It's Getting to be Prediction Time:

I must confess that for a variety of reasons I was unable to save all of last year's predictions. I have searched high and low for Frank "Grimey" Grimes predictions as they are often accurate. So, Frank, if you are reading, perhaps you can resurrect them from the archives written sometime in December 2010.

Others lacked substance and did not deserve a shout-out and still others were written after Christmas, which was too late to track.

As often the case, many of us were way off track, but amusing just the same. I'll begin with some of my foolhardy guesses. I thought the Senate would dramatically change the rules regarding cloture. Missed that one! I thought Ruther Bader Ginsburg would retire. I'm glad I missed that prediction.

I thought the Dow would be around 12,300 to 12,600. Did not account for Greece and Italy.

The few predictions that were reasonably accurate were the Republicans would not support any jobs bill. And the Republicans would not support an infrastructure repair bill; they seem to be willing to let the highways crumble to gravel and bridges rust to be unsafe at any speed.
My good friend Dennis thought that Sarah Palin would emerge as a clear frontrunner. If she had decided to run, she likely would have been a frontrunner. To Dennis's credit he saw raising the debt ceiling as very, very messy. That scores as a direct hit. He also predicted that tax reform won't go anywhere. As early as last December Dennis predicted that neither the Red Sox nor the Yankees will win the American East.

Jody predicted that the possibility of gridlock will remain in Congress. Good prediction Jody. She also predicted that the unemployment rate would drop, somewhere around 8.5% . She could have well been right if the bankers and wealthy corporations were willing to hire people instead of hoarding their money. Jody predicted some sanctions would be lifted against Cuba. That was a spot-on prediction.

I apologize for leaving out some predictions. Some bloggers did not specify their name so I was unable to give them credit.

What I have learned is that making yearly predictions is a lot of fun and politics turns on a dime. One will more often be wrong than spot-on.

Next Monday I will make my predictions for 2012. If you are so inclined, I would enjoy reading your predictions and will attempt to save those predictions written through December 9th. Mark, Domenico and Ali are encouraged to give your predictions as well. Don't be shy.

The jobs report from the USDOL is better than it has been in many months and the unemployment rate dropped to 8.6%, which is not as good news as it might seem to be because it is down due to discouraged unemployed workers dropping out of the survey. Maybe if the Slow-bama recovery gets even slower, enough of the unemployed will stop looking for jobs and Barry will get a 5-6% unemployment rate and declare his jobs efforts a “success”.

Even though 120,000 new jobs is an improvement on prior month’s anemic gains, it is still not even enough to keep up with population growth. And therefore, still pathetic for a President who promised to be focused on jobs like a laser.

It may be a very good day on Wall Street and those who have their money invested there will be partying tonight. Especially after Wednesday’s almost 500 point Dow gains. The term used to describe this is a “Santa Claus rally”.

BTW, they couldn’t be cooking the books to make Barry look good, could they?? I’m sure if GWB was still President, the regular FR lefty liberals would believe they were. LMAO!!!!

From CNBC.com:

Job creation remained weak in the U.S. during November, with just 120,000 new positions created, though the unemployment rate slid to 8.6 percent, a government report showed Friday.

The rate fell from the previous month's 9.0 percent, a move which in part reflected a drop in those looking for jobs. The participation rate dropped to 64 percent, from 64.2 percent in October.

The measure some refer to as the "real" unemployment rate, which counts discouraged workers, also took a steep fall to 15.6 percent from 16.2 percent, its lowest level since March 2009.

Average earnings were essentially flat, up two cents to $23.18 an hour. Private payrolls increased 140,000, considerably less than a report earlier this week showing that nongovernment jobs were up by more than 200,000

Republithug Whackadoodles. May not be able to buy them love, but boy can they sure purchase some votes. With the largest warchest about to open up, there will be so many lobbying hands stealing the gold, the RNC won't know what hit them.

I have to hand it to Newt, he has them by the... shut yo mouth!

Now add anti-women to the anti-science, anti-education, anti-history, anti-compromise tags already pinned to the GOP.

How does Knut Gingrich or the Knutbaggers thinks he's going to win with no women voting for him??? Are these people ignorant or what???

Cain holds a town hall in South Carolina before heading home to Georgia to talk face to face with his wife…

Boy, wouldn't you like to be a fly on the wall for the face-to-face!

Some times you can actually find brilliantly illuminated truth even in the darkest minds. So it is with Glenn Beck. Beck is the crazed bigot who wrote the book, Arguing With Idiots.

Why would anyone argue with an idiot? Yes, my fellow lefties, I'm asking you that question. When you argue with idiots, do you imagine they will apply their critical thinking skills to honestly analyze your argument? Do you imagine they are going to question their dogma when you show them facts that contradict their beliefs? Of course not. They are idiots. So, why do we continue to argue with them?

Let's do some profiling. They come here whining about lefty libtard socialist commie pinko progressives. They do this day after day. These are the people who hit themselves in the head with a hammer because it feels so good when they stop.

These are the people who can see an uninterrupted stream of scientific data supporting anthropogenic global warming and deny the data. You never saw these people in a science class. These are the people who think economic cycles begin on inauguration day. They believe that cutting taxes increase revenues. They believe Jon Kyl. They are deathly afraid of numbers.

Why do we argue with these people? No matter how great the weight of facts contradicting their positions they cannot be moved. JAS will continue to fabricate. Njnb will cherry pick meaningless statistics. Spanky will continue to agitate and demonstrate his incompetence with the English language. Kirk will continue to post his stream of unconsciousness ramblings. Dsdsherm signs off with, "ABO." Really? Do you think you are going to change these weak minds?

It is a waste of time to argue with idiots. However, from those darkened minds comes the opportunity to shed light on the truth - FOR OTHERS. New people come here all the time. These must be our targets.

We are watching events unfold that for many of us can only be characterized as unbelievable. The right wing that so hates President Obama has thrown in with Newt Gingrich. Gingrich is a pure sociopath. The same people who hate Obama and tag him as the Messiah have fallen in love with Gingrich who tags himself as GOD. Those people are idiots. You cannot argue with them.

This same type of non-thinking, the hallmark of the right wing, plays out again and again. Wake up, lefties. Our battle is not for their weak minds. Our battle is for the minds of those who want America to survive and succeed. Our job is to educate.

Take the lies of the right-wingers. Shred them. Destroy them. Post your facts, your links, post search parameters. Don't waste your time arguing with idiots.

She also predicted that the unemployment rate would drop, somewhere around 8.5% . She could have well been right if the bankers and wealthy corporations were willing to hire people instead of hoarding their money.

__________________________________________

Dr. Ron: Today's jobs report has the unemployment rate at 8.6%. Maybe you and Jody owe the "bankers and wealthy corporations" a sincere apology??

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

People's View website: Written by Deaniac83 -

The Republicans in Congress may be singularly focused on destroying the American economy in order to hurt President Obama's chances of re-election, but the American consumer may already be responding to President Obama's relentless focus on helping the middle class be able to spend again, in order to get our economy going. After all, consumer spending accounts for nearly 70% of America's economic activity. So as the holiday shopping season kicked off this past weekend, trends are pointing to economic expansion rather than doom.

A short summary of the Black Friday weekend: Consumers spent $52.4 billion from last Thursday to Sunday, up 16% from $45 billion last year. The number of shoppers were up, to 227 million from 212 million last year. Average spending also climbed to $398.62 from $365.62 the year prior.

The uptick in consumer comfort with spending didn't stop with the end of the weekend, either. November sales for most retailers are beating Wall Street expectations.

****************************

Here's hoping the children have a very Merry Christmas this year. This is after all what it's all about. Smiles and excitement on their faces. The innocence of it all.

It's a wonderful time of the year for them.

I hope everybody takes a moment to look into Toys for Tots and other programs out there to ensure that our less fortunate children don't get forgotten.

Jody: You do get extra credit on your jobs prediction. I posted before realizing that the job market is improving.

This whole payroll tax cut deal is just astonishing to me. It was a bad idea when it passed a year ago, and it's an even worse idea now when the administration wants to double down on this turkey. The payroll tax cut doesn't boost job creation, it just gives money away. And it gives that money away at a time when the finances of Social Security are already fragile, and thereby just further undermines the fiscal "integrity" of the program. Stupid is as stupid does, and the payroll tax cut idea sure is stupid.

