Chapter 480 in the book of you can’t make this stuff up!

It’s been reported that Santorum has picked up a ‘major’ endorsement in IA.

Was that before or after he made this comment?

“If hunger is a problem in America, then why do we have an obesity problem among the people who we say have a hunger program?” Santorum asked.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/12/07/383788/santorum-we-dont-need-food-stamps-because-obesity-rates-are-so-high/

What does it say about us as a country, when we have millions of children going to bed hungry?

I would ask if conservatives have any shame at all, however, I already know the answer…

Not only should you be embarrassed… you have the audacity to call yourselves Christian!

Oh well, we can always eat the ‘chicken-salad’ Boehner is serving up;

But in private, Boehner seems to hold a different view. Politico reports that in a closed-door GOP meeting this morning, Boehner referred to an extension of the payroll tax holiday as “chicken-@!$%#,” saying he wanted to tack on unrelated legislation favored by Republicans to make it palatable:

Speaker John Boehner referred to the package he’s putting forward as turning “chicken-sh — into chicken salad,” according to people attending the meeting in the Capitol basement Friday morning.

If chicken salad isn't your preference, there are always the turd sandwiches!

Although, judging from the comments by the RWNJ's they tend to leave a nasty taste in their mouths!

FR: Does Money Matter?

*** Where the ad spending stands: By the way, with that new ad buy by the pro-Romney Super PAC, Restore Our Future, here is where the spending race stands, according to ad-tracking data First Read has obtained:

TOTAL: Perry $5.6 million, Make Us Great Again (pro-Perry) $3.1 million, Paul $2.6 million, Our Destiny (pro-Huntsman) $1.4 million, Restore Our Future (pro-Romney) $790,000, Romney $688,000, Gingrich $233,000, Bachmann $166,000, and Santorum $23,000. (Note: While Restore Our Future says it will buy $3.1 million over the next three weeks, the data show it will a purchase of $790,000 for one week.)

IOWA: Perry $4.4 million, Make Us Great Again $1.3 million, Paul $1.2 million, Restore Our Future $790,000, Romney $323,000, Gingrich $233,000, and Santorum $17,000.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Our Destiny $1.4 million, Paul $430,000, Romney $365,000, and Perry $234,000.

Apparently you guys think it does.

Geez, who really cares?

"If he doesn't understand the difference between public borrowing to create demand and private capital to create jobs he should not be in charge."

Amen. Just look at all the jobs that have been crated with 'private capital' the last several years!

Oh, did you mean OVERSEAS? Oops- never mind.

GOP Have A Greedy, Crackpot, War on the Middle & Poor Class

House Republicans May Mandate Drug Testing As Condition Of Continuing Unemployment Benefits

Dec 8, 2011

In an effort to drastically reduce the welfare rolls and make it more difficult for struggling families to receive government benefits, GOP governors and legislators have pushed mandatory drug testing laws. Not only do welfare recipients have to pass drug tests before they can collect benefits, they often have to pay for the test themselves, and will only be reimbursed by the state later if they pass.

Now House Republicans are considering making their vote to reauthorize unemployment insurance contingent on a mandatory drug testing requirement:

The proposal comes as Congress is mulling a reauthorization of federal jobless benefits for people out of work six months or longer. House Republicans have been drafting legislation, but the details have not been released. [...]

On Thursday morning, [spokesman for Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) Michael] Steel told HuffPost in an email he didn’t know whether the forthcoming unemployment legislation would include Kingston’s drug testing idea. A spokesman for the Republican leader of the House Ways and Means committee, which oversees unemployment insurance, could not confirm details of the bill.

Steel said on Wednesday that Republicans are looking to “reform” unemployment insurance before they will reauthorize benefits that are set to expire at the end of the year.

Despite their unwillingness to raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires, Republicans have been reluctant to extend unemployment insurance and the payroll tax break that middle class families depend on more than ever. President Obama has noted that if Republicans vote no, middle class families will have to pay an additional $1,000 in taxes next year.

Earlier this year a federal judge halted Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s (R) mandatory drug testing policy on constitutional grounds. Only 2.5 percent of welfare applicants failed the test, which Huffington Post notes is “a far lower rate of illicit drug use than the national average of 8.7 percent.”

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/12/08/385455/house-republicans-may-mandate-drug-testing-as-condition-of-continuing-unemployment-benefits/
=============================================================================
Coupling that with these mean spirited idiots suppressing the vote for Blacks , minorities, elderly, and student you'll have every reason for all the Tea Nuts to wear an albrtross around their necks. I wonder if the disgraced Florida Governor does the repub who introduced this bill own a clinic or is getting paid by healthcare lobbyist

Wisconsin Voter ID Law May Force 84-Year-Old Woman To Pay $200 To Get A Voter ID

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/12/05/381885/wisconsin-voter-id-law-may-force-84-year-old-woman-to-pay-200-to-get-a-voter-id/

Bev; A poll taken on 12-2- 11 says 54% Jewish Isrealis support President Obama. That's a 29 swing, in 2010 it was 39.

Bev, Dear, you do realize that Israeli's can't vote in our Presedential elections?

Don't you?

@dbo

True. That 800B he borrowed has really succeeded in creating all those sustainable government jobs. What is the latest statistic the WH trots out?

" Over the last 15 months we've created over 2.1 million private sector jobs. "

Why no statistics on all those government jobs created or saved?

BTW How did the government create all those private sector jobs? Investment in Green Energy? Probably not. You have any ideas? Must have been those evil corporations. Maybe the President is including those overseas n\jobs you keep bringing up.

That 800B he borrowed

How much of the 800 billion comprised TAX CUTS?

Why'd he have to BORROW it (the 800B), Alan?

Boehner needs to shut up. He has no conception of what the average American is going through every day just to survive. Get off the golf course and out of the tanning booth and spend your time discovering what the "common" people of this Nation really need.

Enjoy what's left of your Speaker position because Nancy Polosi will be in your seat in 2012.

Obama in 2012.

Alan - Expanding Government Jobs … NOT !!

History of the Federal workforce on average (Excluding military personnel):

Key: President <> (Average Govt. Employees) <> (Population) <> (Percent of Population)

Reagan <> 2.90 mil <> 237.5 mil <> 1.23%

Obama <> 2.78 mil <> 308.7 mil <> 0.90%

Alan, NJ

Bev, Dear, you do realize that Israeli's can't vote in our Presedential elections?

Don't you?

Do you realize the difference between voting and an opinion? Not only that opinion has influence;dope.

Beverly, watching President Obama smack down the GOP candidates yesterday made my day.

Unfortunately, Alan, he did say it. Even worse, he does believe it.

Explains everything about why all his economic policies have exacerbated, rather than ameliorated, the economic crisis.

He's an economic illiterate, unable to truly evaluate competing plans put before him. Therefore, he buys into whatever plan appeals to his prejudiced view of what "should" work- heavily based on feel good, blue sky policies.

When they fail, he does not recognize that failure as inherent in the plan- he seeks to blame others. The ill-will of republicans. George Bush. Tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes. Not himself. Never his own inadequacies.

Now, we're on "fairness". Nice, ephemeral term- like "hope", and "change". Tell me, though, what is "fairness"? Is it "fair" that some have done without certain amenities in order to save the maximum for retirement- while others have not? Does Obama think it only "fair" to take the 401k money from those who saved, to redistribute to those who have not saved?

Look at his job creation statement, and tell me with a straight face he will not.

He thinks it is "fair" to help the middle class, while punishing the "rich". Nice, ephemeral statement. Tell me, who is middle class? Who is rich? Who, for that matter, is working class, or poor? The problem with the term middle class is, it means many things to many people.
http://factcheck.org/2008/01/defining-the-middle-class/

It is for this reason that many people who thought they were safe from having their income redistributed by the most inept person to ever hold the job as president have now turned solidly against him.

They never thought they were "rich". Turned out, Obama thought otherwise. They should have listened when he defined those earning $200,000 a year as "millionaires and billionaires".

I guess they did not believe he was just that stupid. That, too, depends on your definition. Mine is, anyone who refuses to learn from his or her mistakes- goes so far as to not admit having made any mistakes, as Obama did when he intoned that he had made "all the right choices" on the economy.

He needs to be replaced- and will be, next year. Recovering from his ineptitude will take some time-but we recovered from Carter, so we'll recover from Obama, as well.

How much of the 800 billion comprised TAX CUTS?

But Fiesty, these were tax-cuts for the middle class and tax credits for the working poor. Similar to the pay-roll tax cuts that has big countdown clock on the WH web site. SURELY you are for those tax cuts?

BTW the President's chief architect of the stimulus proposed the tax cuts because

"Tax cuts, especially temporary ones, and fiscal relief to the states are likely to create fewer jobs than direct increases in government purchases. However, because there is a limit on how much government investment can be carried out efficiently in a short time frame, and because tax cuts and state relief can be implemented quickly, they are crucial elements of any package aimed at easing economic distress quickly."

Now I know you must agree with the above argument. It's from the Administration.

FR: Does Money Matter?

*** Where the ad spending stands: By the way, with that new ad buy by the pro-Romney Super PAC, Restore Our Future, here is where the spending race stands, according to ad-tracking data First Read has obtained:

TOTAL: Perry $5.6 million, Make Us Great Again (pro-Perry) $3.1 million, Paul $2.6 million, Our Destiny (pro-Huntsman) $1.4 million, Restore Our Future (pro-Romney) $790,000, Romney $688,000, Gingrich $233,000, Bachmann $166,000, and Santorum $23,000. (Note: While Restore Our Future says it will buy $3.1 million over the next three weeks, the data show it will a purchase of $790,000 for one week.)

IOWA: Perry $4.4 million, Make Us Great Again $1.3 million, Paul $1.2 million, Restore Our Future $790,000, Romney $323,000, Gingrich $233,000, and Santorum $17,000.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Our Destiny $1.4 million, Paul $430,000, Romney $365,000, and Perry $234,000.

Apparently you guys think it does.

Geez, who really cares?

I think the bigger question is why doesn't it bother you?

2012...the first presidential election since the Supreme Court botched Citizens United...will bring us "The Best Government Money Can Buy".

Really? How about we go back to our elected officials working for us and not just for themselves and the people who paid their bills?

But Fiesty, these were tax-cuts for the middle class and tax credits for the working poor.

Alan dear - I didn't ask WHO the tax cuts were for.

I asked you how MUCH of the 800 billion was comprised in tax cuts...

Surely a man of your vast knowledge is able to answer such a simple question... no?

Otherwise, you may resume talking out of your ass!

Newt also prefers 2 bathrooms in his hotel.

Why? I mean, maybe he's offended by someone else's bowel movements but, to hear him, it appears his s*** doesn't stink.

From the Heartland

Hello, everyone, and good morning.

While our local recall efforts percolate merrily away, now there is news – contrary to many of the naysayers here on this board – that 85 percent of teachers’ unions have voted to recertify, despite the fact that they no longer have automatic dues deduction available to them.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/most-school-employees-vote-to-recertify-unions-under-bargaining-law/article_a701e680-21f0-11e1-8d17-0019bb2963f4.html

And this strong recertification showing is despite the new requirement that at least 51 percent of total membership, not just those voting, had to vote in favor of recertification.

As for those teachers’ unions that didn’t vote to recertify –

Almost all of the 31 that failed were smaller unions of support staff or substitute teachers. Among them was the only union from Dane County seeking certification, the Sun Prairie Substitute Teachers Association.

….

Bill Froelich, a staff representative for two Mauston School District unions that certified, said it's not surprising that some support staff units failed to certify. Because they have lower incomes, fewer members paid dues, so they may not receive regular communication from the union, Froelich said. Also, staffers such as custodians are more difficult to contact than teachers because they work odd hours, he said.

Now while all of that has been happening, Republicans in the Wisconsin Legislature are pressing forward with their impressive “jobs” agenda –

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/proposal-would-allow-sampling-of-mini-shots-of-liquor-at/article_84a7ab1e-21dd-11e1-8d77-0019bb2963f4.html

Republican Rep. Joel Kleefisch of Oconomowoc is floating a bill that would allow for samples of half an ounce of liquor to be offered at retail outlets. Up to three samples at a time would be allowed, which is the equivalent of an average shot of liquor.

