion program to assist the jobless will likely end up spending only half the funds, at most, because so few people met the strict criteria.

The Housing Department, which had to approve the applications for the Emergency Homeowners' Loan Program by Friday, expects that only 10,000 to 15,000 people will qualify. That's only a small sliver of the roughly 100,000 who applied.

"No one could have anticipated how difficult the statutory requirements make it to reach homeowners," said Lemar Wooley, a HUD spokesman.

It's a funny thing, isn't it, how nowadays either tightening or loosening regulations always seems to benefit the wealthy at the expense of everyone else?

After all, who benefits from foreclosures besides banks? Why else wouldn't it make more sense to let people stay in their homes and work things out over time?

It's sort of like the new bankruptcy regulations that make it harder for individuals to file for and get relief in bankruptcy. Who does that benefit? Only their creditors. Most personal bankruptcies relate to uninsured medical expenses. The medical industry does not seem to be hurting. So what does that say about the calculus used to determine the value of regulations?

By the way, I don't see what you mean when you say the President has "chosen badly." He came down on the side of business, didn't he?

From your point of view, exactly how is that "bad"?

And where are the jobs?

AM: After all, who benefits from foreclosures besides banks?

You think the banks benefit from foreclosures? People got loans from banks on properties they later defaulted on, and are now the properties are worth much less than the original loan. Now the bank owns a home they do not want and will get pennies on the dollar to resell. Not exactly a win for the banks.

AM: Why else wouldn't it make more sense to let people stay in their homes and work things out over time?

It sounds so easy. Why not open a bank and give it a whirl? It's just not clear to you, is it. The banks need the cash flow from the agreed upon terms when the contract was signed. The people in these homes cannot make those payments, so the banks seek others that can. Without this process the housing market cannot fairly price the housing market, one of the biggest drags on a recover. Until that fair market pricing is established, any recovery will remain stalled.

By the way, I don't see what you mean when you say the President has "chosen badly." He came down on the side of business, didn't he?

Apparently not. It looks as if businesses are not sure of their tax rates, their benefits and health care obligations, or any stability in the taxing and depreciation of their capital expenditures. That all adds up to a hostile environment for businesses. Obama's constant populist rhetoric to businesses has also not been helpful. So yes, Obama has very much chosen badly.

AM: And where are the jobs?

Where the growth is, and that's not here. So what new regulation and what additional tax will make the country more competitive?

12 BILLION dollars on schools in Iraq while laying off teachers here at home

We already spend more money per student than any other nation on the planet.

And, for all of our money...we're falling behind to nations that spend much less per student.

So, what do the Democrats want?

Why, more money!

Poor Democrats, too busy spending other people's money to see how much and often they FAIL.

hi anna - quite the stretch in going from the article saying...

the House is set to vote on a variety of bills to loosen regulations, particularly environmental and energy restrictions

to you saying...

A blanket call for elimination of regulations is just plain foolish.

As to your cost/benfits statement, shouldn't these of been done before the fact and not after?

At least you acknowledge that regulations can have a negative impact on job growth, definitely a plus for you. Perhaps the pollsters should have a new question added to their polls.

"Are you in favor of new regulations that eliminates your job and which has minimal impact on your quality of life?"

from my take on listening to bloombergtv, many businesses aren't opposed to most of the new regulations but want to see a moratorium on them until the economy improves.

JoAnna 1 -- As Congress changes every few years so can the taxes. We never have certainty on taxes. EVER.

jody - OSHA and IOSHA have been around a long time, Just what specifically are the safety issues being rescinded?

Correction to my post on regulations: The mercury is found inherently in limestone.

The fact of the matter is that oil is a finite resource, it is a world commodity, no matter where the oil is pumped from it is sold on the world market to the highest bidder among commodity traders buying oil futures. Unless the US wants to continue to outbid the rest of the world for a finite and shrinking supply of petroleum, we need to develop alternate sources of affordable readily available energy for all Americans. The modern private sector only does what is immediately profitable, if you depend on the private sector for everything you will only have what is currently profitable for them and you will only have it so long as it is profitable for them. The government needs to invest in this technology and others as well, yes there will be winners and some sorry losers, but that's not new, anybody got any numbers on the vast fortunes we spend on failed weapon systems, and poorly designed war planes. The president has exactly the right idea here, and I will guarantee you, you will like an electric car well enough when you can no longer afford petroleum.