Ah, but the economic merits (or demerits) of this policy are irrelevant. Because the Dems are using this issue for purely political purposes to advance their class warfare narrative. Yup, they want to paint Republicans as aligned with evil rich folks and against the middle class by accusing them of wanting to shield the former from a tax increase that would "pay for" the giveaway to the middle class. The core appeal of that argument is that whenever the Dems advocate taxing Peter in order to pay Paul, they will invariably get the support of Paul. Not a bad message, if you can get away with it.

And now that the period for last year's "temporary" payroll tax cut is over, reverting to the status quo ante is being framed by the Dems as a tax increase instead of the return to normalcy it actually is. That's not a bad message either, the Republicans used it to great effect to prevent expiration of the Bush tax cuts. But discerning readers will note there is a key distinction between allowing marginal income tax rates to increase to their former levels versus putting the payroll tax back to where it was: The former would have had a clearly negative economic impact while the impact of the latter is marginal at best. Of course, that distinction will be completely lost on the low information lemmings who vote Democratic.

So at the end of the day, the Democratic strategy is simple: frame the debate with Republicans in class warfare terms, and rip the hell out of that fault line. Pound the heck out of the "spread the wealth" theme. The NYT this morning is giddy in anticipation of same and is already feeling a tingle up their leg. But Americans need beware: Giving money away via lower payroll taxes or any other means is just another step on the redistributionist road towards imposing the leftist vision of "economic justice" on all of us. That radical OWS-like idea is a disaster in the making as we speak, and should be vigorously opposed by all right thinking Americans. So don't be fooled by Democrats bearing gifts. It's the countless years of giving away government gifts that have gotten us into the mess we're in now.

Ron, those predictions are always fun; glad you saved them! Will have to give some thought for 2012.

David, you just posted what I have been thinking about all day. (My day started VERY early and I am grumpy). But with the folks on the right, it is not only their hate of the president and love of money and power that irks me. It is their lack of heart for their fellow man.

Great news today (for Democrats) the unemployment rate dropped again. We're headed in the right direction. The Repugs hate it. Ah, to bad, so sad. It's only going to get better.

Well the Repugs did it again, gave the finger to the Middle Class and the poor. These people have no heart and no shame. A lousy $1,500 hundred a year in tax savings ( that's a year) but they want to cut millions in taxes for the rich. These people are animals with no compassion for their fellow human beings. VOTE THEM ALL OUT IN 2012.

Obama in 2012.

Ron, thanks for the extra credit! I must have been using my crystal ball last December. I do remember also predicting that the Senate would change the filibuster rules to make them actually stand on the floor and argue ala Jimmy Stewart style--clearly a hallucination.

David,

As always, your posts are in tune with my own thinking. I give Anna Molly and Jody a lot of credit for taking these guys on - they have far more patience than I do; it's like arguing with doorknobs. More power to AM & Jody!

Continue to explore the World of Ideas, my friend.

Friday's Off-Topic Liberal Rant –

Yesterday, I attended an event sponsored by an organization that has dedicated the 30 years of its existence to assisting small businesses achieve success, and ultimately, to create jobs. Among the 400 people in the room were many dark-suited bankers.

The purpose of the meeting was to celebrate the organization’s anniversary and to honor some of the many success stories that have been generated as a result of the organization’s efforts.

If you’re wondering why I was there, it’s because I was invited. I like to think I was invited because the people at the top of the organization appreciate the services that I provide, which are calculated to allow them to focus on what they do best – serve the interests of small businesses.

Over the years, this organization has been involved in the creation of more than 60,000 jobs. The words “job creators” were in fact, used many times during the course of the program, and with some justification.

The point of this “rant” is that all of those 60,000 jobs, and all of the small business successes that this organization, and their lender partners, have achieved, have involved either direct assistance or loan guarantees from the United States Small Business Administration.

That's right. The SBA.

The bankers in that room, many of whom were from small, community banks, probably owe much of their personal success to the SBA and to the organization we were there to honor. The involvement of the SBA allows those bankers to lend the necessary money to start-up and expanding businesses with some security that they will not assume too much risk.

Instead, WE the people assume that risk on behalf of all of us. Because a long time ago, we decided, as a society, that the costs to all of us for assuming that risk were worth it.

One of the program speakers, a Native American who was an award recipient himself for his work with small businesses within his own community, participates in screening loans for the organization. He joked that he had no difficulty saying no to loan requests when warranted.

This, of course, goes to the notion we hear derided out here of the federal government picking “winners” and “losers” among businesses. Folks, that is EXACTLY what the SBA does, every single day. Yet, not once have I heard a single conservative – even Rick Perry – speak out in favor of abolishing the SBA.

And I’m darn sure that none of the bankers in that room yesterday would ever do that, either.

Extrapolate the job creation numbers of this organization across the entire country and you have at least 3 million jobs created through SBA assistance. And there is more than one organization of this kind even in my own state. The true number is, no doubt, much higher.

Not represented at the event, were all of the vendors, builders, and other collateral businesses who have benefited over the years by the organization’s efforts on behalf of its small business clients. They, too, are indirect recipients of government assistance, whether they view it that way, or not. The jobs they create can also be attributed, at least indirectly, to SBA assistance.

So, for you conservatives who keep insisting that the federal government has no role in job creation, I’m here to tell you first hand that YOU don’t know how it works.

I’ll be off-line most of the day again, doing that day job I mentioned yesterday. If I took anything away from that program yesterday, it’s that what I do has value and dignity, despite what conservatives here like to say. I’m thankful for that lesson, which came with lunch.

Have a lovely weekend, everyone.

Wasn't it John McCain that said electing Barry would be Jimmy Carter's second term??

Ouch!!!!

Gallup

Obama polling like Carter

Gallup has some historical perspective on President Obama's current 43 percent approval rating. The polling firm finds that only Jimmy Carter had an approval rating lower at this point in his presidency:

President Obama's 43% average job approval rating last month ranks as one of the lowest for an elected president in November of his third year in office. Only Jimmy Carter had a lower rating, at 40%. But Carter's rating surged in late November 1979 because of a rally in support after the onset of the Iranian Hostage Crisis, and he averaged above 50% in December. All recently elected presidents were at or above 50% in December of their third year in office.

Obama's November average is improved from his 41% averages in August, September, and October, but looks weaker from a historical perspective. His job approval rating has been highly stable in recent weeks, but if it does not increase significantly this month, he will be the first elected president in Gallup records to be below 50% in December of his third year in office.

Bill, Fairfax, VA: So at the end of the day, the Democratic strategy is simple: frame the debate with Republicans in class warfare terms, and rip the hell out of that fault line.

The Democrats are stealing from their most sacred program, Social Security, to buy some votes for next years election. Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system where money coves in from payroll taxes from the workers each month, and that money is immediately sent out to the retirees. Now Obama and his idiotic Democratic party want to continue to vastly reduce that amount of money coming in to service the SS debt.

The trouble is how to pay for it. The GOP wants to reduce a bloated government to service the additional debt. You know, make government smaller and more efficient. The Democrats, to their true nature, want to raise taxes. And not just any taxes, but income taxes. Taxes that will go to the general fund, and not back fill the loses to support Social Security. Social Security, on financially insecure ground today, will fail that much quicker with the Democrats plan. So I guess the Democrats hate the elderly and want grand-ma to die, at least that is what the Democrats and the media would be saying if this were a Republican proposal.

God, this "WHO'S IT GONNA BE" $hitshow every week is sickening.

It's like watching a bunch of 3 legged dogs run a race, even though they all suck, of course there's going to be a leader at any given point.

Im calling Jon Huntsman comes in the lead late in the race. Yet .....he used logic when he talked about downsizing the military and focusing more on intelligence and Spec Ops forces to combat terrorism. So the people that never served, yet wrap themselves in flag any chance they get, will take issue with that.

Wasn't it John McCain that said electing Barry would be Jimmy Carter's second term??

In case the idiot from Alabany missed his 'leader of the pack's' memo yesterday, I'll refresh his memory;

JoAnnaSmith1

.

The problem with you DBO (one of many) is you get too enamored with the early polls and act like they actually mean something. You also believe the leftist crap FR keeps pumping out in their articles (recall Newts campaign was declared dead months ago).

Lets worry less about polls and let the voters decide, mm-kay?

#1.15 - Thu Dec 1, 2011 9:03 AM CST

Unless, he's Joey is trying to have it both ways...

The libbies are all getting a little dizzy over the jobless rate dropping from 9% to 8.6% in November! How precious!

Should someone tell them that this is just a seasonal bump and happens every year because of the holidays? And that those seasonal numbers will drop again in January...... nah, let them have their fun, it's the season for it!

We own three UPS Stores and increased our staffing 12% thru mid January with temporary employees..... can't afford to keep them on any longer....