Kleefisch says in a letter sent to his colleagues on Thursday that the bill is intended to help liquor stores increase sales by exposing customers to new products. He says 43 other states allow sampling of liquor and none have reported any problems.

Yeah, that ought to create some jobs – for morticians, maybe.

And here’s what State Senate President Scott Fitzgerald claims will be the largest “jobs” bill brought forward in this term of the Legislature –

http://host.madison.com/news/local/environment/article_9a05d8a4-21c0-11e1-855a-0019bb2963f4.html?sourcetrack=moreArticle

State Assembly Republicans on Thursday introduced a bill that would make it easier for a proposed $1.5 billion, 700-job iron mine to move forward by limiting public legal challenges to the mine and exempting iron mining companies from some wetlands and other water protections.

"This is probably one of the biggest job bills we are going to pass this session," said Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald, R-Horicon, who joined several other Republicans to unveil the bill, which they say streamlines the process of getting a mining permit. "These jobs are desperately needed."

Critics, however, charged that the mining bill reduces environmental protections as well as public involvement in the permitting process. Under the proposal, the state Department of Natural Resources would have 360 days to act on a mining company's permit application. Also, the bill would eliminate legal challenges during the permitting process, exempt an iron mining company from having to protect high-quality wetlands and reduce some protections for lakes and rivers.

And, since this is such a positive deal, you’d think they’d want everyone to know about it, wouldn’t you?

Well, never mind.

"The Assembly Republicans have not been in communication with Senate Republicans or any other member of the committee as they've developed this legislation," Jauch said. "It will be very difficult to resolve differences between the two bodies if the Assembly Republicans don't have an appetite to compromise with those who disagree with them."

Jauch and others were also critical of the lack of public involvement in creation of the Assembly bill, especially the lack of a public hearing on the bill in northern Wisconsin and the rush to next week's hearing in Milwaukee.

"It's an insult that the public will be given only six days to review the bill and prepare comments and questions before the public hearing after the authors took six months drafting it behind closed doors."

I was going to say something about this, but somehow, I don’t think I need to. Res ipsa loquitur.

Have a lovely weekend, everyone, and be sure to stay out of those open pit mines. They can be treacherous, especially this time of year.

@Bev

Do you realize the differnce between voting and an opinion?

Yes

@dbo

He had to borrow because there was no money in the treasury because fiscal malfeasance of the previous administration. DBO, you'll never get me trying to defend the Bush Administration's fiscal policies. That's why I laugh so much when Obama supporters use Bush to defend the current Administration. When you use the argument Bush did it, you've lost the argument. And they do it all the time. On Obama's vacation, which personally I don't give a @!$%# about, they defend it by saying Bush took more. If Bush was wrong how is using him an argument to defend your behavior?

My attitude is "Go on vacation Mr President". No one will miss you.

@Dennis

No idea what you're trying to say. That the current Administration has grown government less than the Regan Administration? So what. The Regan Administration didn't spend 800B in futile effort to save state workers jobs.

You cannot be serious, noid.

Have you forgotten who financed Obama's last campaign- and who is financing this one? To refresh your memory, 75% of his campaign money came from big dollar donors- NOT the little people. Bid dollar donors who saw their "investment" returned with billions of taxpayer dollars. Solyndra, Fiskar Auto, LightSquared, Evergreen- any of those ring any bells?

You think he's doing anything differently this time? How many$38,500 a plate fundraisers has he held this year? How much taxpayer money has he spent campaigning around the country- because he declares these trips "not campaign stops"?

Please. Spare me the hypocrisy.

Noid, it does bother me. If you have paid any attention to my comments regarding Campaign Finance here.

It is disgusting. No private money. Let them run on their records (and that includes sitting Presidents. Why does Obama need a billion dollars to get re-elected? Can't be because he doesn't have name recognition.) and may the best person win.

Maybe we found something we agree on.

Both Newt'rs and Mittens NEED two bathrooms - one for flipping the other for flopping.

Obama's Fairy Tale

"We are greater together when everyone engages in fair play, everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share."

Does Obama even read his speeches before he gives them, or is he just this detached?

"We are greater together … "

Coming from a president that demonizes the rich, the corporations, the job creators ….

Coming from a president that literally told his supporters to "punish the enemy" (his opposition) …. A guy that mocks Americans – "clinging to their Bibles and guns", "slurpees", they can "ride in the back" …

Coming from …. literally … the most divisive president in Gallup history.

"when everyone engages in fair play …."

Coming from the guy that pulled every trick to ram through his healthcare legislation, from the backroom deals with the AMA, AARP …. The Cornhusker Deal to the Louisiana Purchase …. "Deemed" to pass instead of actually passing …. How fair is this to the over 800,000 even your CBO says will lose their jobs?

Coming from the guy that when he lacks the support of the American people, when he cannot advance his agenda through legislation simply states "there is more than one way to skin a cat" and executes through executive fiat, through the EPA, through regulatory agencies his agenda - the guy that ignores federal judge's orders on moratoriums, ignores contempt orders, wantonly and capriciously cancels legal leases and permits to advance his agenda … all usurping Congress, the democratic process and against the will of the American people.

"Everyone gets a fair shot"

Tell that to business that has your massive boot of new regulations on the back of their neck in a time of economic crisis.

Tell that to the Gulf workers you put out of work, tell that to the energy workers in Alaska and Texas and Utah and Ohio – who could be working from the east coast to the west coast, tell that to 1.4 million in the coal industry who will be losing their jobs due to Cross-State ….

Tell it to the unemployed in S. Carolina where you are stopping Boeing …. Got a tweet for the little guys at Gibson Guitar.

Tell it to the unemployed who have their tax payer dollars going to Finland to build electric 2 seat sports cars, along with billions wasted on your buddy billionaire bundlers' other green crony projects.

Tell it to the unemployed who had $10 million of their STIMULUS dollars go to buy assault rifles for the Mexican cartels… to advance your gun control agenda?

Are any of the affected millions and millions referenced above getting a fair shot?

Millions of lives being destroyed, all at the expense of your big government agenda.

That fair?

"Everyone does their fair share"

Just get out of the way and America will be fine.

Payroll $1000 tax break for 160 milliona and unemployment insurance

adds up to a lot of spending cabbage that keeps rolling around in our economy.

Creates demand, puts money back into businesses and creates hiring.

About jobs touted to be created Despite Transcanada making much of 'lots of union jobs', the Independent Cornell Global Labor Institute says the pipeline will produce:

"between 50 and 1400 temporary construction jobs....The operating costs for KXL are very minimal and based on the figures provided by TransCanada for the Canadian section of the pipeline,
the new permanent US pipeline jobs in the US as few as 50".

Yes, FIFTY JOBS according to the ICGL.

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/11/04/362056/fact-check-keystone-xl-tar-sands-pipeline-isnt-a-job-creator

What we all know is that it will make a lot of money for the oil companies.

If this is the Presiden's understanding of how the economy works we're @!$%#ed.

__________________________

Yeah, we're @!$%#ed.

That's been clear for over three years now.

@Fiesty

Alan dear - I didn't ask WHO the tax cuts were for.

I asked you how MUCH of the 800 billion was comprised in tax cuts...

300B roughly of which the

provision

Individual tax cuts

$400 payroll tax credit for workers earning up to $75,000; married couples filing jointly get $800 for income up to $150,000

was the largest at 116B. Of course the 300B included all those tax credits for green energy as well.

Money well spent you think or just trying to deflect....using the old Karl Rove blogging tactics again?

Alan, NJ --

If he doesn't understand the difference between public borrowing to create demand and private capital to create jobs he should not be in charge.

So, okay, then, Mr. Jobs Creator, where are all those jobs you and your fellow supply-siders have been promising us for at least the past ten years in exchange for all the favorable tax and other economic policies that you've been given?

If you really think about this honestly, I suspect you won't like the answers much.

Introspection can be such an itch, can't it?

" there was no money in the treasury because fiscal malfeasance of the previous administration"

AKA the 'Bush Tax Cuts. Gottcha., and thanks. At least it looks like you do not subscribe to the 'all this damage hapapened in the last 3 years' nonsense being peddled daily, and we appreciate it.

You cannot be serious, noid.

Have you forgotten who financed Obama's last campaign- and who is financing this one? To refresh your memory, 75% of his campaign money came from big dollar donors- NOT the little people. Bid dollar donors who saw their "investment" returned with billions of taxpayer dollars. Solyndra, Fiskar Auto, LightSquared, Evergreen- any of those ring any bells?

You think he's doing anything differently this time? How many$38,500 a plate fundraisers has he held this year? How much taxpayer money has he spent campaigning around the country- because he declares these trips "not campaign stops"?

Please. Spare me the hypocrisy.

Did you see me pick a side when I made my statements above? No, I don't believe you did.

...but that's the system. I would prefer that the President did not do the big fund-raisers but that's the system...and it's broken.

I know it...and apparently you know it, too.

P.S. - I figured my post would ellicit a "Yeah, But..." from someone like you. Thank you for not disappointing me.

" - one for flipping the other for flopping."

replace the 'f' on that last word with a 'p', please.

Money well spent you think or just trying to deflect....using the old Karl Rove blogging tactics again?

Thank you for chosing option #2 Alan!

For some reason, I am not surprised... lol

AM,

Yesterday, GOP blocking mining legislation (that would prevent another disaster);

"One day after executives at the Upper Big Branch mine were slapped with a $200 million settlement for their role in the death of 29 miners last year – Republicans are blocking legislation to prevent another mining disaster.

Last year – Democrats in the House and Senate introduced critical legislation that is necessary to make mining safer in America. Since then though – the legislation has gone nowhere". (Hartmann)

@AM

So, okay, then, Mr. Jobs Creator, where are all those jobs you and your fellow supply-siders have been promising us for at least the past ten years in exchange for all the favorable tax and other economic policies that you've been given?

We had great jobs figures from 2003 - 2007. Do I think it was because of the tax cuts or the fact that Bush basically ran a deficit driven economy with the help of a housing bubble is speculation. The jobs went due to the credit crunch brought on by the bubble bursting.

As DBO said above, this has been brewing since 2000. I didn't agree with Bush (or Cheney on deficits don't matter) and I think Obama has been just as bad. One side spends money it doesn't have to finance tax cuts and the other spends money it doesn't have on the same tax cuts AND a phony stimulus. Meanwhile, the demographic time bomb that will bankrupt the country just gets closer.

What's worse is that Obama obviously hasn't clue and the alternatives being offered are a joke so I don't see how things are going to improve because even a natural improvement in the business cycle ain't going to mask the deficits of medicare and social security.

What does it say about us as a country, when we have millions of children going to bed hungry?

Yet the free market system we have has provided enough wealth that even the very poorest, the bottom 5% OF THE POOR have wealth greater than 70% of the world's population.

In addition 57% of that group moved up the economic ladder within a decade - it was only temporary.

Any of your socialist countries top that?

Alan, NJ

• Obama: Jobless Benefits Will Create More Jobs Than Pipeline

If this is the Presiden's understanding of how the economy works we're @!$%#ed.

From what I've read, the pipeline will create only a few hundred permanent jobs, and mainstream economists seem to agree that cutting jobless benefits is a job killer. Even the Republican governor of Nebraska is opposed to the pipeline. The reason were @!$%#ed is that too many gullible people believe the baloney Boehner is feeding them.

Here's what the Republicans don't want you to know:

http://mediamatters.org/research/201112080014?frontpage

Wash. Post: Based On TransCanada's Numbers, "The Number Of People Employed" Would Actually Be 6,500. A November 5 article in The Washington Post reported that TransCanada CEO Russ Girling "said Friday that the 13,000 figure was actually not a true job number, but actually accounted for 'one person, one year.'" The Post added that "if the construction jobs lasted two years, the number of people employed in each of the two years would be 6,500."