The debate that needs to be had about healthcare is when the U.S. is going to abandon a for profit healthcare industry that is corrupt, monopolized and not very effective. Look real healthcare reform was left on the cutting floor in Congress, the bastards sold us out to the insurance lobbyists plain and simple, Obama should have vetoed it and demanded what he always claimed he wanted, but he didn't. Instead the American people got saddled with the "great insurance subsidization act", nothing more than a federal mandate to buy insurance from a bunch of crooks at what ever price they deem appropriate. Until we adopt a single payer "universal healthcare" plan where everyone is covered and everyone pays we are doomed to every increasing costs with fewer and fewer people who can obtain medical care, and nothing can change that.

pen (post 1.19) - LMAO! I see you can't answer spanky's questions. Pretty lame on your part as well as showing us all your fear in caring on a debate.

I do so like your statement...

fairness is having the poor and middle class have some purchasing power and the status quo, favored by GOP/TP, does not support that.

Come again? What income numbers are you promoting? What goods are everyone entitled to? You know "purchasing power and status quo" imply as much. Wasn't there once a joke about a politicain promising a chicken in every pot?

LBJ set us on the path of the "great society" and the "war on poverty" yet still today we have achieved neither. Lots of rhetoric, lots of taxpayer dollars spent and borrowed against, but yet still little to show. Perhaps if only the wealthy would give "just a little more"

Forrest -- Glad to see you here to once again put Spanky's claims to pasture. ; )

american-2051576

"a politicain promising a chicken in every pot"

With Obama it's "an EBT Card in every pocket"

american-2051576 & SPANKY

Your answers did not prompt me to want reply to you tea-nuts talking points.

when you have a section of the economy who have their pay stagnated and the value on their assets eroded while a section like GE is feasting on the tax welfare largess from bush, who's got the purchasing power? where's the purchasing power for the jobless? how has this unfair taxes helped the joblessness create purchasing power? do you really understand what purchasing power is? From your answers, I guess not.

You right wing nuts Know nothing except how to dissemble, and you do it constantly without shame.

Forrest - have you been paying attention? They are finding more oil everyday. The earth has enough to last at least another 100 years, based upon current technology alone.

In fact the USA has underneath it more that Saudi Arabia.

PEN - I guess I don't understand. You talk about taxes and fair share and now GE. What does that have to do with purchasing power? Taxes only effect the government's purchasing power.

Raising taxes will not help the jobless buy more. OR are we just talking about redistribution?

Oh, now I see. Got it. Light bulb just went on in my brain.

Otherwise, the House is set to vote on a variety of bills to loosen regulations, particularly environmental and energy restrictions.

Good...about time

Committees will examine the effects of the new Wall Street reform law,

Let me save you the time....it was toothless and didn't do a damn thing...now get to work and reinstate Glass-Steagall

the Obama administration's immigration policies,

LOL....you mean his policy of suing the states that try and enforce federal law?

and the prospects for a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Oh sure...Harry will NEVER vote on that, and Obama will veto immediately to keep that credit card wide open and limitless...

AM - you did have a good analogy with desktop computers. And how much did it cost the taxpayers to pay IBM, Apple, HP, etc to develop those? Why should this be any different...let the companies that stand to profit pay for their own research and technology....financing their future profits is not the governments job, nor the responsibility of the taxpayer.

Joe:

AM - you did have a good analogy with desktop computers. And how much did it cost the taxpayers to pay IBM, Apple, HP, etc to develop those? Why should this be any different...let the companies that stand to profit pay for their own research and technology....financing their future profits is not the governments job, nor the responsibility of the taxpayer.

Do you have some idea -- or better yet some evidence -- that none of the start-up computer companies got any loans from the Small Business Administration or tax breaks or any other federal or state government assistance?

Why do I doubt it?

Maybe you could take a kick at my question to Spanky about the SBA. He apparently bailed.

Wow, maybe the president will get some nominations approved in time for a second term. Maybe Senate rules/parliamentary procedure should be the first order of business, for example Rand Paul blocking passage of safety regulations for gas pipelines on principle, not facts, principle.

Speaking of regulations, the president has been willing to reach across the aisle on this—just like everything else, with a hold on EPA regulations that may place strain on the economy, allowing a sand oil pipeline, and proposing reform of 500 regulations -- Despite right-wing propaganda that the president is anti-business.