Typical FR headline: Gingrich struggles to expand campaign.

FR headlines you'll never see:

- Obama struggles with defining a budget

- Obama struggles with his massive deficit spending

- Democrats struggle with developing some kind of a cohesive message on the economy

- Harry Reid struggles with remembering what his job is

- Pelosi struggles with insider trader allegations

- Obama struggles with connecting with the American people

We get it though FR. We know who ya'are for, and who ya'are against.

I really believe that the GOP is not as interested in the presidency this time around as in control of both branches of Congress. Note, their best candidates are sitting this one out. Now, in 2016, let's see who runs. Early predictions - Barber, Christie, Jeb Bush. If not Bush, then Rubio. They want to lock up Florida in 2016.

Have any of you grown up in an area where when the crops were due in and school was called out to enable older (10 and up) children to allow them to work the fields. I know I did and I also know that my friends in Northern Maine also did (Potatoes need digging and fruit needs picking)

A reduction in the unemployment reate due to discouraged unemployed workers dropping out of the survey could hardly be called " the job market is improving",

My oh My - the RWNJ's are certainly are sweating the reduction in the the unemployment numbers this morning.

See the problem for them is, the average voter doesn't give a rats ass as to WHY they came down, all they are paying attention to is, the fact they HAVE!

Carry on with your spinning...

It's a tough day to be a tea bagger - Newt Gingrich crowns himself 'King' & unemployment #'s drop dramatically! lol

David Walker.......

Quote.....Why would anyone argue with an idiot? Yes, my fellow lefties, I'm asking you that question. When you argue with idiots, do you imagine they will apply their critical thinking skills to honestly analyze your argument? Do you imagine they are going to question their dogma when you show them facts that contradict their beliefs? Of course not. They are idiots. So, why do we continue to argue with them?.....EndQuote

It is possible to reveal truth to almost anyone through presentation of irrefutable facts and rigorous logic. At least, it is possible to exhaust them of intelligent rebuttal.

Still, it is true that some folks, even when faced with such an undeniable argument, retreat into emotional rationalizations. These are unreachable. Fortunately, they are relatively rare. They can usually be identified as those plugging their ear canals with their fingers while ululating.

Conservatives are not necessarily unintelligent. Their condition is caused by some combination of deficiencies in their anterior prefrontal cortex together with life experiences for which they could not construct coping mechanisms. This usually leads to an amoral outlook comorbid with paranoid ideology. (Social) rules do not constrain them. On the contrary, they consider those rules as only devices to be exploited by imposition upon others.

Of course, there is a "normal" spectrum ranging from the ordinary fiscal conservative through the extreme social misanthrope. Beyond these lie the psychopaths and sociopaths.

We (liberals) should never abandon these folks anymore than a physician should turn away from patients merely because they present difficult cases.

David Walker, terrific post; I agree, we post facts for a reason and it isn't to argue with the deniers of fact on FR.

Pat, Boston, well said. We have our annual "freezin' for food" campaign this week which uses the "Hawkeye Hauler" semi-truck at the local Hy-Vee in conjunction with the local radio station and the Salvation Army. Next week, the "Hawkeye Hauler" heads to the auto dealer for the annual Toy Drive.

Ian Emdee, good points. It is also why we keep posting here, maybe some truth will hit home.

David - excellent post. I don't really like posting, but I feel compelled when I see out and out lies posted by the Bash Obama crowd. My reasons for calling them out are not to dissuade them, that would be pointless, but rather to enlighten other readers that may take them at face value.

One has to laugh at the Bash Obama crowd. The unemployement figure dropped today, and already one poster is claiming that further Obama bashing is necessary because the numbers are deceptive. While that is a good point to consider, I for one am glad we are seeing the number drop. It means the ship is slowly righting and we should all applaud that more people now have jobs, despite all the efforts of the right. But of course, the Obama bashers will not concede an ounce of credit.

If the unemployment figure was at -25%, the stock market was at 25,000, the Arab world were democratised with pro-American leaders, each American were issued a check for $1M for their 401k, the debt was eliminated, and taxes were at 0%, the Obama bashers would still be spouting their venomous nasty lies and remarks.

How does a (well) below average idiotic dolt know what the average voter thinks about the unemployment rate?

Let's have a story on why voter's hate obama. And how he and the democrats destroyed America.

In case the idiot from Alabany missed his 'leader of the pack's' memo yesterday, I'll refresh his memory;

_____________________________________

Nasty Redhead: In case you haven't noticed the conservative FR posters do not have the need to get validation from other conservative posters. You have never seen anything like the FR lefty liberal posts of "we're on the same page", "great post Bev", and other group-think nonsense.

BTW, have a Nasty day.

Good News

The U.S. unemployment rate fell last month to its lowest level in more than 2 1/2 years.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-unemployment-rate-falls-to-86-lowest-since-march-2009-20111202,0,885182.story

The Bad News is for No Jo, Joeey in Albany, Spanky, Lady Sniff, and all the other RWNJS it had nothing to do with GW Bush

Forget all these "focus groups" just as reliable as "economists"

Bottom line? How well will the guy do verses the absolute disaster in the White House who only knows how to campaign, golf, incite class and race warfare and get kick backs from Wall Street after $ 1 Trillion + in hand outs of taxpayer money and more debt?

Rick Perry would clobber Obama, Mitt should be a landslide now that the DNC gave up on representing working class citizens, and the democrats fail to recognize that you can't spend yourself into prosperity and out of debt.

See the problem for them is, the average voter doesn't give a rats ass as to WHY they came down, all they are paying attention to is, the fact they HAVE!

______________________________________________

That's because the average voter is a moron. How do you think Barry got elected??

How does a (well) below average idiotic dolt know what the average voter thinks about the unemployment rate?

Sniffy -- we'll wait for your answer...

*jeopardy music playing in the background*

That's because the average voter is a moron.

There you have it folks - straight from the tea baggers lips to YOUR ears...

They believe the average voters are morons...

Nice eh?

JiA: Nasty Redhead: In case you haven't noticed the conservative FR posters do not have the need to get validation from other conservative posters.

Yeah, isn't that a hoot when those knuckleheads start their back-slapping? That goes back to the old LibsRUs tree house gang when they would scheme behind the scenes on who would be the "Cheerleaders" that day. It was funny then, and it's funnier now.

Think about it, this gang of 15 or so actually plan strategies on how they'll post. How pathetic is that?

Albany Joe:

That's because the average voter is a moron. How do you think Barry got elected??

Wouldn't that same thing be true for the Republicans who were elected to Congress in 2010?

Sorry I missed our latest planning meeting. I was busy. Did I miss anything - aside from pointing out that snuffy needs, lord, she needs so much help I don't where to start - prozac maybe?

phinephancy-4252115

Regarding your comment that right wingers like Newt lack heart -

I was thinking yesterday about the difference between charities working to end homelessness and poverty and the government taking steps to deal with social problems.

In my town, we are currently awash with dysfunctional type people crowding the shelters and soup kitchens and panhandling on the street. Portland has always had it's share of the lost and broken coming here from other parts of the state to sleep on the streets, listen to their voices and beg for money. I am as charitable as the next person, but when these folks reach a critical mass, I want my city to do something to protect me from the criminal element and the alcoholics who prey on pedestrians just trying to get home.

My church helps serve food to the homeless, and that is Christian charity, saving souls, but it is the role of government to organize help for these folks, for the sake of the community, as well as the faltering individuals. In my city, businesses are chipping in to get these people off the streets, because the loitering homeless turn off customers, as well as it being the Christian reponsibility of all us to help those in need. This is why I am a Democrat - I beleive in having a heart and in a community working together for solutions that benefit all of us.

It's tough for the Left to understand complex things, like the unemployment. They're kind of primordial in that want simple answers to complex problems, essentially so they can believe what ever they want to believe. The unemployment number is a great example of the small brain-ness of the Liberals. Here's what the evil bankers think of the the unemployment statistics.

The unemployment rate derived from a separate survey of households, was forecast to hold at 9 percent. The decrease in the jobless rate reflected a 278,000 gain in employment at the same time 315,000 Americans left the labor force.

“You’d like to see the unemployment rate coming down when people are coming into the job market, not disappearing,” James Glassman, senior economist at JP Morgan Chase & Co. in New York, said in an interview on “Bloomberg Surveillance” with Tom Keene “That’s probably exaggerating the trend in unemployment.”