Six thousand five hundred jobs is more than I recalled reading about, but it's far short of the number of jobs that the Republicans want to kill by messing with unemployment insurance and the payroll tax hike they want to impose on the middle class to pay for their tax cuts for the wealthy.

Denial is a terrible thing.

TO SEE A LIVE CLOCK,

WITH HANDS MOVING SECOND-BY-SECOND ON HOW MUCH THE BUSH TAX CUTS COST, go to:

http://costoftaxcuts.com/

Jody, Iowa

Beverly, watching President Obama smack down the GOP candidates yesterday made my day.

Jody,

This is funny too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quh7Bt8p9w4&feature=endscreen&NR=1

Houston, The key is how many jobs in the United States. Not Canada.

The Independent Cornell Global Labor Institute that says the Keystone Pipeline will produce only:

50 permanent jobs in the United States.

WITH HANDS MOVING SECOND-BY-SECOND ON HOW MUCH THE BUSH TAX CUTS COST, go to:

They were renewed by the Obama Administration with the help of an overwhelming Democratic congress in 2010. In addition the Obama Administration cut the payroll tax in 2011.

So basically the current Administration has more unfunded tax cuts than the previous Administration.

@Houston! Who cares if there are only 6,500 (or even 50) private sector jobs contributing taxes and not costing the country unemployment benefits paid for by borrowing. If you don't understand the difference I can't help. But keep defending this clueless Administration. I'm sure they appreciate your efforts.

Payroll $1000 tax break for 160 milliona and unemployment insurance adds up to a lot of spending cabbage that keeps rolling around in our economy. Creates demand, puts money back into businesses and creates hiring.

No it doesn't. Little temporary tax cuts have never worked.

It doesn't even make sense that it would. You could argue that taking away the tax cuts would hurt, but how does leaving it the same create more demand - it's the same at best.

"between 50 and 1400 temporary construction jobs....

As little as 50 jobs, huh? Only 50 guys to build a 2,000 mile pipe line - (Obviously they aren't union workers .) What's the pipe cost couple a million, huh?

Is the ICGL suggesting Martians are going to help build it?

Btw - So you you are all for the oil going to China, increasing our trade deficit, increasing our dependence on foreign countries .... higher prices for energy .... good stuff huh?

Hey, nisl,

You did a great take-down on Spanky yesterday. I hate his cruel, unrelenting taunting of others, and it was good to see him twist and turn as he got some of his own medicine. Maybe now he’ll understand how others feel when he does it to them. Not that he’ll change. It seems inbred in him, due to some childhood trauma, no doubt.

Alan: "If (Obama) doesn't understand the difference between public borrowing to create demand and private capital to create jobs he should not be in charge."

Alan, you said it.

@alan, don't confuse Feisty with facts, too stressful!

No, Bush signed in the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.

He did it in a time of war, which had never been done before. (Actually 2 wars.) Signed the 2003 after the his Iraq war started.

And President Bush did not pay for them, which had never been done before by any President.

The tax cuts in 2003 were skewed disastrously towards the high income-ers.

And today, they cost $11.6 Million per hour, every hour of every day.

Anna Molly

limiting public legal challenges to the mine and exempting iron mining companies from some wetlands and other water protections

Res ipsa loquitur, indeed!

Sounds like the same anti-environmental, anti-transparency forces are at work in Wisconsin as they are in Maine.

Origin:
1650–60; < Latin rēs ipsa loquitur literally, the thing itself speaks

Thanks Bev -

Obama/Biden, a can't lose ticket.

And then Biden in 2016. I love it.

Alan, NJ

My attitude is "Go on vacation Mr President". No one will miss you.

Alan, NJ

FOX NOISE will. Who will they have to bitch about 24/7? After all, FOX LOVES to make Much

Ado about stuffing nothing.

Much Ado about Stuffing

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-28-2011/much-ado-about-stuffing

Charles knocks it out of the park. Try running on Obama's record instead of tearing down others. Dems can't do that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-campaign-for-class-resentment/2011/12/08/gIQApYDagO_story.html

In the first month of his presidency, Barack Obama averred that if in three years he hadn’t alleviated the nation’s economic pain, he’d be a “one-term proposition.”

When three-quarters of Americans think the country is on the “wrong track” and even Bill Clinton calls the economy “lousy,” how then to run for a second term? Traveling Tuesday to Osawatomie, Kan., site of a famous 1910 Teddy Roosevelt speech, Obama laid out the case.

It seems that he and his policies have nothing to do with the current state of things. Sure, presidents are ordinarily held accountable for economic growth, unemployment, national indebtedness (see Obama, above). But not this time. Responsibility, you see, lies with the rich.

Or, as the philosophers of Zuccotti Park call them, the 1 percent. For Obama, these rich are the ones holding back the 99 percent. The “breathtaking greed of a few” is crushing the middle class. If only the rich paid their “fair share,” the middle class would have a chance. Otherwise, government won’t have enough funds to “invest” in education and innovation, the golden path to the sunny uplands of economic growth and opportunity.

Where to begin? A country spending twice as much per capita on education as it did in 1970 with zero effect on test scores is not underinvesting in education. It’s mis-investing. As for federally directed spending on innovation — like Solyndra? Ethanol? The preposterously subsidized, flammable Chevy Volt?

Our current economic distress is attributable to myriad causes: globalization, expensive high-tech medicine, a huge debt burden, a burst housing bubble largely driven by precisely the egalitarian impulse that Obama is promoting (government aggressively pushing “affordable housing” that turned out to be disastrously unaffordable), an aging population straining the social safety net. Yes, growing inequality is a problem throughout the Western world. But Obama’s pretense that it is the root cause of this sick economy is ridiculous.

As is his solution, that old perennial: selective abolition of the Bush tax cuts. As if all that ails us, all that keeps the economy from humming and the middle class from advancing, is a 4.6-point hike in marginal tax rates for the rich.

This, in a country $15 trillion in debt with out-of-control entitlements systematically starving every other national need. This obsession with a sock-it-to-the-rich tax hike that, at most, would have reduced this year’s deficit from $1.30 trillion to $1.22 trillion is the classic reflex of reactionary liberalism — anything to avoid addressing the underlying structural problems, which would require modernizing the totemic programs of the New Deal and Great Society.

As for those structural problems, Obama has spent three years on signature policies that either ignore or aggravate them:

●A massive stimulus, a gigantic payoff to Democratic interest groups (such as teachers, public-sector unions) that will add nearly $1 trillion to the national debt.

●A sweeping federally run reorganization of health care that (a) cost Congress a year, (b) created an entirely new entitlement in a nation hemorrhaging from unsustainable entitlements, (c) introduced new levels of uncertainty into an already stagnant economy.

●High-handed regulation, best exemplified by Obama’s failed cap-and-trade legislation, promptly followed by the Environmental Protection Agency trying to impose the same conventional-energy-killing agenda by administrative means.

Moreover, on the one issue that already enjoys a bipartisan consensus — the need for fundamental reform of a corrosive, corrupted tax code that misdirects capital and promotes unfairness — Obama did nothing, ignoring the recommendations of several bipartisan commissions, including his own.

In Kansas, Obama lamented that millions “are now forced to take their children to food banks.” You have to admire the audacity. That’s the kind of damning observation the opposition brings up when you’ve been in office three years. Yet Obama summoned it to make the case for his reelection!

Why? Because, you see, he bears no responsibility for the current economic distress. It’s the rich. And, like Horatius at the bridge, Obama stands with the American masses against the soulless plutocrats.

This is populism so crude that it channels not Teddy Roosevelt so much as Hugo Chavez. But with high unemployment, economic stagnation and unprecedented deficits, what else can Obama say?

He can’t run on stewardship. He can’t run on policy. His signature initiatives — the stimulus, Obamacare and the failed cap-and-trade — will go unmentioned in his campaign ads. Indeed, they will be the stuff of Republican ads.

What’s left? Class resentment. Got a better idea?

Backhouse

No, Bush signed in the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.

He did it in a time of war, which had never been done before. (Actually 2 wars.) Signed the 2003 after the his Iraq war started.

And President Bush did not pay for them, which had never been done before by any President.

The tax cuts in 2003 were skewed disastrously towards the high income-ers.

And today, they cost $11.6 Million per hour, every hour of every day.

As I said before, once you use Bush to justify the actions of the current Administration you've lost your argument. So Backhouse what has changed? The tax cuts were extended in 2010 by the current Administration at the same time as the current Administration escalated the war in Afghanistan. These tax cuts, nor the payroll tax introduced in 2011 are paid for, so what exactly has changed? The 'R' became a 'D' and Pete Townsend got it right. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

BTW Do you have a figure for how much interest we're paying for that stimulus?

FOX NOISE will. Who will they have to bitch about 24/7?

LOL

Don't know and don't care. Can't remember the last time I even channel surfed past Fox News.

Backhouse, Houston, et. al. -- You are all liars. This jackass of a president doesn't know a shovel ready job when it hits him in the face.

http://www.transcanada.com/keystone.html

Keystone XL is shovel-ready. TransCanada is poised to put 13,000 Americans to work to construct the pipeline - pipefitters, welders, mechanics, electricians, heavy equipment operators, among other jobs - in addition to 7,000 manufacturing jobs that would be created across the U.S. Additionally, local businesses along the pipeline route will benefit from the 118,000 spin-off jobs Keystone XL will create through increased business for local goods and service providers.

@ Backhouse -- thank you for that information. I think you can always tell something about people by what they are for and what they are against, and Republicans never surprise me much that way.

Alan, NJ --

Do I think it was because of the tax cuts or the fact that Bush basically ran a deficit driven economy with the help of a housing bubble is speculation.

Too funny and too easy. If it really was because of the tax cuts, those jobs would still be here, wouldn't they?

Where did they all go, Alan?

What's worse is that Obama obviously hasn't clue and the alternatives being offered are a joke so I don't see how things are going to improve

This is total and complete BS. As far as I know, the only problem is that the stimulus didn't go far enough. As I understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the economy has generated 3,000,000 (yes, million) new jobs since President Obama took office.

because even a natural improvement in the business cycle ain't going to mask the deficits of medicare and social security.

So typically clueless conservative. The business cycle is already showing signs of improvement.

But essentially, here's what you're arguing -- First we create these massive deficits by both raiding and starving those systems, then we complain about the deficits we've created and demonize the program recipients who didn't do anything wrong, and then, instead of coming up with some morally acceptable solution that doesn't punish the people we've hurt, we claim that we need to destroy those systems in order to "save" them.

Don't you ever get tired of peddling this garbage?

@ Amy -- The more things change, the more they stay the same.

bob 180 --

Yet the free market system we have has provided enough wealth that even the very poorest, the bottom 5% OF THE POOR have wealth greater than 70% of the world's population.

I'd love to see a source for those numbers. But what difference does it make when the POOR are still hungry?

Everything's relative, bobby. Except when you're hungry.

Bakhouse,

Are you embecile or a liar?

How many times do you need to see this?

Clinton’s best year, 2000, generated revenue of $2.025 trillion.

(After Bush’s tax cuts in 2003 had time to take effect:)

Bush’s revenue in 2005 was $2.153 trillion. 6% above Clinton’s best.

Bush’s revenue in 2006 was $2.406 trillion. 16% above Clinton’s best.

Bush’s revenue in 2007 was $2.568 trillion. 21% above Clinton’s best.

Bush’s revenue in 2008 was $2.524 trillion. 20% above Clinton’s best.

So how again, does that tax cut stuff “cost” trillions in revenue?

[Source was OMB, Historical Tables, Table 1.3, 25-MAR-11]

Here's more info: Relative to the actual situation when the tax cuts went into effect - during the recession.

Revenue in 2001 was $1.991 trillion.

Revenue in 2002 was $1.853 trillion.

Revenue in 2003 was $1.782 trillion.

Tax cuts

Revenue in 2005 was $2.153 trillion – UP 17%

Revenue in 2006 was $2.406 trillion – UP 26%

Revenue in 2007 was $2.568 trillion – UP 31%

Revenue in 2008 was $2.524 trillion – UP 29%

Bush had revenue in 2007 of $2.568 trillion with spending of $2.728 trillion for a deficit of $160.7 billion.