Not all regulations work as intended, fair enough. Including Dodd-Frank, which would be even less effective had Republicans not tried to obstruct it. But it still does not prevent "Too Big To Fail" and I'll never understand why conservatives don't want to ensure that tax payers will never have to bail out banks again, but then there is no method to their madness. (The other day a conservative posted how President Clinton and I should be thrown in the pollution of the Boston harbor, and I snickered to myself that at least he admitted to the pollution, and therefore EPA regulation…but I digress.)

However, this is most interesting:

...but the biggest vote could come Monday evening, in a procedural vote on legislation to address Chinese currency manipulation, a bill with rare bipartisan support. That debate has political overtones for 2012, particularly in states with manufacturing sectors that have been hardest hit by the government of China's efforts to keep its currency undervalued. That debate also pairs with a larger debate over free trade initiatives lingering before the Senate.

On the committee level, senators will listen to testimony about how to reform the budgeting process and options for tax reform.

Will Teapublicans hold to their oath to make the president a one-term president or will they actually support their own talking points and do something positive for the American people for a change?

Will free trade initiatives include real carrots and sticks such as tariffs on goods imported by US companies manufactured elsewhere, or will it just be more of the same old tired zero corporate tax rate and Race to the Bottom BS?

Will reform of the budgeting process be in line with our constitutional democracy or the same old tired "my way or the highway' draconian balanced budget amendment that destroys taxation with representation?

Will tax reform include taxation on ALL income including capital gains, or the same old tired extension of the Bush tax cuts that place undue burden on W2 wage earners?

I say we organize a HUGE Occupy Wall Street march to the Capitol during this lovely debate, what say you?

Another question to the right-wing riff raff, in addition to why you want to preserve "Too Big To Fail" and corporate welfare -- Why are you conservatives pro-addiction to foreign oil? It seems the GOP/TP policy is to ship all our jobs to communist China and send money to Middle East countries for oil who harbor terrorists. A little weak on national security, wouldn't you say?

TP...for one thing, those teapublicans (as you call them) have been opposed to corporate welfare. I believe the bailout of GM happened due to a democratic congress. The bank/wall street/goldman sachs bailout was bipartisan in it's criminality.

Go read Romney's jobs bill...it specifically points to drilling here and weaning off of foreign oil...something most of the republican candidate support. Now on the left side of things, we have the Obama administration giving Brazil 2 billion to increase they're oil production, and in the meantime shutting down domestic oil production through overregulating.

As far as shipping our jobs to communist China...it was Clinton that signed NAFTA, and worse, the WTO free trade agreements with China. Strike 3.

As for shipping money to Middle East countries...shall we look at how much we've sent Pakistan the last 5 years under a democratic controlled congress? How about aid to Palestine? Libya? Egypt? Saudi Arabia? The flow of money to these countries has INCREASED under the democratic watch.

Are you sure you aren't a republican? Because most of what you are complaining about has been perpetrated by a democratic controlled government.

pen - the question asked was...

What income numbers are you promoting? What goods are everyone entitled to? You know "purchasing power and status quo" imply as much.

Trying to hide behind specious arguments won't sell your ideas if you don't produce quantifiable facts and results. Questions are asked of someone to clarify their stand, promote understanding or to get that person to rethink what they are implying.

Since you have a hard on for GE why not go after their protector obama as well?

TP - politics 101 puts forth the premise that it is always the job of the party not in control to want to see the party in control not win re-election. Right now obama is doing a wonderful job all by himself to not be re-elected.

BTW - Why hasn't obama found a sponser in the house for his jobs bill? His increased taxes on corporations and wealthy bill? Come on TP, curious minds want to know.

Hi Feisty--sounds more like "let them eat cake

Well, the haves are sipping the champagne while looking down on the little people!

Watch it here:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCkQqQIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2Fblogs%2Fbusiness%2F2011%2F09%2Fwall-street-protesters-meet-champagne-sippers%2F&ei=wtWJToXkHeHDsQKJv7nJDw&usg=AFQjCNFDlvbMVTYGsEQahOXdD4Jxk2jItQ

If First Read put a spam blocker on this site the tea people GOP republicans would disappear.

June sometimes I will go a couple weeks without the spam question and then some days I get hit 5 times. There seems to be no rhyme or reason. I don't think it has to do with what you are saying. It has never stopped one of my post.

I think it is just a random program that jumps in and checks that you are not spamming.