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-02/u-s-jobless-rate-unexpectedly-declines-to-8-6-payrolls-rise-by-120-000.html

I find nothing surprising in the focus group comments except for the support for Newt. I do not see Gingrich as being a good candidate at all. I think that his ethics and morals are highly questionable. When it come down to it, I fully expect that Romney will become the nominee as the one who is the least objectionable to the largest group of people. Romney may not be the first choice of that many people but he is an acceptable choice for the large majority of voters. Those that do not put him as their first choice still have him ranked pretty highly, in second or at worst third. This is in contrast to Gingrich who is first on some people's list and dead last or close to it on others. Of all the candidate, I think that John Huntsman has some of the best ideas but for some reason he is ignored by the media and has not been able to build up any significant support. You can debate whether the lack of support is why the media ignores him or that the media ignoring him keeps him from getting his name and views out and generating support. Either way, he does not seem to have any chance at all of getting nominated. I would bet that half the voters out there do not even know he is running.

Just an observation:Who gets credit for the 8.6% number? The "do nothing" GOP House or the President? Seems that some bloggers were deriding the GOP congress with their "where are the jobs" daily chants.

Don't get me wrong, I don't operate under the illusion that the President won't get reelected but seems to be a whole lot of "double" speak on this blog.

Remove the partisan blinders and try to look at the forest.

More than half the jobs added last month were by retailers, restaurants and bars, a sign that holiday hiring has kicked in. Retailers added 50,000, the sector's biggest gain since April. Restaurants and bars hired 33,000 workers.

January's employment number will be the real test.

This is why I am a Democrat - I believe in having a heart and in a community working together for solutions that benefit all of us.

I'm a Libertarian and I believe in the same thing. Money is tight in our household but there are others that have less money so we donate what we can. I don't like tooting my own horn but there are other snide, cynical, and immature posters on this blog who will hurl insults at the drop of a dime so they can make themselves feel good.

After the 2003 wildfires, our local Catholic church asked the community to donate items, clothes, what have you for those who lost their homes. The turnout was overwhelming. We were dropping off items and someone asked my wife "what are you going to do with that container?" my wife said "you can have it " and the person started crying and was so thankful. Don't know why I retold that story other than to illustrate every little bit helps.

Joe Albany

You really are a twit, you know that? Did you catch the part of the jobs report where AUGUST, SEPTEMBER and OCTOBER were revised UP? Who is manipulating the jobs numbers? I'd say something is certainly fishy when you baggers GLEEFULLY proclaimed August a Dead End,...and yet, when the facts bear out - it wasn't as bad as you all hoped.

Yeah, I said it, you HOPE it struggles,...because let's face it,...your team can't win on ideas, or policies or any other meaningful and legitimate win,...you will only win if President Obama fails. And quite frankly, that 'HOPE' from your bench sickens me as it should sicken ALL Americans.

PS. From my inbox yesterday:

Message body

Joe in Albany has requested membership in the Libs R Us group.

Please accept or reject their request.

Regards, The Newsvine Team

Consider this your notice that we are officially REJECTING your application to be a member of the Treehouse. Quite frankly, you don't measure up to the integrity and character of the other members and we simply don't grade on the curve.

You might apply for friendship with the O-Man Haters Club,...it's about all you have left to look forward to,...

Like Gingrich, Romney and the other wannabees - No thanks!

Zing!

Good one Clara! lmao

The idiot from Albany would be better served applying to the "Outhouse' club, with the stench wafting off of him, he would be a perfect fit!

phinephancy: Sorry I missed our latest planning meeting.

Phine you're not suppose to talk about your nightly "Strategy" meetings.

That's what got the LibsRUs crowd exposed the first time.

So play dumb and act like you are all thinking independently.

Saddly, the only ones you are fooling is yourselves.

Dear Ron:

I have one prediction. Romney will be the GOP nominee. Actually, I have two predictions. Romney will be the GOP nominee and President Obama will beat him in a landslide.

Oh, and one more prediction. There will be an undefeated football team this season. And it won't be the Colts or Pats.

Wait, I just thought of another one.

Bobby Valentine will not lead us to the WS.

Wouldn't that same thing be true for the Republicans who were elected to Congress in 2010?

_____________________________

AM: Since I am a small "c" conservative, not a Republican, I have no problem saying yes. The same for the Dem sweep in 2006. They're all incompetent morons. But, we keep electing them, so we get what we asked for.

Poor, POOR Joanna: friendship seems to be such an alien concept to her. She can't process in her little brain that people actually make friends here that they care about.

Seems sad in this season when we are reminded by faith of the importance of family and friends.

One must feel very sorry for her, since it is clear. Poor Smiffy can't process what friendship is since she has none.

But, it is not too late for her to find the milk of human kindness and make some!

So for Joanna this year: I hope you find friends.

this just in, part of Obama's speech at a fundraiser this week:

President Barack Obama said Wednesday he has done more for Israel's security than any other administration, and vowed no ally is more important to the U.S. than the Jewish state.

"I try not to pat myself too much on the back, but this administration has done more for the security of the state of Israel than any previous administration," Obama said.

What!? As carrot top would say 'from the mouth of the ass directly to your ears!"

It wasn't too long ago Obama told the UN that Israel should give back all land acquired since the war in the 1960's... I'm pretty sure the Israeli's would dispute these comments from the annoited one, lol!

PS. From my inbox yesterday:

Message body

Joe in Albany has requested membership in the Libs R Us group.

Please accept or reject their request.

Regards, The Newsvine Team

_______________________________________

Thanks Clara Bell. I did click on the link to join the libsrus group only to see if there was a purity test where I would have to swear my allegience to raising taxes, massive deficit spending on govt giveaway programs and regulating businesses to death. Your sincere rejection tells me all I need to know. I am not now, and never will be a lefty liberal. Thank you.

BTW, how 'bout the stock market this week!!!!

Well said my Progressive Friends.

AM: Since I am a small "c" conservative, not a Republican, I have no problem saying yes. The same for the Dem sweep in 2006. They're all incompetent morons. But, we keep electing them, so we get what we asked for.

It's becoming more obvious that neither the Democrats, Republicans, or Obama are going to do anything about about the debt/deficits. The goals are lofty, cut a trillion here, and cut a trillion there, start a commission here, end a commission there, but no successes are ever seen. It's going to take a situation like we see in Europe for the pols to wake up and actually do something about it.

Who do you think will suffer most when the US is forced to implement austerity measures? My guess is the people on Social Security because it seems that the current pols in Washington think stealing money away from that program is a good idea.

Mitt and newt are habitual liars ... they will say anything ... how can anyone trust a man that will tell each group just what they want to hear .. reminds me of the local POL that went to the church supper and said we need tighter gun laws the next day at the rod and gun club told those folks we need to relax our gun laws .. anything to please the crown thats Mitt and Newt ..no real honest opinion on anything ... just please the crowd

I am still amazed at the hypocrisy of the GOP/TP. If any self respecting, morally righteous, christian family values Repub votes for Gingrich, it just further proves that their Christianity is in name only and POLITICS & platforms are really what rule their heart and character. The hatred of Mr. Obama seems to prevail over anything else (even the love of Christ). The American Christian witness is really pathetic on the politcal front.

If any self respecting, morally righteous, christian family values Repub votes for Gingrich, it just further proves that their Christianity is in name only and POLITICS & platforms are really what rule their heart and character.

Have to agree with that statement. Seems the only litmus test for "conservatives/modern day GOP" is: are you anti-abortion and do you oppose gay marriage? Do you support deficit spending to fund needless wars/nation building?

First Read is nothing more than a liberal propaganda outlet, with its own "opinion" posters right at the front of the line firring off cheesy jokes and tired cliques

Thanks Clara Bell. I did click on the link to join the libsrus group only to see if there was a purity test where I would have to swear my allegience to raising taxes, massive deficit spending on govt giveaway programs and regulating businesses to death. Your sincere rejection tells me all I need to know. I am not now, and never will be a lefty liberal. Thank you.

It seems you are confused (and unpure,...but that's another point for another day) - You DO belong to the party of Massive Deficit Spending and Government Giveaway programs (to oil and banks) - But I guess that is the reason you're just a little 'c', right? And not a Con?

to coin you,...I am laughing my @ss off at YOU!

Nice try, the unemployment dropped because most of the numbers are people that have now moved to the hardcore unemployed.

@ Feisty,

You crack me up, girl. Love your posts.

Instead, WE the people assume that risk on behalf of all of us.

This, of course, goes to the notion we hear derided out here of the federal government picking "winners" and "losers" among businesses. Folks, that is EXACTLY what the SBA does, every single day.