Obama had revenue in 2011 of $2.173 trillion with spending of $3.818 trillion for a deficit of $1.645 trillion – 10 TIMES Bush’s deficit!

And put this in your pipe and smoke it. You idiots are too stupid to realize that this president is a two-faced pr*&k that is playing both sides before the election to raise money from the oil industry and environmentalist whackos. The pipeline WILL be approved after the election no matters who wins.

http://www.transcanada.com/economic_benefits.html

Economic Benefits

An independent study finds that construction of the Keystone Gulf Coast Expansion Pipeline project should provide significant, positive contributions to U.S. energy security and the U.S. economy valued at over $20 billion. The Perryman Group study states that the proposed pipeline project should improve U.S. energy security with the ongoing benefit to the U.S. economy of a more stable source of consistent energy supply over an extended period of time.

The study further concluded that once the pipeline is operational, the states along the pipeline route are expected to receive an additional $5.2 billion in property taxes during the estimated operating life of the pipeline. The $7 billion pipeline project is expected to directly create more than 20,000 high-wage manufacturing jobs and construction jobs in 2011-2012 across the U.S., stimulating significant additional economic activity.

@bob -- I'd say -- both.

rightwingdoug

@alan, don't confuse Feisty with facts, too stressful!

rightwingdoug

Don't be a factoid

A factoid is a questionable or spurious—unverified, incorrect, or fabricated—statement presented as a fact, but with no veracity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factoid

Feisty is real. You on the other hand have no idea what's going on in real world

That was a good question Drive By - How many jobs have been created by private capital in the last 'several' years?

See my man, I kinda think it's a lot. But mayhaps you actually know?

Hey WCA - the obama administration didn't really suppress the reports on the Volt's battery fires, did they?

Well at least Obama is 'creating' a butt load of jobs - he needs an army to keep up with all the FOI requests he keeps getting.

Why happy days - Anna Molly has proclaimed the business cycle is on the way up.

Huh. Cause I see a stagnant GDP and durable good orders down. Oh and let's not forget about an ever contracting workforce.

Then of course there is the small matter of the housing crisis, which somehow seems to have totally slipped past Obama's notice.

Yep, things are looking up, eh AM?

Sure they are.

Clueless, convoluted and ignorant statements from Anna and Beverly are always humorous.

@Anna -- Amazing huh? You just proved my point of a mindless, shake your head cause it's so stupid remark after I posted about your clueless, convoluted arguments. What a ridiculous analogy. You really discredit yourself.

@ Ben --

If we built enough internment camps to house all of the illegal aliens who are in this country right now, and then we deputized enough people to round them all up, and then we kept them in the internment camps forever, it would create a lot of jobs, wouldn't it?

Does that, in your mind, mean we SHOULD do it?

Or are there some cases where the costs -- not necessarily measured in dollars, but maybe intangibles, like lives saved, or human dignity preserved, or environmental damage spared -- outweigh the benefits?

So, okay, then, Mr. Jobs Creator, where are all those jobs you and your fellow supply-siders have been promising us for at least the past ten years in exchange for all the favorable tax and other economic policies that you've been given?

If you really think about this honestly, I suspect you won't like the answers much.

Of all the people who could get away with demanding "honesty" from one's opponents on this board, you would be towards the bottom of that list AM. Let's look at the FACTS you conveniently ignore.

Wanna go back 10 years? Fine. In January 2001 when Bush took office non-farm employment stood at 132 million, then fell to 130 million in the aftermath of 9/11. In January 2008 – after the Bush tax cuts – non-farm employment had increased to 138 million. So the FACT is the economy was recovering from the impact of 9/11 and had created 8 million jobs – an outcome arguably enabled by the Bush tax cuts. The further fact that all these new jobs (and more) were wiped out by the economic meltdown is irrelevant to the issue that they were created in the first place under a policy regime you so detest.

Fast forward to today, why haven't job creators been doing their thing lately? Here's a thought: how about our leftist president who has systematically pushed cash-hoarding businesses into a historic hiring paralysis with nonstop talk of higher taxes, unprecedented budget deficits that added to the already unprecedented national debt, more regulations, them vs. us class-warfare rhetoric, threatened government shutdowns of private plants, and higher-priced energy. Let that thought incubate in your claptrap leftist mind for a while and maybe you'll start to see the light.

If it really was because of the tax cuts, those jobs would still be here, wouldn't they?

Like I said, honesty is not your strong suit.

Everything's relative, bobby. Except when you're hungry.

Anna,

Don't be as stupid as Feisty.

Da Noid

Newt also prefers 2 bathrooms in his hotel.

Why? I mean, maybe he's offended by someone else's bowel movements but, to hear him, it appears his s*** doesn't stink.

Da Noid,

I bet Callista doesn't either. Can you imagine that flousy being the First Lady? She has no class. She was messing around with him when the serial philander was trying to impeach President Clinton. Plus, Newt was married at the time.

But essentially, here's what you're arguing -- First we create these massive deficits by both raiding and starving those systems, then we complain about the deficits we've created and demonize the program recipients who didn't do anything wrong, and then, instead of coming up with some morally acceptable solution that doesn't punish the people we've hurt, we claim that we need to destroy those systems in order to "save" them.

Anna Molly is dead on accurate with this statement, thank you, you are one smart lady.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says: THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA'S 2009 STIMULUS PACKAGE

CONTINUES TO BENEFIT the struggling economy...

"By CBO's numbers, the $800 billion stimulus added up to 0.9 million jobs in 2009, 3.3 million jobs in 2010 and 2.6 million jobs in 2011. As the effects of the stimulus wind down, Obama has been pushing Congress to enact a $447 billion jobs bill that includes infrastructure spending and tax cuts."

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/195181-cbo-says-obama-stimulus-still-helps-economy
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office studies this stuff, so we don't have to.

This is total and complete BS. As far as I know, the only problem is that the stimulus didn't go far enough. As I understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the economy has generated 3,000,000 (yes, million) new jobs since President Obama took office.

So are you arguing that the stimulus failed, "it didn't go far enough", or that it worked "3,000,000 new jobs created"? BTW, How many net jobs have been created since President Obama took office?

But essentially, here's what you're arguing -- First we create these massive deficits by both raiding and starving those systems, then we complain about the deficits we've created and demonize the program recipients who didn't do anything wrong, and then, instead of coming up with some morally acceptable solution that doesn't punish the people we've hurt, we claim that we need to destroy those systems in order to "save" them.

I'm not trying to demonize anybody. I see that the math doesn't work, and it never did even before the deficits. What is even funnier about your argument is that it is this Administration that is raiding the SS system with it's payroll tax cut. Unless of course you admit that there never was a SS trust fund, as George W Bush did, and that all the revenues are the same.

Serious question. Do you accept that the SS and Medicare systems are unsustainable even in the absence of deficits? The problem is that because of DEMOGRAPHICS, not deficits, there is not enough workers to support the retirees at the current level of benefits. Now that we also have deficits, there is no money in the general revenues pot to cover the shortfall, not that there ever was for medicare. SS we could have covered.

2nd Serious Question. The fact that we live in the fiscal world as is, and not some parallel universe where Bush didn't happen, are there any changes to the entitlement systems that you will find acceptable?

@Beverly -- Mrs. Gingrich dresses with class. Michelle "junk in the trunk back shelf rump" Obama dresses like a dime store whore.

@Backhouse -- the CBO spouts out only what is given to it from the administration. What else would you expect but figures that lie coming from liars????? Did you believe the CBO when it said that the health care act would add to the deficit? Bet not. Can you say -- HYPOCRITE!!!!

Don't be as stupid as Feisty.

Now THAT is some funny sh!t! lol

The King of Ignorance & Arrogance labeling someone else as stupid...

Go back to pulling figures out of your ass booby - they are sooo impressive! ;o))

Isn't it a wee bit early to be hitting the Scotch already?

I was shown a "good time" by mr Blingrich! - newtissa pigg

bob - 180 --

Don't be as stupid as Feisty.

Oh, I assure you, bobby, I'm MUCH more stupid than Feisty.

But how about those hungry children, bobby?

Gotcha. ;-)

Morning Spanky, yes indeed it would appear that NHTSA held back on the reporting of thos crash fires for the Volt for what a former Director of NHTSA opined " Was due to the fragility of Volt sales at the time".

I guess they didn't want to put a dent in that 600-700 vehicles/month sales number for this gem.

BTW the difference between Prius and Volt isn't the battery, it's the containment system of the battery. i.e the packaging/structure surrounding the battery is not as robust as in the Prius causing the batteries to leak after a crash.

Ben-636050

Backhouse, Houston, et. al. -- You are all liars. This jackass of a president doesn't know a shovel ready job when it hits him in the face.

Ben

The GOP/ Tea nuts don't know President Obama killed bin Laden, about 30 of his operatives, and the Somali Pirates. But, the rest of the world does.

FYI:

Hypocrisy Alert: 128 House Republicans Take Credit for the Economic Bills They Opposed

http://www.dccc.org/page/content/hhof/

I have sat quietly all morning reading what has been posted here. And I have come to some conclusion that the so-called "conservative" posters love to make up facts, and could care less for the welfare of the country. As far as I can see, the only ones they care about is themselves. Screw America, just make sure I have what I want is their mantra.

Shame on you all.

By CBO’s numbers, the $800 billion stimulus added up to 0.9 million jobs in 2009, 3.3 million jobs in 2010 and 2.6 million jobs in 2011. As the effects of the stimulus wind down, Obama has been pushing Congress to enact a $447 billion jobs bill that includes infrastructure spending and tax cuts."

Did the CBO count these jobs? No. The CBO uses a model that assumes a 1.75 multiplier for every dollar spent by the government. So, when the government spends 800B, and this is fed into the CBO's black box model out come the jobs estimates. There has been no study using empirical evidence to confirm these figures.

Now am I trashing the CBO? No, I am just pointing out the difference between a computer model and the real world.

@Beverly -- Again you make my point of convoluted remarks coming from your key board. What the hell does that have to do with shovel ready jobs??? Besides, I recognize who was killed and I am a GOP conservative.

Oh, I assure you, bobby, I'm MUCH more stupid than Feisty.

Not in my opinion.

You see Bev I do know the difference!

Beverly,

They will keep nit-picking (shovel-ready, whatever) coz they canNOT see the big picture.

This global world economy is a big picture and they cannot see it. Think of it.

The President has brought back America's standing in the world AND saved us from tanking completely following the Great Bush Recession. They see it but they don't want to see it.

It's a case of the ould foggy-dew-in-yer-eye.

Dec 01, 2011: Chevy Volt Tops Consumer Reports' Owner-Satisfaction Survey

http://www.consumerreports.org/content/cro/en/consumer-reports-magazine-january-2012/owner-satisfaction.html

bob-1805084

If you can look at the war spending during the bush years, no matter how much revenues were up, it did not off set the money we spend on 2 wars.

also how much of the spending $3.818 trillion was on the afgan and Iraq wars.

Forrest - please tell us how cutting taxes starves anything?

See I have an income stream with allows me to buy stuff. Sadly it is not as much as I'd like - there is always more stuff out there.

But I live within my means. You know what else - sometimes I make more - so I can get more stuff, put more towards retirement and so forth. But sometimes it goes the other way. I have to cut back.

See Forrest the deficits are never CREATED by revenue, or absence of anticipated revenue. NOPE, deficits are created when you spend more than you have.

I never do it. You never do it. Anna Molley never does it.

And let's be clear - the is no moral argument for a pension or retirement fund. It is not you right to retire at 55 years ols and have others pay your freight.

That is just absurd. You want to retire, save you ducks.

Alan, NJ --

So are you arguing that the stimulus failed, "it didn't go far enough", or that it worked "3,000,000 new jobs created"?

Stop trying to put words in my mouth. I didn't say the stimulus failed completely. That's YOU. I have always said it failed only in that didn't go far enough.