I am hardly a computer expert, that is just how it seems to me.

No Drive By - it's where's the JOBS BILL?

No co-sponsors, how come my man?

10 Dem senators have already said no way. What gives?

Durbin has admitted they do not have the votes. Is it really that bad?

Oh and speaking of Durbin - I hope all you libbies are happy he is costing you new ATM and debit cared fees. What a moron.

[WHERE'S the JOBS??]

Ask the "job creator"...

Ask the repubs since they were yelling and screaming about how they were going to create jobs.

Well I suspect the China bill is an effort to make politicians put their vote in line with their rhetoric. See who really supports fairer trade and who supports efforts to get China to adjust their policy concerning their currency.

We can't have fair trade by just adjusting the currencies.We must revolk China's permanent favored trade status given them by Bill Clinton and his Republican Congress.It would do much more good to have them pay the same tarriffs we pay them,and we need to pass a law that states if the U.S. doesn't make it,you can't buy it here,just like China does.The only thing we sell China is raw materials.What does that say for your trade deals?

Oh, Bev, you are so AWESOME!

You called smiffy a LADY? Man, you always extend the olive branch,...how long before she bites you?

I love your optimism,...sadly - their lies have left me pessimistic.

Jody just give up on fixing Congress, it ain't going to happen. The only people that can fix the Congress are Congressmen and Congresswomen and they are the people who purposely ruined it. There was a time when Congress may have been repaired but that time has passed, your vote won't fix it, Congress disregards the people’s wishes, they don't care what you and I think or do, or even our well being. D.C. needs an enema, flush all the toxins down the drain, the lobbyists, the Congress, the Supreme Court, they are all infested with crooked immoral traitors who have no integrity, no honor and are only concerned with serving their wealthy masters to keep the checks coming. We need a Government that works for the people of this nation not against them, replacing the entire system is the only answer, you can't fix what we have now, just face that fact and move on. No one wants to face these cold hard facts, I certainly wish it were not the truth, but anyone that thinks the Congress can be fixed is not being honest with themselves, and that is just what our pathetic Government wants us to do.

The only fix you are proposing will come by the way of a revolution,if voting won't fix it.Blood will be even more expensive than bullets.

SF, I agree. When the House GOP majority announced its schedule back in January, it made me angry. Two weeks work, one week off. It is their way of doing even less and hoping no one notices.

True enough, but how do we fix it when the mega banks and financial firms own the Government? We don't and we can't.

See Dylan Ratigan's rant on You Tube. It is the lesser of two evils. To quote LBJ, "better to have a man on the inside of the tent p ss ng out, than a man on the outside p ss ng in." Which party is most open to reform?

I hear what you're saying Wm. but it would seem the "bad" guys have all the cards on this deal, even the party that claims to be the most open to reform always comes up with some kind of an excuse not to do exactly the right thing, take the healthcare reform act for example, in the beginning there were several good plans floated that would have reduced costs by forcing insurance companies to actually "compete" with some thing, but what got signed into law was nothing more than forced taxpayer subsidization of a crooked, monopolized insurance industry, the President should have vetoed it and demanded better, instead he signed it into law and proceeded to brag about what a good deal it was. And all the major legislation passed has the same disappointing traits, I know where you are coming from, but all the players seem to on the same team and it ain't the American people’s team.

Suzan the only people that can create jobs are the same people who took the jobs away. Those jobs are not going to come back unless those people are forced to bring them back, and the people who could force them to bring them back are the same people that allowed them to be sent elswhere. They won we lost.

The sad truth is that Reid doesn't want to expose his Senators who are up for reelection to a meaningless vote. The Senate requires 60 and McConnell won't allow that. Obama and Reid would be smarter to demand an up or down vote, but why expose the troops knowing the House isn't going to act? It's a very calculated political decision necessitated by our 24/7 gotcha news cycles. Yes, it would be nice if these guys and gals had backbones. But maybe it's up to us to give them one. Register. Vote!

w bush

Suzan the only people that can create jobs are the same people who took the jobs away.

HUH?

I hear every day from the FR libbies that Barry has created millions of jobs. Are they lying or are you?

sorry, ltcommander

I don't think they've given it a second thought. Me thinks they'd like to send a few million more over before November 2012,...just to INSURE an electoral hiccup.

Let's hope the public is paying attention to what they do and not what they say,...

so commander, what is todays date?