Excuse me counselor, but surely you see the logical inconsistency in these statements from your rant. If "WE the people" are assuming some risk, then necessarily there is no guarantee the SBA is picking a "winner." To the contrary, the SBA takes a stab at funding those entities they deem most likely to succeed, but rather than picking a winner (which the administration tried to do with Solyndra) they're taking a chance their assessment of the future success of that entity will be correct. If they're wrong, then we the people pay the tab. So they're not picking winners, they're picking those they think are most likely to benefit from their assistance just like any bank that issues a loan.

I would also point out that SBA has enjoyed bipartisan support over the years. The main criticism of SBA is not that it's a bad agency that should be abolished, but that their review procedures can be slow and cumbersome. Indeed, "small business" is right up there with hot dogs and apple pie in the pantheon of virtuous American icons and I frankly can't recall any Republican (except maybe Ron Paul) who is advocating the demise of SBA. But that doesn't stop you from brandishing SBA as an example of misguided Republican attempts to dismantle government.

Furthermore, while you like to cite Rick Perry in your anti-Republican screeds, surely it has not escaped your attention that Perry is polling in the single digits. So even while Republican voters are dismissing Perry's act, you brandish him as the poster boy for Republican ills. Yet the current reality is that Romney and Gingrich are at the top of the heap. Both of these folks are steeped in the ways of big government and neither has advocated its wholesale dismantling. Instead, their philosophy is much more incremental and seeks to limit the ever expanding size of government and its gratuitous interference in our lives and the economy.

These may be inconvenient truths for you, but they are truths nonetheless.

@D.Man - thanks for the shout out!

*blushes*

SPJ Code of Ethics
Download a printable copy [PDF]

Preamble
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.

Hiya kids, hiya, hiya

Well, the old frog is back. Moving kind of slow today, first day off the pain meds for my back, but I think I'm on the mend which will make my collie happy because she misses her playmate.

Well, I see the usual suspects are all here and we're getting the usual rants and raves. Nice to see some things really never change isn't it?

You'll know it's the end of the world when Feisty posts how much she admires Mitt Romney or Joanna finally admits her undying admiration for my wit and wisdom. Since I don't think the end of the world is nigh I would'nt hold my breath waiting for those posts.

But, just for moment, let's look at the information MSNBC/FIRST READ has provided us with today. The focus group data is beyond fascinating and very telling. But the devil is in the details and often what is NOT said is more telling that what IS said.

I'm not surprised by the results regarding Mitt, but I'm almost shocked by the results for Newt. How soon they forget. Wow, just simply wow. GOP voters do not appear to have good memories or the ability to do critical thinking.

The Newt G they responded to in the focus group could not possibly be the Newt Gingrich who used to be in Congress. It must be a totally different guy.

A different, yet I believe, related development.....

I note, with great interest, that the LDS stopped running their "I'm a Mormon" ads. I guess they finally realized they weren't fooling anybody but the federal election commission and decided they'd better stop reminding people that Mitt could be in one of those ads as well.

Which brings me to the great big fat elephant in the room. To NO ONE'S surprise, not a single person appears to have mentioned Mitt's religious preference. Actually, given the polling regarding the American perception of the Mormon Church that is a very revealing omission. I continue to believe that it is the "stealth negative" that will ultimately derail the Romney presidential run.

Don't be fooled. Newt will implode. He will self-destruct and drop dead in the polls just like Bachman, Perry, and Cain before him. Huntsman, Paul and Santorum (who?) never managed to resonate with the base in any way.

Mitt Romney will be the nominee. It's his turn.

But that focus group data is very telling. More please, MSNBC, more hard data and less speculation please.

Plunk you magic twanger froggy

Have a great weekend everybody..and I do mean everybody, because at the end of the day we are all Americans and if we do not hang together we will surely all hang separately. So hang in there :-)

Obama/Biden 2012

You DO belong to the party of Massive Deficit Spending and Government Giveaway programs (to oil and banks)

_____________________________________________

Clara Bell: the federal budget deficit in 2007 was less than $200 billion. Each of Barry's deficits is well north of $1 trillion. The tax provisions that benefit oil companies could have been repealed in 2009 when Dems had an overwhelming majority in the house and a fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate and the WH. They chose not to do so. Those "giveaways" are now owmed by the Dems. Are you aware that the American taxpayers got paid back every penny from TARP given to the Wall street banks and made a multi-billion dollar profit on that money?? I thought not.

BTW, I don't belong to ANY political party. And to celebrate this week's stock market and the relatively warm temps, filet and AK sockeye Salmon on the grill, with a few ice cold Sam Adam's is definitely on for Saturday, and maybe Sunday too.

The 2007 budget defecate did not include the billions of dollars
for the wars … try again.

Bill, Fairfax --

Excuse me counselor, but surely you see the logical inconsistency in these statements from your rant. If "WE the people" are assuming some risk, then necessarily there is no guarantee the SBA is picking a "winner."

Of course, there's no guarantee. That was MY point, too. But thanks for restating the obvious.

My post is only meant to illustrate that the risk of failure (i.e., picking a loser) is considered acceptable by conservatives when the SBA does it, but somehow it's not acceptable when it's done under another government program, such as the one that chose Solyndra for a loan guarantee.

I would also point out that SBA has enjoyed bipartisan support over the years.

And I would remind you that the actual program Solyndra participated in was started during the Bush administration. In fact, Solyndra submitted its application before President Obama took office. When Obama became President he made funding for that program part of the stimulus package.

I'm still waiting for a conservative to discuss facts and figures regarding the success of the entire program, not just the cherry-picked failures.

In any event, apparently, neither Bush nor the conservatives in Congress thought there was anything wrong with that kind of risk-taking when the program was first set up.

But that doesn't stop you from brandishing SBA as an example of misguided Republican attempts to dismantle government.

What on earth are you talking about? I've never said Republicans want to get rid of the SBA. I know darn well they don't. I bring it up sometimes so that conservatives will see the hypocrisy of their positions.

Obviously, it has bi-partisan support, and that's because everyone benefits from it. But sometimes, it picks a loser, and you know it. So does every program of that nature.

That fact alone doesn't mean we should get rid of it. As I said above, you have to evaluate the program as a whole, rather than demonizing the entire concept because part of it doesn't work out.

It's sort of like saying, as conservatives repeatedly do, that the stimulus didn't work, when in fact it worked, but just not enough.

Furthermore, while you like to cite Rick Perry in your anti-Republican screeds, surely it has not escaped your attention that Perry is polling in the single digits.

Easy does it, buddy. I only mentioned Perry because he's the one -- if you will recall -- who was determined to announce which three agencies he felt should be eliminated -- and the SBA was not among them.

Using Perry as an example was kind of a joke, which you might have seen had you had any sense of humor.

Yet the current reality is that Romney and Gingrich are at the top of the heap. Both of these folks are steeped in the ways of big government and neither has advocated its wholesale dismantling.

So what? They're YOUR problem, not mine.

But neither has anyone else advocated getting rid of the SBA.

That was my whole point, although obviously, you missed it.

Why am I not surprised?

These may be inconvenient truths for you, but they are truths nonetheless.

I'm still waiting to hear these "truths" you're talking about, inconvenient or otherwise.

Have a great weekend, Bill, and get an avatar, will you?

Dennis: The 2007 budget defecate did not include the billions of dollars

Little Freudian slip there Dennis. Not that I disagree.

And I would remind you that the actual program Solyndra participated in was started during the Bush administration. In fact, Solyndra submitted its application before President Obama took office. When Obama became President he made funding for that program part of the stimulus package.

I believe the main criticism of the Soyndra deal was a charge of crony capitalism by the Obama Administration.

I think I get your main point about "conservatives" possible hypocrisy regarding Government creating jobs in the private sector. Don't necessarily agree with the extrapolation/semantics though.

jinsd --

I believe the main criticism of the Soyndra deal was a charge of crony capitalism by the Obama Administration.

It might not have been crony capitalism as much as it was over-enthusiasm for producing results to show success from the stimulus and demonstrate a commitment to alternative energies.

But, since you brought it up, for Republican crony capitalism, I need only give you Halliburton. For an added bonus, I give you all of the campaign contributors in Texas that Rick Perry funneled state funds to.

Check that out on the google. Hundreds of millions of dollars.

The problem with all of this is campaign finance laws. I'm all for changing them. You?

Don't necessarily agree with the extrapolation/semantics though.

Of course, not because conservatives are in constant denial as to the role the federal government actually plays in the economy.

And that's my whole point.

Got any statistics that might call the extrapolation into question?