Do you accept that the SS and Medicare systems are unsustainable even in the absence of deficits? The problem is that because of DEMOGRAPHICS, not deficits, there is not enough workers to support the retirees at the current level of benefits. Now that we also have deficits, there is no money in the general revenues pot to cover the shortfall, not that there ever was for medicare. SS we could have covered.

No. The fact is, and you KNOW it, that we wouldn't be having this conversation if we had merely kept the Clinton era tax rates. As for "demographics," that's a pretty silly argument coming from the side that has spent the past 30 years destroying the earning -- and therefore taxpaying -- capacity of the middle class. Demographics notwithstanding, we might have been able to sustain it, if you hadn't been so busy destroying unions, hoarding profits, and sending jobs overseas in droves.

And if we had made preservation of the middle class our key goal, we wouldn't have so many people in a position to be imperiled if we destroy SS and Medicare.

Try to stay awake. This is a natural consequence of where we've been heading the past 30 years.

Take some ownership in what you've wrought, Alan, instead of always trying to blame it on someone else. In fact, your whole argument demonizes the people who haven't done anything to create the problem, and you continue to insist that the most vulnerable should be the ones to suffer for the excesses of the most privileged.

The fact that we live in the fiscal world as is, and not some parallel universe where Bush didn't happen, are there any changes to the entitlement systems that you will find acceptable?

Yes. Raising the cap on payroll taxes for starters. Just remember, Alan, whose actions and policies CAUSED the "fiscal world as is."

If you keep that firmly in mind, it becomes a lot less palatable to ask those whose futures were severely damages by the mistakes and excesses of your side to pay for them, doesn't it?

Alan NJ:

@Houston! Who cares if there are only 6,500 (or even 50) private sector jobs contributing taxes and not costing the country unemployment benefits paid for by borrowing. If you don't understand the difference I can't help. But keep defending this clueless Administration. I'm sure they appreciate your efforts.

If you don't understand that this deficit spending is intended to be TEMPORARY, I can't help you. If the Republicans ever permit the economy to recover, the people now on unemployment will get jobs and start paying income tax again. You apparently are one of those gullible people who don't understand that while the US has a long-term deficit problem, it has an immediate jobs CRISIS.

Forrest,

Remember you're jawing with someone who says twice as much...

as the first word you thought of, minus the one he thinks you might, times the height of the Eiffel Tower and twice on Sundays.

(It's a lot of old twaddle, but he enjoys doing it, that's all.)

Hi Forrest now! Hope you're feeling pretty good after a' that's going on!

Yep Dennis - and every apple I phone owner, particularly the early adopter loved them too.

So what. To have purchased a Volt you have made a statement. It cost twice as much as the Cruz, which gets much better gas mileage.

But let's see how those folk feel in 8 years. See those batteries, should they not catch fire will have to be replaced, at a cost of $10k.

So you got a car that costs $40,000, that may catch fire, but will only get low 20's in mpgs, that has a big old $10,000 repair bill coming.

YEah, those guys should be very proud of their purchase.

FYI - I get surveys from car magazines asking me to rate my car. I always give them the highest marks, in the hope that stupid surveys like you cite to will pump up the re-sale.

Bob numbers,

Yet the free market system we have has provided enough wealth that even the very poorest, the bottom 5% OF THE POOR have wealth greater than 70% of the world's population.

WTF when did food stamps & welfare become part of the free market system???

Spanker.

See Forrest the deficits are never CREATED by revenue, or absence of anticipated revenue. NOPE, deficits are created when you spend more than you have.

1. The U.S. government is a far different entity then a family, and has far different accounting and budgeting then a family.
2. The deficits of the U.S. government can, and were, created by increasing spending and cutting revenue. Both added to the debt and deficits.
3. Study up, jr.

Bill, Fairfax --

Of all the people who could get away with demanding "honesty" from one's opponents on this board, you would be towards the bottom of that list AM.

Really?! Well, then, move over, buddy, and we can share the space.

@ Forrest -- Thanks for the kind words. They mean a lot, right now.

Alan NJ:

As I said before, once you use Bush to justify the actions of the current Administration you've lost your argument.

So, in Alan's Never-Never Land, the past has no influence on the present. And if you clap your hands, Tinkerbell will live and the damage that Bush and his robot-like GOP accomplices in Congress did to the economy will all go away as if by magic.

booby.

Bush had revenue in 2007 of $2.568 trillion with spending of $2.728 trillion for a deficit of $160.7 billion.

Obama had revenue in 2011 of $2.173 trillion with spending of $3.818 trillion for a deficit of $1.645 trillion – 10 TIMES Bush’s deficit!

Only a mindless, partisan drone would attempt to compare a year just before a recession, and just after a boom, with a year in a recovering economy.......recovering from the worst recession since the great depression.

Dumb, dee, dee, dumb, dumb, dumb.....

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

But your ignorant post does point out an important fact.

Most of the increased debt and deficits have nothing to do with this President's polices. Most of the debt and deficits are from the recession.

Study up, jr.....someday....

Alan.

@Houston! Who cares if there are only 6,500 (or even 50) private sector jobs contributing taxes and not costing the country unemployment benefits paid for by borrowing. If you don't understand the difference I can't help. But keep defending this clueless Administration. I'm sure they appreciate your efforts.

You simply do not understand basic economics.

The unemployment benifits in a recoverying economy is extremely stimulative. ALL of that money basically goes into the economy. Removing it, would remove a serious amount of capital from the economy.

And...jr....according to the independent economic analysis, this adminstration is not clueless. The ideology you blindly parrot is clueless. The independent economic analysis shows the policies from this adminstration helped, and also shows the ideological wish lists the right puts forth do very little to help the economy.

The pipeline is just one issue. An issue the right is using, and you are following blindly along with, to make the case they cannot make with economic analysis.

@AM

You make this very personal by blaming my side. My side was that the Bush tax cuts were as un-afforable in 2001 and 2003 as they were in 2010 but your side extended them. My side is that the payroll tax cut is simply stealing the retirement money of the poor to give them a couple of extra dollars now, but your side wants them extended and deepened. My side is that an 800B stimulus that had only 100B in actual investment removed any chance of an infrastructure led recovery where borrowing was actually being invested in the future instead being used to prop up state governments that could not sustain their payrolls once the prop was removed, but your side wanted to borrow even more. My side is that Iraq was a mistake, but your side escalated Afghanistan. Two further adventures that drained the treasury of future funds.

So get off your little high horse by claiming that you have the moral high ground. Your side has been as complicit in the tax-cutting and deficit spending as the last administration. You just can't come to terms that the only Administration saving this one from being the worst in living memory is that the last one was worse.

@Repulsivecant -- The arguments from the LWNJs on here keep getting more and more convoluted. Employing more people will hurt the economy?

You are so blind to see that this lowlife president is playing both sides of the fence -- raising money from the environmentalist whackos and the oil companies. It is a dead cinch guarantee that the pipeline will be approved AFTER the election no matter who wins.

@Beverly???????? I'm pretty sure you aren't that messed up. It must be this website that is having problems.

Ben-636050

@Beverly -- Again you make my point of convoluted remarks coming from your key board. What the hell does that have to do with shovel ready jobs??? Besides, I recognize who was killed and I am a GOP conservative.

Ben, Perhaps if you read you'd see

The grand plan to transform St. Paul’s Union Depot into a bustling train and bus hub got a shot in the arm Wednesday with the announcement of $35 million in federal stimulus aid. about: Banking Services Business Croix River Financial services Labor Saint Paul Minnesota Shot in the arm St Croix River bridge Union Depot at: Union Depot

@Beverly -- Again you make my point of convoluted remarks coming from your key board. What the hell does that have to do with shovel ready jobs??? Besides, I recognize who was killed and I am a GOP conservative.

• !

#31.78 - Fri Dec 9, 2011 11:36 AM EST

Alan.

Did the CBO count these jobs? No. The CBO uses a model that assumes a 1.75 multiplier for every dollar spent by the government. So, when the government spends 800B, and this is fed into the CBO's black box model out come the jobs estimates. There has been no study using empirical evidence to confirm these figures.

Now am I trashing the CBO? No, I am just pointing out the difference between a computer model and the real world.

All of the independent economic analysis results in similar findings to the CBO.

You may not be trashing the CBO here, but what you are doing is attempting to sow doubt where their is little legitimate doubt.

You do so, while presenting nothing but an ideological view on what you wish the data showed.

Basically, you are saying that your ideological statements on what you have been told to think about the ARRA, is way better then the well founded methods used by economists (ya know, the people who study the economy).

It is laughable dude.

You simply do not understand basic economics.

You're right. It is better to borrow money to maintain unemployment benefits than to allow private capital to produce jobs. What was I thinking. Can you recommend a good economics school that will allow me to learn more of your theories?

Bill.

So the FACT is the economy was recovering from the impact of 9/11 and had created 8 million jobs – an outcome arguably enabled by the Bush tax cuts.

Arguable by whom? The standard right wing hacks?

Please post the independent analysis. Thanks.

Fast forward to today, why haven't job creators been doing their thing lately? Here's a thought: how about our leftist president who has systematically pushed cash-hoarding businesses into a historic hiring paralysis with nonstop talk of higher taxes, unprecedented budget deficits that added to the already unprecedented national debt, more regulations, them vs. us class-warfare rhetoric, threatened government shutdowns of private plants, and higher-priced energy

That is a giant series of projections, most of which were fed to you by said right wing hacks.

The problem in this economy is demand.

Not regulation, not high taxes, not the threat of high taxes, not rhetoric, etc. Demand, jr.

Poll the bussinesses, and that is the number one problem given.

Demand is what the data shows is the problem. Demand.

Study up.

Spanky taxes are the governments income, if you cut your personal income below your fixed expenses you start to lose critical assets. We have some spending problems to be sure, but we will never pay down the debt with cuts alone we need to increase income as well, if we wish to hang onto to critical assets. You could lower your income and continually your reduce spending to the point of living in a cardboard box, you would be very fiscally responsible, but I suspect that alone would not make you happy. If republicans are really serious about cutting spending, why is the military always off limits, they receive 53 cents of every tax dollar either directly or indirectly, why are subsidies for outrageously profitable oil companies always defended, the list goes on and on. Bottom line is as long as they refuse to cut the big expenses and simultaneously increase revenue, the deficit will grow ever larger regardless of who is in the oval office. The debt is already there, and you can't pay it by simply balancing the budget, we need to take in more than we spend to have some extra surplus cash to pay the debt that has existed for years , cuts alone will never achieve that.

Ben-636050

@Beverly -- Mrs. Gingrich dresses with class. Michelle "junk in the trunk back shelf rump" Obama dresses like a dime store whore.

Ben You "F"ing freak, first of all why are are looking at another man's woman's ass? then The next thing you got wrong is how the First Lady dresses.

August 4, 2011

Michelle Obama, 47, is known for rocking everything from Tom Ford to Target brand Merona -- all while making whatever she's clad in look like a million bucks. But the First Lady isn't the only stylish Obama -- her husband President Barack joins her on the Best-Dressed Couples list.

Read more: http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-style/news/kate-middleton-michelle-obama-lady-gaga-top-vanity-fairs-best-dressed-list-201148#ixzz1g79MFhrr

Dennis, just a note about Consumer Reports Car surveys. The Industry views CR as a necessary evil, because so many people (Like you) buy into their data.

Spanky speaks the truth on several fronts, most importantly, owners pumping up re-sale value.

Historically CR results have been proven out that the more a person spends on their vehicle the less likely they are to denigrate it. See, no one wants to say they spent $40,000 on a car and then tell their friends it's a piece of crap. Especially when that car is "Saving the Planet"

Besides, you didn't comment on NHTSA holding back the info. I stated a couple of days ago this is what happens when the govt owns auto companies. What do you think?

Alan.

My side was that the Bush tax cuts were as un-afforable in 2001 and 2003 as they were in 2010 but your side extended them

No Alan. Both sides extended them, and the only reason the Democratic side agreed to it was because of what was gotten in return. Middle class tax cuts, payroll tax cut, unemployment insurance extention, etc.

The Democrats comprimised on the Bush tax cut for the higher end in order to get things through that actually stimulate the economy.