Look at the corner of your computer screen to see todays date, dumass.

Hey,the GOP isn't the only party to send jobs overseas.Why don't the Dems try to re-do the China favored trade deals?Nobody is on your or my side when it comes to being fair in trade deals.We have been screwed by BOTH parties,and they didn't kiss anybody doing it,but those corporations that lobbied to get the deals.

lol commander, so why didn't you look there when you posted the dates of 2003-2006? Not very bright or progressive of you to want to see the emerging markets held under your thumb. Why shouldn't they enjoy the same opportunities and lifestyle as you?

american, please for the LOVE of AMERICA would you attempt to read for comprehension?

They are regretting sending those jobs over DURING those years. Regretting (present tense), sending those jobs, 4,000,000 of them between 2003 and 2006 - (past tense).

Do you need me to draw a picture? or is English NOT your first language? Let me know and I'll do whatever it takes to help you be EXCEPTIONAL, again,...or perhaps in this case, for once. Sheesh!

Soldier,

They will get about as much coverage as the tea party rallies.

This bill is DOA. Both sides.

Tell me sir who is going to foot his re-election bid?

George Soros, The Ruckus Society, the Tides Foundation and the Ford Foundation. (all wall street)

Irony.

Forcing higher wages is just plain stupid, man. Do you think any business in the freaking world would not have to raise their prices to the consumer if they were forced to pay some outlandish salary? Precisely why the whole minimum wage thing never REALLY helps the people it is intended to help. Business pays more for labor, they raise prices, consumers left the same before the pay raise. Even hurts the economy in the long run, because less people will be employed overall.

Henry Ford had a different idea.

A TEA party rally is Americans standing up against government cronyism and corruption.

Not some band of spoiled, lazy kooks blaming the 'rich' for all of their failures in life.

Like that grad student at Columbia who thinks she shouldn't have to pay back her student loans.

Sickening behavior by the 'I'm entitled' class.

Sorry Soldier,

Did not realize that am following you. Just read your post and commented.

Will not happen again.

I understand that the Teas are the ones trying to rein in spending,not spend like it grows on trees,like republicans and democrats do.We borrow 42 cents of EVERY dollar spent by Uncle Sam.Where do you begin to help the nation,when it can't help itself from borrowing away the future?You,and many others just don't care that the future holds 30% inflation ahead,and much more suffering than you've ever seen yet.Remember,when the going really gets tough,and your money won't buy squat,we won't remain civilized as a society like the great depression folks did.No,we'll duke this one out the next time!The first people that rape,pillage, and rob will be the first to become running targets.

I disagree that keep saying that government is a source of waste, unless we look at private contracts which are the source of that waste. Look at the private contracts during the Iraq occupation and who benefited - Dick Cheney's buddies at Haliburton, and etc. Why hit on the government when private industry is happy to fleece the tax payers with overpriced non-competitive contracts? I believe President Obama has government regluation under review, but am concerned that he will cut regulations based on conservative complaining instead of cost benefit review. Industry has written the regulations because it stifles lawsuits; if you want to get rid of regulation, bring back the ability of injured parties to sue corporations and include their CEOs. We need to bring back the Glass-Steilgal act separating banking from investing. Who in their right mind would want to remove any of the remaining weak regulations of the financial industry? The conservative arguments on regulations are specious .

We are stuck with the bills from yesterday, and the TP GOP want to restore the corruption when it was payola for them. Look at who the funders of the TP are; just because there are a few grannies who think government is trying to take over their social security doesn't make it a grass roots movement, unless it's illegal grass. Just because the TP looks good to those who are admiring themselves in a mirror doesn't mean that the same face is seen by a skeptical society.

Sorry last time,

Please look at how the biggest obama money givers are tied into wall street.

George Soros, The Ruckus Society, the Tides Foundation and the Ford Foundation.

Just look. That's all I am saying.

actually if you were to check your facts- go to open sources. org you will see the banks and wall street actually give their money to the Republicans.

TP and Republicans- long on ideology short on facts

oops- its open secrets.org not open sources.org

They aren't even touching on the real trade issues,just like normal.The real issue is why are we giving China a favored trade status that lets them import at 1/10 the cost that we pay them to import.We only get to sell them raw materials,because they have a law that states if it isn't made in China,you can't buy it there.What kind of a nation lets others "dump" their CRAP on them?Apparently,a real dumba$$ one!