First, Romney will never be nominated for a very simple reason, and I know it's very Ad Hom to bring up, but, HE BELIEVES IN MAGIC UNDERWEAR! Lol, I mean, how can a POTUS believe in magic underwear???

The only GOP candidate who will, without a doubt, take the White House if he gets the nomination is Ron Paul.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/how-ron-paul-can-win-on-a_b_1098770.html

First, the old (non-Blue) Republican base is shrinking: the number of registered Republicans has been decreasing. The one candidate who is reversing this trend and has shown himself to be able to open the door to the hearts and minds of a significant chunk of the majority of the country that comprises Independents plus Democrats -- is Ron Paul. Indeed, the fact that no other Republican candidate has such cross-over appeal -- let alone an entire movement (so significant that it has a name that is being used in the mainstream media) of people who are burying the political habits of a lifetime to vote for him -- indicates that the overwhelming majority of newly registering Republicans are for Ron Paul.

Second, the fastest growing self-identified group of voters in the USA is Independents -- a group which prefers Ron Paul over all other candidates. Paul currently leads Obama by 9% among Independents. Since Independents are more than a third of the nation, that's a 3% margin in the presidential election.

Third, partisan Republicans should also be aware of a poll by Rasmussen, conducted a few months ago, in which likely Republican voters were asked whether they would vote for the Republican nominee for president if that nominee were not their preferred nominee (whom they'd vote for in the primaries/caucuses). About 90% of Republicans who supported candidates other than Ron Paul said they would support the Republican nominee, whoever he was, whereas only about half of Ron Paul's supporters said they would do so. And that half is going to decline as more Republicans register specifically for Ron Paul with no love for the Republican party.

Even if Ron Paul were to get only 6% of the electorate as die-hard supporters, and assuming Rasmussen's figures are right, then if the Republicans select anyone other than Paul to run against Obama, they lose 3% of the vote (half of 6%) right off the bat.

On top of all that, I'm hearing more of Democrats who will not become Blue Republicans to help Paul win the GOP nomination and will vote for Obama if he runs against anyone except for Ron Paul; if Dr. Paul runs, however, they have already decided to vote for him instead. Let's just posit a tiny 1% swing right there -- that's a 2% change in the margin of votes.

Taking a bit of a mathematical liberty (since these numbers are not strictly additive), adding the 3% to the 3% to the 2% gets us to an 8% preference for Ron Paul over other GOP candidates against Obama before we even start. This percentage not only exceeds the margin by which Obama won in '08, but would have been enough to change the outcome of every presidential election since Reagan.

In other words, ceteris paribus, a Ron Paul candidacy overwhelmingly brings in the Independents, brings over a significant percentage of Democrats who would otherwise be voting Obama (rather than staying home) and still appeals to clear Constitutional conservatives in the Republican base. The Republicans simply have no other viable candidate who satisfies one of those conditions -- let alone all three.

It's also worth mentioning that Ron Paul's poll numbers are like a ratchet. They only go one way: converts to Paul's Constitutional classical liberalism (look it up) almost never change their minds. Dr. No is sticky. No other candidate has that going for him, either.

The only reasonable counter-argument seems to be that the neo-con Republican base has a problem with Paul's foreign policy. Frankly, that would be easy to take care of in the presidential campaign. Paul gets more support from veterans and active military personnel than does either Obama or all the other Republican candidates put together. The GOP needs only explain to the nation why, remind us all that Paul is himself a veteran, remind themselves that Paul's Constitutional foreign policy is more in line with Republican tradition (and more conservative) than anything we've seen for a few decades, and let Paul's predictions about expanded government and the economic crash play on continuous loop to cover everything else.

But why even bother with these mental games, since if Ron Paul does not to win the GOP nomination, none of it matters?

They are worth playing because the Ron Paul campaign is currently gaining ground in spite of the party and in spite of the media. If I can do this math, then so can the party chairman, party operatives, other Republican candidates who'd like to be in the winning party in 2012, and the campaign consultants who will help them achieve that. None of those people even have to be excited about the philosophy of Ron Paul to pick a winner when they think they've seen one.

The partisan operatives might not much like the implications of the Obama campaigner who will vote for Ron Paul, the rise of the Blue Republican movement, or even the latest Iowa polls, but at the end of the day, for no other reason than winning is better than losing, they might well accept them. When they do, and the establishment resistance begins to melt, we will have reached our tipping point.

The 2007 budget defecate did not include the billions of dollars
for the wars … try again.

________________________

Sorry, Dennis, but, you are proof of my statement that the average voter is a moron. The war costs were "off budget" for purposes of passing the annual federal budget. The war costs budget was funded by "emergengy appropriations bills" outside of the regular budget process.

The federal deficit is a very simple calculation at the end of the federal fiscal year that subtracts all amounts paid out in cash by the federal govt from all amounts received in cash for the federal fiscal year 10/01-09/30. ALL the costs of the wars are included in the under $200 billion 2007 federal fiscal year. Don't believe me?? go to the CBO website and see for yourself.

LMAO!!!!

Joe you need to reread what I said … it is accurate. I said “Budget deficit”.

I have worked as an account and planning manager. I fully understand the meaning of a deficit and the difference between a deficit and a debt which many do not.

so dennis got the government links supporting the "off the books" funding of the iraq and afganistan conflicts. Like david walker wants to promote "talking with idiots" how about the links supporting your assertion.

BTW - Government for years, even before the bush's, reagans, clintons and whomever used misdirection in how funds were spent by allocating funds to innocuous sounding programs. Got supportive links?

American-20

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2008/09/Time-to-Move-Iraq-and-Afghanistan-Funding-into-the-Regular-Budget-Process

AM - First of all don't "ass u me" that because I disagree with you doesn't make me a conservative....actually more Libertarian than anything. Crony capitalism is crony capitalism whether there is a D or R in front of it. Thought maybe I could hold a rational conversation with you but so far, you've proven me wrong.

The extrapolation I disagree with is SBA loans create jobs therefore the Government created...jobs maybe your key sentence is: "the role the federal government actually plays in the economy." Yes, the SBA(Govt) guarantees those loans and I'm guessing taxpayers are on the hook for failed loans. But the entrepreneur is the one who envisioned the idea for a marketable product sold to a consumer(s). I agree the SBA loan is the vehicle for that business, but that is still the private sector that created those jobs.

The problem with all of this is campaign finance laws. I'm all for changing them. You?

Absolutely...you think yourself or I could actually win a congressional seat without being in someone else's pocket? Not exactly the founders vision. I realize it happens on BOTH sides but recently the President flew into San Diego, motorcaded to a very exclusive area and charged 35,000 per photo with him. Not picking on the President, but if that's what any citizen has to do to get elected to any office, that is pretty sad.

Remember neither party holds a monopoly on virtue.

For those of you who don't get it yet...I'm going to make it easy to understand. Romney is smart. Earned 2 Harvard degrees in the time it took Obama to get 1.

Understands the economy, reads it like a book.

Has executive experience, understands executive power and how to use it.

Governor, had to balance the budget, understand legislation, turned Mass. economy around and left with a surplus.

Olympic Games, turned completely around, saved it, left it with huge surplus. Most efficient and successful games in history.

Bain Capitol, created it, huge success today, created and turned around many companies.

Has integrity, honesty, and character as testified by all who have worked with him and all who know him. Gives selfless service always for free.

Gingrich--Legislator with ideas for bills and legislation, but no way of getting anything passed...as admitted in his interview with Greta VanSusteran last night.

No friends, no endorsements, those he worked with in congress will not support or endorse him. Clinton and Pelosi have spoken for him.

Only Speaker in American history to be found guilty of ethics violations for using his non-profit organizations to further his political career, fined $300,000.

Asked to resign by his own party and forced to leave Washington, thrown out of office.

Supported Hillary care, Al Gore global warming.

Unethical book deal while in congress.

Overseeing impeachment hearings for Clinton, while being threatened by Clinton with exposure for doing the same thing with Gingrich's staffers.

Shut down the government, losing his temper for not liking his seating place on Air Force One on the way home from Rabin's funeral.

Took millions of the people's money from Fannie Mae to soften up republicans on capitol hill and make the path for Fannie smoother before the Fannie Freddie downfall.

Had affairs on wife #1, argued with her in the hospital after uterin cancer surgery, left her and abandoned his children. Married wife #2 whom he had affair with. Had affairs on wife #2 and left her when she was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. Married wife #3 whom he had an affair with for 6 years and now wants to be first lady.

Gingrich now wants to be known by this generation as a statesman. Appears smart, knowledgeable. 60 years of bad temper, undisciplined arrogant behavior.