My side is that the payroll tax cut is simply stealing the retirement money of the poor to give them a couple of extra dollars now, but your side wants them extended and deepened

It is not stealling money if it is replinished, and those couple of dollars not only help individuals and families, on the whole, it is a lot of money moving around the economy.

My side is that an 800B stimulus that had only 100B in actual investment removed any chance of an infrastructure led recovery where borrowing was actually being invested in the future instead being used to prop up state governments that could not sustain their payrolls once the prop was removed, but your side wanted to borrow even more.

The stimulus, by the accounts of all the independent economic analysis, helped the economy. And while I do agree there should have been more in infustructure (and still should be), the money used to prop up the states was well spent.

It prevented layoffs that would have kept the job loss numbers in six figures well past the summer of 2009. Unfortunately, because of the GOP, further relief was not provided. That, combined with the blind cutting of GOP state legislatures and governors, has contributed to tens of thousands of public sector job losses....which, btw, have been bringing down the positve private sector job numbers.

You just can't come to terms that the only Administration saving this one from being the worst in living memory is that the last one was worse.

The reason being, your statement is patently false.

This adminstration has not spent anything really that was not in an effort to stimulate the economy.

I think you need to get off you parroted high horse. This administration had no choice but to increase spending and cut taxes. That is what you do in a recession. In addition, revenue is down, and manditory spending is up. It adds debt, yes, but the longer you are in a recession, the longer revenue will be down, the longer manditory spending will be up, and it will take you that much longer to actually pay down the debt.

Study up.

Yeah Republicants - a tough concept I know, but as long as you, me, or our awesome government spends less than we takein, then there BAM - no deficit.

Easy right?

Or are you saying that concept is just too impossible hard for the government?

Serious cuts are coming Forrest. Economic reality and all. None of them - not the dems, repubs have the stomach to do what is needed.

That's why there will be a Ron Paul type Pres in the not too distant future.

Just look at Europe. Man, who'd have thought Germany ended up wining.

Allan.

You're right. It is better to borrow money to maintain unemployment benefits than to allow private capital to produce jobs. What was I thinking. Can you recommend a good economics school that will allow me to learn more of your theories?

The two are not mutually exclusive, Bill.

You were not thinking.

You can both borrow money to extend unemployment benifits, AND allow private capital to produce jobs.

However, if their is no demand, private capital will not produce any jobs. No company is going to expand,hire, etc if they do not see the demand for their goods and services.

And if unemployment benifits are not extended when unemployment is still up, then you will further reduce demand.

Economics. Study up. I am sure you can find out where....if you would bother to look.

Good luck.

Ben.

@Repulsivecant -- The arguments from the LWNJs on here keep getting more and more convoluted. Employing more people will hurt the economy?

LOL!!!! Actually.....

The arguments from the right wing keep hitting so many walls, they are forced to project that the left is arguing employing more people will hurt the economy.

Wow.

You are so blind to see that this lowlife president is playing both sides of the fence -- raising money from the environmentalist whackos and the oil companies. It is a dead cinch guarantee that the pipeline will be approved AFTER the election no matter who wins.

The irony is that you are so blinded by the ideology you so despertatly want to believe in, that you ignore the fact that ALL presidents play both sides of the fence.

It's called politics. That you are shocked displays your naivete, jr.

No Alan. Both sides extended them, and the only reason the Democratic side agreed to it was because of what was gotten in return. Middle class tax cuts, payroll tax cut, unemployment insurance extention, etc.

So stop complaining how much they cost. You seem to be all for them.

It is not stealling money if it is replinished, and those couple of dollars not only help individuals and families, on the whole, it is a lot of money moving around the economy.

Get back to me the day it's replenished and I'll admit my error.

This adminstration has not spent anything really that was not in an effort to stimulate the economy.

I agree. That was their main reason in extending the tax cuts. But that 30K escalation in Afghanistan, the efforts at nation building and all those drone attacks. Can you throw out some CBO statistics on the number of jobs they created?

This administration had no choice but to increase spending and cut taxes. That is what you do in a recession. In addition, revenue is down, and manditory spending is up. It adds debt, yes, but the longer you are in a recession, the longer revenue will be down, the longer manditory spending will be up, and it will take you that much longer to actually pay down the debt.

Sure. There is just nowhere to cut anything out of a $3T+ (was going to budget but we don't have one) fund.

Spanker.

Yeah Republicants - a tough concept I know, but as long as you, me, or our awesome government spends less than we takein, then there BAM - no deficit.

Easy right?

Just that easy. LOL!!! So naive...so, so naive...

Or are you saying that concept is just too impossible hard for the government?

No jr, the concept is not hard. However, the implementation is.

Especially when the party and ideology that ran up the debt, decides it is a good idea to try and deal with it in a recession.

Seriously. Study up.

Anna,

Considering that you are on the wrong side of history and facts most of the time, you actually do a remarkable job at times.

Feisty has never, never approached your level of intelligence.

It's sad and a waste when you approach her level of intelligence.

@Beverly -- I saw that link you referred to and I almost wet my pants laughing. You just made my point again. Being compared in the same story with Lady Gaga, makes the first (I can't say lady) dressing like a dime store whore. There is no class in that. It is hard not to notice an ass that is so large and stinks (sticks) out like hers. Looks like a tray table LOL!!!!!

This is great!!!!!!! Obama's job isn't finished. There are 250 million Americans still not on food stamps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhFyxs53-ak&feature=youtu.be

You can both borrow money to extend unemployment benifits, AND allow private capital to produce jobs.

Isn't this what Republicans are proposing? You can extend unemployment benefits if the pipeline gets the go-ahead? It's the Administration that is being the "party of No".

Maybe you want to update your moniker.

Alan.

So stop complaining how much they cost. You seem to be all for them.

I am not all for them. I was not for them when they passed, nor am I for extending them indefinately.

I did not think it was a good idea to not extend them for the middle class, but I do think the money from the upper level cuts could have been used in ways that would actually have a positive impact on the economy.

I do recognize, however, that they were part of a deal. I also recognize where the policy came from. Look at it this way, had they never been, we would have a fraction of the debt we know have, and the Democrats would not have had to swallow them as part of a deal.

Get back to me the day it's replenished and I'll admit my error.

Cynicism is not a good argument.

I agree. That was their main reason in extending the tax cuts. But that 30K escalation in Afghanistan, the efforts at nation building and all those drone attacks. Can you throw out some CBO statistics on the number of jobs they created?

No. But they probably did create some...even though that was not the intent.

Sure. There is just nowhere to cut anything out of a $3T+ (was going to budget but we don't have one) fund.

Not really anything substantial in a recession.

The problem I have with all of the new found GOP budget hawks is this. They were in lock step with the GOP leadership and GWB when the policies that led to the massive debt were put in place. We then elect a Democratic President who not only inherited a massive recession, but massive debt. That debt exponentially increased as a result of the recession.

And only in the middle of that recession did those lock steppers say anything about the debt. In fact, not only did they says something, they made it a huge issue, and blamed it on this President.

Not too mention, in doing so, during a recession, they made it harder for this administration to deal with the recession. The debt they ran up made it politically hard in the first place, and their opposition made it worse.

@repulsivecant -- You assume too much which makes you the first three letters. Who said I was shocked there toddler?

Spanky Paul or somebody like him will have to run and win as an independent, he tried that, now he is running as a republican this time, and they are treating him like a turd in their punchbowl. They do not have the stomach to cut what needs to be cut, they are as responsible for the deficits as anybody, but they compound the problem by refusing to consider raising revenue, and cuts alone will never solve the problem. Why can't we just solve the problem by filling bankruptcy, republicans think that would have been a great way to handle GM, if it is such a smart solution why not apply it to our government. I would tell China we just can't give you what we don't have, if they want to send the repo men to come get all their crap from wal mart, and claim and keep the American factories built in China I would be fine with that. Donald Trump and others have made bankruptcy work well for them, so hey lets wipe the slate clean, if we really are not going to ever pay these debts anyway. The good news is that we owe them, they don't owe us, I could care less if they repo their cheap crap in our stores and bar us from owning manufacturing plants in their country. Ha you tell me Spanky what do you like less, you owing somebody a ton of money you can't pay them, or somebody owing you a ton of money you can't collect.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, when President Bush lowered those top rates, and when President Obama extended them, doing so was almost perfectly “regressive”—that is, the benefits went to the wealthiest Americans.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a budget for Fiscal Year 2012 that would lower the top marginal tax rate again, this time down to 25 percent. That budget, introduced by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), would reduce federal revenues by a total of $4.2 trillion over ten years, a loss that was partially offset with $2.9 trillion in cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other earned benefits.

Wow. Cool. So the rich can get another big cut in the amount they pay in taxes via the new house-passed, republican plan at the expense of cuts to health benefits and SS for poor and middle class. That sounds like a really good deal for the rich.

Oh yea...Nothing would be payed off with this plan (except for the 1%'rs who bought the house members). Instead we'll run up another trillion in debt further putting the US economy into the sh1tter. It's hard to believe that there are people on this blog bravely supporting this kind of absolute craziness. Brazenly even...

This wont pay off our debt! Why is anybody here supporting the republicans?! Seriously!

Alan.

Isn't this what Republicans are proposing? You can extend unemployment benefits if the pipeline gets the go-ahead? It's the Administration that is being the "party of No".

No. The Republicans are proposing extending the unemployment benifits and paying for them by cuttting hundreds of thousands of federal jobs.

The pipeline is just a political add on being used by the GOP as a negotiating tool, and largely because they are pissed they put themselves in such a corner.

The administration has done plenty to encourage private sector job growth. Much of it in the stimulus.

And the party of no is an earned name. It is not representative of a party saying no to a asingle version of legislation. It is a party saying no to almost EVERYTHING.

Just take a look at the legislative recored if you don't know what I mean.

So again, study up.

Hey Munchcant,

OK

Bush's deficit including TARP which corrected the recession, was $458.6 billion. The recession was over in June in 2009 before anything Obama did, or could have would have had time to take effect. We have been in a recovery.

Most of the debt and deficits are from the recession.

Obama's spending 2 1/2 years after the recession was over only over 3 TIMES Bush's deficit at the height of the recession.

Feel better ..... now go walk into another door.

Ben.

@repulsivecant -- You assume too much which makes you the first three letters. Who said I was shocked there toddler?

LOL!!!

Listen, jr. Your post made it apperent you were either shocked or peaved Obama was playing politics in an election year.

So you are naive. Either you are naive in that you are shocked, or you are naive in that you think pointing it out makes a good argument.

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

I am truely sorry you blindly bought into an ideology that is so indefensable.

Next time, perhaps you will first study the issues on your own, think them through, on your own, and come to your own conclusions you can actually defend.

You have the power, kid.

booby.

Bush's deficit including TARP which corrected the recession, was $458.6 billion. The recession was over in June in 2009 before anything Obama did, or could have would have had time to take effect. We have been in a recovery.

Man. Your willfull ignornace has a powerful hold over you....or is it just that you are this intellectually challenged?

LOL!!! Wow.

Obama's spending 2 1/2 years after the recession was over only over 3 TIMES Bush's deficit at the height of the recession.

Ok, ok. I will explain this one more time, jr...

Your simple little mind, combinded with what an ignorant ideology is feeding you, is forcing you to look only at the dates, and not at the actual policies behind the spending.

If you look at the policies behind the spending, you see that the policies of this adminstration is not responsible for most of it.

The lower revenues and increased manditory spending from the recession, combinded with the leftover spending from the last administration are.

A recession ends when the economy starts growing again, NOT when everything is back to where it was before, jr.

Therefore, it makes no sense to suggest that just because the official end to the recession was in the summer of 2009 that the revenue would be back up and the outlays down.

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

Seriously. You have no cognaive ability, you know nothing of the issues, and logic completely escapes you.

Why do you post? Do you enjoy making yourself look stupid?

LOL!!! Dumb, dee, dee, dumb, dumb, dumb....

booby.

Obama's spending 2 1/2 years after the recession was over only over 3 TIMES Bush's deficit at the height of the recession.