Does he have character, keep his oathes and honor the office he holds? No. Is he honest with his fellowman? No. Is his word his bond? No.

Good starter and talker, not a good finisher as evidenced by all above.

Long lengthy record in Washington as an insider, lobbyist, taking government money by the millions for shady jobs.

Definitely Romney 2012!!

BIGGEST MEDIA MYTH

The nomination is Romney's to lose. 100 miles outside Boston -- 100 miles outside DC -- outside the state of UT, no one believes he is the "one".

Mitt is the media darling, the chief recipient of MSNBC cheerleading, and the personal choice of NE moderates. None of this, a Republican nominee makes.

Grass roots do not want Mitt -- pure and simple.

Joe in Albany

That's because the average voter is a moron. How do you think Barry got elected??

<raising hand>

Oh! Mee!

<waving hand all around>

Meee! Call on me!! Meeeee!

"The same way Bush did..."

Sally Rocks classically

The libbies are all getting a little dizzy over the jobless rate dropping from 9% to 8.6% in November! How precious!

Should someone tell them that this is just a seasonal bump and happens every year because of the holidays? And that those seasonal numbers will drop again in January......

Sally... there you go again... living in the real world!

Why you wanna do that when libbieland is so much nicer... not real... but nicer. LOL!

I must admit though... it will be fun to watch their heads spin right off in January.

(show me the clown nose, fisty!)

Romney has a problem that can't be openly acknowledged, in that he does not profess Jesus Christ as his lord and saviour. Many republicans simply will not vote for a president that will not say they are Christian, they don't have to mean it, but they have to say it. Romney will be stuck where he is unless he flip flops on his religion, he won't be nominated by his party unless he can first be evangelized by his party.

"Unemployment rates drops to 8.6%:"

The fall in the jobless rate was aided by 315,000 people leaving the workforce.......Those who exited the workforce, many of whom gave up on looking for work, outnumbered the 278,000 people who found jobs

Since it takes about 160,000 new jobs per month, on average, just to keep up with normal growth in the work force, what this actually means is that we actually went BACKWARDS by about almost 200,000 jobs last month.

Only msnbc would consider this 'Great News' in a desperate attempt to prop up Obama. People who see through the 'smokescreen' of msnbc know that most of these jobs are only seasonal holiday jobs that will end in January. Of course, then msmbc will go back to reporting 'seasonally adjusted jobs' to mask the drop.

Their bias is too obvious.

So Roy by your numbers Bush should have created 15.3 million jobs during his 8 years instead of a couple million. Right ??!!

Meee! Call on me!! Meeeee!

"The same way Bush did..."

__________________________________

Obviously you are not aware of the standard FR lefty liberal talking point that the Supreme Court made GWB President.

Message body

Joe in Albany has requested membership in the Libs R Us group.

Please accept or reject their request.

Regards, The Newsvine Team

_______________________________________

Thanks Clara Bell. I did click on the link to join the libsrus group only to see if there was a purity test where I would have to swear my allegience to raising taxes, massive deficit spending on govt giveaway programs and regulating businesses to death. Your sincere rejection tells me all I need to know. I am not now, and never will be a lefty liberal. Thank you.

Hmmm... this is interesting. I guess the question that needs to be asked is this - why would Joe in Albany waste his time to try and become a member of Libs R US?

Why can Joe in Albany start his OWN group of like minded individuals?

Is it because Joe in Albany is too LAZY to do it himself... or does he find this Hillaryous to make a fool of himself to be exposed here?

I guess if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Is that right, Joe in Albany?

By the way, your 'answer' to Clara is lame. Not only do you have the door slammed in your face, but Clara's bootprint to remember her by.

It's kinda sad, really.

Oh well.

M.Fisher

<raising hand>

Oh! Mee!

<waving hand all around>

Meee! Call on me!! Meeeee!

"The same way Bush did..."

Uh, nope, Obama actually did get voted into office, he fed us Americans enough kool-aid to make us believe in him, and got enough votes to win.

Not to mention that SO many people were sick of Bush's BS as POTUS they would have voted for mickey mouse if that were the name on the democrat ticket, simply for the sake of not having another GOP there. I know I was one of those, although in truth I was really hoping Hillary would take it, I figured that under Bill Clinton's office he fixed what Reagan and Bush1 broke, maybe another Clinton could undo the damage that Bush 2 did.

But now it's been a few years, and the fact of the matter finally occured, it's true, doesn't matter who you choose, they're all the same Republicrat candidate, except for the one with over 30 years in Congress that stands by the Constitution 100% of the time in his voting record for that entire time in office. He predicted not only 9/11, but also the financial disaster we have been going through for these past few years, and his policies would have fixed both situations before they began! That's why I know Ron Paul is the countries last hope.

Joe you need to reread what I said … it is accurate. I said “Budget deficit”.

I have worked as an account and planning manager. I fully understand the meaning of a deficit and the difference between a deficit and a debt which many do not.

______________________________________

Regardless, the less than $200 billion 2007 federal deficit figure I quoted included ALL the war costs. So your original statement "The 2007 budget defecate did not include the billions of dollars for the wars" was addressing an issue that is irrelevant to my post. Just like your above statement about "the debt". I never referenced "the debt", why are you??

Moron.

JoAnnaSmith1

Since I am a small "c"

You are definatly a c... Id say you are a big C

Why can Joe in Albany start his OWN group of like minded individuals?

_________________________________

Because conservatives don't need the validation of group-think from "like minded individuals" like lefty liberals do.

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio "So Roy by your numbers Bush should have created 15.3 million jobs during his 8 years instead of a couple million. Right ??!!"

No, but lets look at the numbers from the OFFICIAL government Bureau of Labor Statistics site;

Average jobs in 2000 (Clinton's last year) = 136,891,000.

Average jobs in 2008 (Bush's last year) = 145,362,000, for a net GAIN of 8,471,000 jobs (includes jobs last at the end of 2008).

Average jobs in 2010 (after 2 years of Obama) = 139,064,000, for a net LOSS 6,298,000 jobs.

The government site to verify these facts is as follows;

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf

Just look at Employed - Total for each year.

Sorry if they don't agree with your 'pre-conceived notions', or the media's 'spin'.

roy wilson, do you know what an "economic contraction" is?

and it was not Obama that caused it.

Hmmm, unemployment number is down? I'll bet BO takes credit for that. He hasn't taken credit for anything else in three years. How can we be sure that wasn't something Bush caused????

LMAO Roy puts forth undisputable data and Dan deflects to some hidden blame bush comment

Because conservatives don't need the validation of group-think from "like minded individuals" like lefty liberals do.

that's why they have faux news, rush limp-bag, gone beck, etc. people that tell conservative drones how to think in the first place so they don't need "group validation".

Anna Molly, I agree the SBA is a fine government organization and I suppose you could argue that it picks winners or losers from a government perspective although I dont see this as the government creating jobs. The jobs are still being created by private enterprise using the good credit of the USA to obtain the necessary financing that might not be obtainable somewhere else. Its similar to the government providing low interest financing for student loans that allow personal success from the education a student might achieve. No one argues that the government doesnt pick winners or losers as it does everyday in every bureaucracy from the tax code subsidizing people with kids over childless taxpayers or homeowners, oil companies, farmers etc. It picks winners and losers in the criminal code. Why does a crack seller get more time than a meth seller? I think when it comes to financial winners and losers its exacerbated by picking individual winners and trying to determine the outcome. Instead of acting like the SBA with GM and Chrysler, the government went ahead and circumvented law with a political favor for the unions by giving them ownership over the lenders. Its picking Solyndra and yes two wrongs dont make a right with Halliburton. Its trying to skew the outcome rather than provide the spark for investments and align incentives appropriately. But the SBA is a fine organization that its biggest fault is the typical application process and bureaucracy needed to get approved thats inherent in most government organizations.

Newtsie may in fact be the GNOP nominee, but there is NO way in hell this country is going to elect someone who advocates child slavery!

Unemployment rates drops to 8.6%

That bit of news is sure to cause the RWNJ's some indigestion over their breakfast! lol

Yuck yuck, Fisty! "advocates child slavery??? LMFAO...Where do you get this garbage? Pull it out of your diaper?

No prob with the employment stats either, witchy one! Wait'll the Jan and Feb stats come out and all the temps are laid off... Then there's the 330,000 who got dropped from unemployment roles!

Go ahead girly, take your shot, but keep the sights out of the usual gutter.

tony, newt advocates eliminating the anti child-slavery laws, what does that sound like to you?

anyone for farming out their kids to make a few bucks? newt says its OK.