Here is your chance. Spanker couldn't do it, and ran away from his ignorance, much like I predict you will.

Please post the policies from this administration, along with the costs, that add up to the ~ $5T increase in debt from 2009 you and the rest of the blind parrots attribute to Obama.

Good luck, jr.

Republicants,

Great posts today. I've enjoyed reading them. Forrest's posts, too.

Jack.

Thanks. It really ain't that hard.

The arguments are all basically based on the same easily debunked talking points.

I always find it amusing that they get upset when I point out they are nothing more then blind parrots. They are, and they make it obvious when they all post the same baseless crap.

Had they actually looked into the issues, even on a basic level, they would see that the only way they could get to most of the conclusions they collectively reach is if said conclusions were fed to them. The chances of all of them reaching the same baseless conclusions, repeatedly, are nill.

The problem I have with all of the new found GOP budget hawks is this. They were in lock step with the GOP leadership and GWB when the policies that led to the massive debt were put in place.

Just like the President (and Democrats) were against raising the debt ceiling before they were for it? Both parties are full of hypocrites. However, as much as Bush was responsible for the debt/deficit up to 2010 at some point (and I'm saying two years in) the current Administration has to take responsibility for their actions. The stimulus, IMHO, was badly constructed. They wasted a lot of political time and capitol on health insurance reform. Then they extended the very tax-cuts they ran against. It was as fiscally irresponsible as Medicare-D.

You can sugar coat it anyway you want it but all you're arguing is that Bush was worse than Obama. I can accept that but it doesn't give the current Administration a passing grade, or make sense of the President's assertion on unemployment benefits.

The problem in this economy is demand.
Not regulation, not high taxes, not the threat of high taxes, not rhetoric, etc. Demand

Krugman and Reich couldn't have said it any better. Tell us junior, ever do your own thinking? Or do you just regurgitate what your leftist gurus are telling you? Riddle me this: Before Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, IBM and others applied their talents, where was the demand for home computers that could fit on the top of a desk? Before microwave ovens and VCRs appeared on store shelves, where was the demand for those gizmos? Before Nike changed the look of tennis shoes, where was the demand for a hundred different styles to choose from? Before Apple showered the world with iPads and iPhones, who knew countless millions would demand same?

Apple under the leadership of Steve Jobs is a particularly good example of supply creating its own demand. With Jobs, innovative products came first and demand caught up later. What doctrinaire dolts like you just don't get is the effect entreprenuers with a vision have on economic activity. Entreprenuers who invest in an idea up front before there is any demand, and spend the money to hire people and build production capacaity to implement those ideas -- activity that puts dollars into workers pockets and jump starts the virtuous cycle of new jobs begetting even more new jobs. A cycle that has been shortcircuited by a president whose policies and rhetoric attack the very people in the economy who are in a position to create jobs. And this problem won't be fixed until the man in the White House is pushed into early retirement.

BTW, you can take your trademark condescending snark and stick it where the sun don't shine. The stimulation should energize some of your dormant brain cells.

Alan.

Just like the President (and Democrats) were against raising the debt ceiling before they were for it? Both parties are full of hypocrites.

LOL!!!! There is more then a bit of difference between the typical partisan back and forth over the debt ceiling, and running up the debt to historic levels, and then blaming it on the other side, kid.

Wow.

However, as much as Bush was responsible for the debt/deficit up to 2010 at some point (and I'm saying two years in) the current Administration has to take responsibility for their actions.

The point I was making was that this administration is still being blamed for actions they had litttle or, in many cases, nothing to do with.

And I know you would like a cutoff point for the fiscal effects of the last administration's policies. However, the cut off point is the point when those policies stop adding to the debt, not some arbitrary date you pick. They have not as of yet.

I do find it amusingly ironic that you suggest the adminstration take responsiblity for their actions while attempting to deflect responsibilty onto them that is unjustified.

You can sugar coat it anyway you want it but all you're arguing is that Bush was worse than Obama. I can accept that but it doesn't give the current Administration a passing grade, or make sense of the President's assertion on unemployment benefits.

I am not sugar coating anything. And I am not just arguing Bush is worse then Obama. I am arguing this adminstration gets blame for debt they had no control over.

The President's assurtion on unemployment is not inaccurate. Cutting off unemployment would have a far more substantial and far reaching effect then approving the pipeline. Cutting off unemployment would remove a substantial amount of capital from the economy, as well as leave many out in the cold.

Bill.

Krugman and Reich couldn't have said it any better. Tell us junior, ever do your own thinking? Or do you just regurgitate what your leftist gurus are telling you?

LOL!!!! Lisen dude. I am truely sorry the positions you were fed do not jive with reality. That is your problem, not mine. Stop being such an ideological drone, and start thinkning for yourself.

However, it is not just leftist economists, kid, it is independent economic analysis. It is the #1 thing bussiness is saying is holding them back.

Seriously. Don't get mad at your self induced ignorance. Do something about it.

Riddle me this: Before Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, IBM and others applied their talents, where was the demand for home computers that could fit on the top of a desk? Before microwave ovens and VCRs appeared on store shelves, where was the demand for those gizmos? Before Nike changed the look of tennis shoes, where was the demand for a hundred different styles to choose from? Before Apple showered the world with iPads and iPhones, who knew countless millions would demand same?

Riddle me this....

Why is it everytime an ignorant right wing parrot is left empty handed trying to defend the crap he was fed, he starts asking lame, unrelated questions that do more to display his ignorance on the issue, then make his point?

LOL!!! Dumb, dee, dee, dumb, dumb, dumb.......

Demand means people have the capital to purchase goods and services. Of course there is going to be more demand for some products over others, even in a down economy, and the more innovative ones will sell much better. However, on the whole, the problem is still demand.

You can have all the innovative products in the world, but if enough people do not have the capital to purchase them, then the supply is worthless.

A cycle that has been shortcircuited by a president whose policies and rhetoric attack the very people in the economy who are in a position to create jobs. And this problem won't be fixed until the man in the White House is pushed into early retirement.

That is a delusional projection, used to reinforce the previous projections your were fed, but also could not support.

The independant economic analysis, jr, shows that the policies of this administration have helped the economy, not hurt.

Study up, jr.

BTW, you can take your trademark condescending snark and stick it where the sun don't shine. The stimulation should energize some of your dormant brain cells.

LOL!!! I am sure you are well versed in that type of stimulation. LOL!!!

Spanky wrote:

See I have an income stream with allows me to buy stuff. Sadly it is not as much as I'd like - there is always more stuff out there.

But I live within my means. You know what else - sometimes I make more - so I can get more stuff, put more towards retirement and so forth. But sometimes it goes the other way. I have to cut back.

See Forrest the deficits are never CREATED by revenue, or absence of anticipated revenue. NOPE, deficits are created when you spend more than you have.

I never do it. You never do it. Anna Molley never does it.

Me:

Your comparisons are faulty. Look at it this way:

You married someone who is fiscally irresponsible and ran up credit card bills buying useless junk that has no resale value. You couldn't take it anymore, so you divorced that person, but you still have the bills. Now the bills are due and you are responsible to pay them. What do you cut? Wouldn't you have to get a second job or supplement your income in some way?

You can file bankrupcy. What should the govt do?

And I know you would like a cutoff point for the fiscal effects of the last administration's policies. However, the cut off point is the point when those policies stop adding to the debt, not some arbitrary date you pick. They have not as of yet.

No, I'm just taking the date the current Administration extended the policies of the previous one. And don't say they both did it. By doing nothing the tax rates would have expired. The Democrats didn't even have to overcome a filibuster in this case. The Administration wanted more deficit spending to boost the economy and their re-election and this was the best way of achieving it.

Bill, Alan...

This is what analysis looks like....from conservative and moderate economists:

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

John Makin of the conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute:

The real economy also responded to the massive stimulus but remained heavily dependent on it. In the United States, growth during the second half of 2009 probably averaged about 3 percent. Absent temporary fiscal stimulus and inventory rebuilding, which taken together added about 4 percentage points to U.S. growth, the economy would have contracted at about a 1 percent annual rate during the second half of 2009.

http://www.aei.org/outlook/100928

Or Mark Zandi, advisor to the McCain campaign:

The Great Recession has finally come to an end, in large part because of unprecedented policy efforts by the Federal Reserve and fiscal policymakers. The cost to taxpayers has been substantial but would have been even greater if aggressive action was not taken and the financial crisis and recession had been allowed to continue unchecked.

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/JEC-Fiscal-Stimulus-102909.pdf

Or the CBO about the third quarter of 2009:

On that basis, CBO estimates that in the third quarter of calendar year 2009, an additional 600,000 to 1.6 million people were employed in the United States, and real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) was 1.2 percent to 3.2 percent higher, than would have been the case in the absence of ARRA (see Table 1). Those ranges are intended to reflect the uncertainty of such estimates and to encompass most economists’ views on the effects of fiscal stimulus.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10682/Frontmatter.2.2.shtml

Or what the CBO said about the forth quarter of 2009:

In sum, CBO estimates that in the fourth quarter of calendar year 2009, ARRA’s policies:
-- Raised real GDP by between 1.5 percent and 3.5 percent,
-- Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.5 percentage points and 1.1 percentage points,
-- Increased the number of people employed by between 1.0 million and 2.1 million, and
-- Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 1.4 million to 3.0 million compared with what those amounts would have been otherwise (see Table 1).

The effects of ARRA on output and employment are expected to increase further in calendar year 2010 but then diminish in 2011 and fade away by the end of 2012 (see Table 3).

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11044

On that basis, CBO estimates that in the first quarter of calendar year 2010, ARRA’s policies:
--Raised the level of real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 1.7 percent and 4.2 percent,
--Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.5 percentage points,
--Increased the number of people employed by between 1.2 million and 2.8 million, and
--Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 1.8 million to 4.1 million compared with what those amounts would have been otherwise (see Table 1). (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers.)

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11525/05-25-ARRA.pdf

Repulicants

Cutting off unemployment would remove a substantial amount of capital from the economy, as well as leave many out in the cold.

That's the beauty of it for Republicans. It will be a huge hit on the economy that they can then blame on Obama. For similar reasons, they are prepared to increase taxes on the middle class despite their pledge of allegiance to Grover Norquist. They know their middle class tax hike will further slow the economy, and they'll blame that on Obama, too. Grover has already said his oath doesn't cover the payroll tax cuts. Tax cuts are only good if they go to the super rich.

Seems Spanky doesn't like research...or at least doing it on his own time, right Lionel?

Ya know Spanky, I've been doing a bit of digging lately on the State Bar of California's web page...especially the sections on ethics and rules of the State Bar...all I can is wow, seems the Cali State Bar Association is S-T-R-I-C-T strict, especially when it comes to these two subjects.

But I'm sure there are plenty of topics regarding billing for "research" that was never performed.

Are you familiar with these, "counselor"? Sure you are...or maybe not?

Don't you think it's time you brushed up on those ethics and rules? Yes? No? Maybe so?

I sure do...

Alan.

No, I'm just taking the date the current Administration extended the policies of the previous one.

You are just taking the date from the tax cut extention, and ignoring the wars and Medicare D...both of which are still costing us.

In addition, you ignore the real drivers of the debt and deficits over the last two and a half years, the recession.

All so you can continue the self induced delusion fed to you about the debt.

And don't say they both did it. By doing nothing the tax rates would have expired. The Democrats didn't even have to overcome a filibuster in this case.

What?

They did both do it. I sorry it does not fit neatly into what you want to believe. Both Democrats and Republicans passed what I call the lame duck stimulus.

The Democrats only included it in order to pass things that would help the economy.

The Administration wanted more deficit spending to boost the economy and their re-election and this was the best way of achieving it.

LOL!!!

Yes. The adminstration did want more deficit spending to boost the economy....and it did. (See above.)

You can argue they thought helping the economy would help their election, and I am not sure you will get much disagreement. But that is a kinda lame criticism.

Keep trying.

Houston.

I think they are starting to realize what worked in the last election, does not work so well when you control the House, and can be directly linked to the obstruction.

Unfortunately, the neophytes who pushed them into power in the House, are preventing them from governing.