Wait'll the Jan and Feb stats come out and all the temps are laid off... Then there's the 330,000 who got dropped from unemployment roles!

not going to happen, that rate was already adjusted for the seasonal job change. sorry to burst your idealogical bubble, but the economy is slowly recovering despite Bush and his cronies best attempts to destroy it.

Sorry danwill, but with our debt continuously growing, Europe on the brink of economic failure, and a POTUS that choses to sit it out on the golf course and the campaign trail, we are in for some hard times ahead like you ain't never seen before! I truly hope I'm wrong, but I (and many others on the left and right) fear the worst is yet to come! Oh, and get over your Bush BS, will ya!

The 1 percent love Republicans"

So Roy, are the numbers the end of the story? Hardly. Bush's first few years were a net loss of jobs due to the tech bubble bursting and then 9/11. Was this Bush's fault? No.

Then what happened? The housing bubble started to grow which helped turn the economy around and allowed jobs to finally be added under Bush's administration. Then just 2 months before his 2nd term was up, the world was hit by the financial crisis . This lead to massive layoffs at the beginning of 2008.

Those layoffs would have occurred regardless of who became president.

Oh, and there were warnings throughout Bush's terms about the bubble even by Ron Paul as early as 2001. In 2006 Bush's reply to the housing bubble was this " If houses get too expensive, people will stop buying them". It shows the level of understanding the man brought to everything....which isn't very much.

jinsd --

AM - First of all don't "ass u me" that because I disagree with you doesn't make me a conservative....actually more Libertarian than anything

You're too wound up with labels.

What exactly is a libertarian but a Republican who is conservative on economics and liberal on everything else -- in that weird sort of ways that libertarians have.

You're obviously way too wound up with labels. A rose is a rose is a rose. And an "ass" is an "ass" is an "idealogue."

And your purity of ideology puts you way too much in denial as to what the SBA's role is in developing business, judging by the way you had to torture your response to make it come out like the SBA plays no role at all.

That's just plain hogwash.

You should try telling that to the small businesses represented in that room yesterday. They'd laugh your purist ideology right out of the room.

You know that many of them would never have gotten the chance to try out their entrepreneurship if left solely to private sector purists like you.

Theories are all good till they ain't.

Feisty and friends.

It is clear that you feel your doing a great service to MSLSD. As a matter of fact you are. You have helped develop its reputation as the Least credible news source and most dispicable blog on line.

Have you ever contemplated adulthood ?

You and your cronies show that any attempt at partisanship in humanity is doomed. So the only way is your way...good luck!!!

Kirk --

Instead of acting like the SBA with GM and Chrysler, the government went ahead and circumvented law with a political favor for the unions by giving them ownership over the lenders.

Try again, Kirk.

A less ideological way of saying this would be to say that the government favored WORKERS over lenders, in order to save the greater economy from the disaster that would have occurred had all those folks lost their jobs.

But when you say it that way, you can't make it sound evil enough, can you, Kirk?

Jeez AM, you're to tightly wound to even attempt to hold an adult conversation. Mix in some critical thinking once in while instead of just launching into a rather immature, juvenile screed. Are you capable of holding a rational conversation with someone who doesn't necessarily agree with you?

In no way did I minimize the role of the SBA...but in your typical hyper partisan trite mind you choose to attack, attack , attack which is a sign of a very small and insecure person.

My point is the SBA or the government didn't actually create the job. SBA is a great example of Government helping the PRIVATE sector but the end of the day it's still a private sector job.

Government subsidies to large corporations in return for political favors now that is a waste of taxpayer money.

I think Metamucil is on sale...kind of remind me of Len Goodman from DWTS...

Have a nice weekend

no text...double post...it is Friday after all

I wonder how many people RETIRED in November? I know of two on my street,...

nahh,...people couldn't have POSSIBLY left the workforce for any reason other than downturn, right?

Dennis,

It is just STUNNING to know that the debt grew by over 5 Trillion dollars under W and yet those budgets were just so darn pretty and balanced,...priceless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration

nahh, it never happened,...man those W years were Golden, weren't they? I mean like Showers of Gold.

jinsd --

My point is the SBA or the government didn't actually create the job. SBA is a great example of Government helping the PRIVATE sector but the end of the day it's still a private sector job.

Well, golly ... Where exactly did I say it wasn't?

But that was NEVER the point. The point is that purists -- like you, I "ass u me" (your word, not mine) -- believe that government should have no role AT ALL in private sector business.

Government only interferes and "reg u lates," according to some of the fine conservative -- and libertarian -- minds out here.

Once in a while it's good to make them confront their delusions.

If the shoe fits ....

I think Metamucil is on sale...kind of remind me of Len Goodman from DWTS...

Don't be presumptuous. You're not even close to being in the same league as what I deal with day in and day out.

I was only playing with you.

Because you seem to be the one with your panties in a twist.

But to be frank, it wasn't all that much fun. Try again next week, okay?

Government subsidies to large corporations in return for political favors now that is a waste of taxpayer money.

p.s. I agree. Let's start with oil companies and Halliburton, and then move on to Koch Industries. You down with that?

danwill "roy wilson, do you know what an "economic contraction" is? and it was not Obama that caused it."

Yes, I know what an 'economic contraction' is. I have taken numerous economics classes. In fact, one of my favorite classes of all time was an economics class in my MBA program, where we had to make our own detailed forecast of GDP, including all of its major components, with detailed assumptions and backup.

As for 'it was not Obama that caused it' - Nor was it Bush that caused it - in fact, Bush made numerous attempts to stop the loose lending nonsense - starting just 3 months after he took office in 2001, as I will document in my next post.

J.Heron "Oh, and there were warnings throughout Bush's terms about the bubble even by Ron Paul as early as 2001"

And even Bush warned in April 2001, and numerous times thereafter, about the possibility of a housing crisis, but Democrats in Congress poo-pooed the idea. Here's a 'history lesson - with Detailed sources;

For those who want to blame the Bush Administration for lack of concern over the Sub-Prime mortgage crisis until it was too late, consider this:

2001 April (Only 3 months after Bush took office): The Bush Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE (Government Sponsored Enterprise) could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)

2002 May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003 February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.

2003 September: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

2003 September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New York Times, 9/11/03)

2003 October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)

2003 November: Then-Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

2004 February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital and calls for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore … should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

2004 February: Then-CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)

2004 April: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue." At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages. I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there." ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker, 4/21/04)

2004 June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

2005 April: Then-Secretary Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America … Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)

2005 July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International, 7/28/05)

2007 August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, the White House, 8/9/07)

2007 August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," The New York Times, 8/11/07)

2007 December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, the White House, 12/6/07)

2008 February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

2008 March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

2008 April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

2008 May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further. "Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)

"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)

"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

2008 June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)

2008 July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

2008 September: Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as Senator Dodd questions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years." (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover," Bloomberg, 9/9/08)

Congress had for years blocked attempts at stronger regulation and blocked reform of the Federal Housing Administration.

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized the President's warning saying: "these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis ... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)

Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)

President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems. Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.

Political contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac overwhelmingly supported Democratic officials - in particular members of Democratic leadership:

Since 1989, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) has received $165,400 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, "Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers," Center For Responsive Politics' "Capital Eye" Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/11/08)

Since 1989, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has received $77,000 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, "Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers," Center For Responsive Politics' "Capital Eye" Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/11/08)

Since 1989, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has received $56,250 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, "Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers," Center For Responsive Politics' "Capital Eye" Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/11/08)

Anna - Seems we have gotten off on the wrong foot...

believe that government should have no role AT ALL in private sector business.

Yes I am admittedly a constitutional purist but I don't neccesarily believe that the Federal Govt. has NO role in the private sector. I see now where I may have come off as the "get the GOVT the he double hockey sticks out of the way" of business.

I believe in a limited role of the Federal Government in the private sector. Now that is a broad statement and I'm sure we'll got round and round but I'm game.

Seriously, I'm not as tightly wound as I came off today...If the "what I go through" daily" is in reference to this blog then I can see where you have to go "shields up"

BTW "ass u me" comes from "Bad News Bears in Breaking Training" when Walter Matthau said " never assume that way you don't make an @ss out of u or me" wrote it on a chalk board as ass|u|me.

Peace

Roy Wilson

Very informative post, but I am afraid Your efforts to educate the Dems will be in vain, kind of like trying to give a set of encyclopedias to pigs, They will have no idea of the value of the information they have been given, will probably just look upon it with simple minded humor because they can't figure it out or eat it, so then in the end they will just poop all over it and babble among themselves about other how silly it was for You to give them such useless things.