Backhouse,

Denial is a terrible thing.

TO SEE A LIVE CLOCK,

WITH HANDS MOVING SECOND-BY-SECOND ON HOW MUCH THE BUSH TAX CUTS COST, go to:

Does this mean that you are in favor of allowing all the tax cuts to expire? I am fine with it, if you are, but that means the Obama cuts go also. Can you live with that?

No, the middle class should be made permanent.

The high-end Bush tax cuts are on the chopping board and OFF they go.....wheeeeeee!

The 0.02% have had a very nice innings thank you, with their no/low taxes and 275% increase in income while the 99% tanked.

(A lot of recent reporting on that btw and just how much$$$$. Easy to get the info.)

It is our turn now. I say 'our' - but perhaps that don't include Thee.

No shame in that BB.

You've had your day in the Sun, well OK!

Time for the rest of us to have a fightin chance.

Don't worry Wing-nuts soon you will have a fat angry little thinks he is smart white racist blowhard to do all your whining for you.............You beeyotches have never had to do anything for yourselves in your life so far, so its been hard on you for three years......Livin' in a Black World....Takin' orders from someone who couldn't use the same bathroom as you such a short time ago sucks doesn't it.....And all the reparations that are needed have been watching you white racists with your heads exploding....Some people in this country fought for the rights of everybody, and others only fight for the rich and white or the Herman Cain, tokens that think you like them...

Backhouse,

So it is okay to only tax those that already pay 1/3 of the federal government's income tax revenue. Heck, why should we extend any of the tax cuts, don't we have a national debt to start paying down. I am not a 1%, far from it, but I do understand that we can't keep taxing those that have more, because they are going to take their money and run, and that leaves us with the bill. Heck, fair is fair isn't it, so shouldn't all the tax cuts be allowed to expire--isn't that what everyone on here wants-"fairness".

Let'em expire, cut out the loopholes and deductions from the tax code, then see if the government can cut some money from their budget and then we can start paying our government debt off and get our budget balanced. Which would mean that our President would have to learn what balanced is. Instead of asking for over a trillion more than he knows is coming in.

I would also recommend that you learn to protect your money, and learn to do taxes, basically, that way you won't have to pay as much in "federal income taxes". Considering that the average in 2009 was 11% total among Americans that filed income tax returns. (11% was the percent when all Americans %'s were added up)

BigBear.

I do not think it should be about fairness. It should be about what is the most healthy policy for the country.

A small middle class is not healthy for this country.

The policies that originated with the right, but have been accepted by both parties over the years, of lax regulation and low taxes on the wealthy have led to a shrinking middle class.

The top 1% in this country has seen their income rise 15% since 1980, while the middle class has remained stagnant, and the lower incomes have shrunk.

We know the result of the type of economy these policies lead to. We had it in the early 1900's. It resulted in the Great Depression.

We got a taste of what those policies are leading to with the recession....boom and bust.

The GOP wants to continue down this course....and the blind follow blindly along, ignoring history, economics, and all else in favor of an ignornant, debunked, ideology.

Trying to change the mind of Jr. is a total waste of time. Facts mean nothing to these people. They simply hate Obama. They never learned to think critically and are the perfect foil for the Communist style propoganda spouted ad nauseam by Faux News.

Repulicants,

Then why are all the OWS people screaming about "fairness". You seem to think that those with millions owe the rest of us. Whether they earned their money, inherited their money, or whatever, that does not make them responsible to pay our governments bills more than you or I. Should they pay more in federal income taxes--yes, because they make more. Should they pay a higher percentage than you or I, No--that is not fair to them. We all use the roads, we all use education, we all should abide by the law. The top 1% already pay 1/3 of our governments revenue of income taxes--should they pay 1/2 of the revenue--is that "fair". Should they pay 2/3 of our governments revenue of income taxes--is that "fair". I have asked before, and will get ridiculed again, but what is their "fair share".

I don't have a problem with the rich paying more than myself, I have a problem with our tax code which allows them to pay less than me, because they can hire someone to do that for them. I hear our President talk about people doing their "fair share". That is what leads to class warfare. I don't have a problem with the rich, I just haven't taken all the chances most of them have taken to get there. I want to be a 1%er, but know that it will take a lot more work, but considering that you only have to make $346K to be in the 1% group, it really isn't as far away as it should be.

We don't tax wealth in this country, just income, sales, and death. I do not believe that the wealthy are the complete problem, as much as we keep handing out money to government entities. The one thing that I thought that Clinton did well, when at least trimming the deficit, was that during his terms, the number of government workers declined by 100,000 (non-military). And with any business, salaries and benefits are your largest contributors to your budget.

BigBear.

You seem to think that those with millions owe the rest of us.

No sir. That is your projection. A projection used in lieu of facts.

I do think that policies that lead to a smaller middle class in turn lead to less resilient economies. They eventually lead to boom and bust economies, and instability.

I also know this. The people in this country who have benefited the most from the security and the infrastructure provided by the greatest country on earth, should not have issue with paying a higher percentage in taxes....especially when taxes are at historic lows.

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

I am not arguing fairness. I am arguing for what is best for the country as a whole. I am arguing for what is best for our economic future.

You are arguing an ideology. Ideology is never the best thing for a country.

President Obama B%#^h Slapped the Crazy Clown Tea baggers &GOP

Mitt Romney at the Republican Jewish Coalition Forum in Washington lambasted President Obama for adopting a foreign policy of "appeasement" that "betrays a lack of faith in America."

To that, Mr. Obama said defiantly, "Ask Osama bin Laden and the 22-out-of-30 top al Qaeda leaders who've been taken off the field whether I engage in appeasement. Or whoever is left out there, ask them about that."

After that President Obama dropped a bomb on the whiny, whiny, little Republicans in the room
and let exuberantly. President Obama wants God to bless you.

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lkjsa0vvlq1qzu2tdo1_400.gif

===========================================================
A poll taken on 12-2- 11 says 54% Jewish Isrealis support President Obama. That's a 29 swing, in 2010 it was 39.

Just proving once again how out of touch Mitten and his cohort

Ben-636050

@Beverly -- I saw that link you referred to and I almost wet my pants laughing. You just made my point again. Being compared in the same story with Lady Gaga, makes the first (I can't say lady) dressing like a dime store whore. There is no class in that. It is hard not to notice an ass that is so large and stinks (sticks) out like hers. Looks like a tray table LOL!!!!!

Ben

You Rat, I bet you did wet your wet your pants. Look freak, looking at another man's wife is just not Kosher.

Are you a sniff freak? How would know if her bottom stinks? They wouldn't let your stupid, drooling ass within 2 inches of the wife of any President; fool.

@Republicants - what I found interesting is that according to R. Reich, the millionaire tax proposed by the democrats to fund the payroll tax-cut equates to "someone who earns $1,000,001 would pay just under two cents extra next year, and 19 cents over ten years." It would seem .19 per million would be worth the extension of the payroll tax in order to keep the economy moving. But of course, I don't think Republicans will ever agree. They do not seem interested in the middle class, just the wealthy.

http://robertreich.org/

REVISED: How to Avoid Being a Principled Republican on Taxes

MONDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2011

Chapter 480 in the book of you can't make this stuff up!

It's been reported that Santorum has picked up a 'major' endorsement in IA.

Was that before or after he made this comment?

"If hunger is a problem in America, then why do we have an obesity problem among the people who we say have a hunger program?" Santorum asked.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/12/07/383788/santorum-we-dont-need-food-stamps-because-obesity-rates-are-so-high/

What does it say about us as a country, when we have millions of children going to bed hungry?

I would ask if conservatives have any shame at all, however, I already know the answer…

Not only should you be embarrassed… you have the audacity to call yourselves Christian!

Oh well, we can always eat the 'chicken-salad' Boehner is serving up;

But in private, Boehner seems to hold a different view. Politico reports that in a closed-door GOP meeting this morning, Boehner referred to an extension of the payroll tax holiday as "chicken-@!$%#," saying he wanted to tack on unrelated legislation favored by Republicans to make it palatable:

Speaker John Boehner referred to the package he's putting forward as turning "chicken-sh — into chicken salad," according to people attending the meeting in the Capitol basement Friday morning.

If chicken salad isn't your preference, there are always the turd sandwiches!

Although, judging from the comments by the RWNJ's they tend to leave a nasty taste in their mouths!

that damned dumb Bill CUnningham in Cincinnatii uses to say that thing about obese people too. Seems they don't get it that Potatos and Noodles and macaroni, and fat-laden cheap cuts of meat seem to put extra pounds on folks that can't afford the good eats.

Marie Antoinette, indeed.

Right, Fairfax Billie?

Excellent, IR! I think that post was well worth repeating and the additional comments say it all. Time to welcome our troops home from Iraq, time for the homecoming celebrations to begin.

IR -

I remember reading this the first time and wishing I could have been there to see that - but with the vivid picture you painted, I felt as if I had. What you've added to it today just makes it that much better. Thank you for a much-needed break from all the cacaphony.

Two enormously wrong ideas floating around out there:

1) All the economic problems we now endure, and all the high unemployemnt happend only in the last 3 years.

2) If you do not subscribe to #1) above, you DO subscribe to the notion it all was so insignificant that it could be resolved in 3 (or less) years (and please- don't start with "But Obasma PROMISED...", because he clearly did not. He specifically said "it is going to take time").

And, like it or not- the general public knows better than either 1) or 2) above. Yes- you can spin it all day long, but they KNOW better. SO- if I was one of the righities, I'd whip out the old Acorn or Telepromter bullhorn again.

When are any of you Obama worshippers going to wake up?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70119.html

That DID happen in the last three years. See, he has no clue how he is hurting the housing market- which is where most people's net worth is tied up.

He had one good program -one- and he did nothing whatsoever to keep it going. He thought it would jump start housing demand permanently- it did not- but he still does not believe he was proved wrong.

Again.

Obama shelved in 2012.

NO,JO,

Read your link. Lot of folks are still underwater on their homes. Foreclosures are the reason. They are still in the pipeline. My house is the only investment that I can enjoy even if it has lost value.

What scares me in the article, is the drop in reserves of pension plans.

See, many of us working folks were promised a pension as part of our wages and compensation.

So we will just continue to work and pay taxes and reelect Obama in 2012.

As a 1% what do you plan to do ?

I had never heard the famous '04 DNC speech that Obama made. Feisty's reference to it yesterday prompted me to take a minute (or 14) to listen! WOW! They really should be using that in campaigns this year and get him fired up like that again! So, so inspirational!

But really the important point of this speech is how it spoke to the unity, the common goodness, the generous spirit and open hearts of Americans. Something that seems totally, totally lost in today's world of political incorrectness & mean spiritedness! Comments like Santorum's are accepted and cheered! In this season of gratitude and blessings, we need to reflect on that theme of Obama's speech - that American Exceptionalism - the exceptionalism that makes each of us our brother and sister's keeper whether they be black or white, fat or thin, old or young, gay or straight!

Amen to that, Diane from California. I've listened to that speech many times since that first time in 2004 and it never fails to inspire me. I can honestly say that I knew as I was listening to it the first time that some day I was going to vote for this guy for President. And your definition of American exceptionalism is one of the best I've ever heard. Much gratitude and many blessings to you too!

Twenty years in the future, the majority of people will look back on 2011 and wonder why the Republicans-Radical Right in office didn’t go to jail for crimes against the United States and it’s people. For any group that is trying to bury the poor and middle class, in order to save the rich and big corporations from paying one dime in additional taxes is treason against the United States.

The biggest problem I have is the fact that so many people are so stupid, that they actually support the likes of the so called Republicans-Radical Right. They are like a group of blind little sheep that fall into lock step with these villains who want nothing more than to destroy our President.

You may ask why, and I think we know why. I will give you a hint. Who signs a pledge to a man who is not elected to any office by the people, to never raise taxes?

Actually, Job1, the answer is really simple, the radical right cares for no one or nothing but themselves. Had they their way, the would even bring back slavery! They care not for this country. Not one iota.

@Job1 -- What a hypocrite and selective memory. Just a refresher when the dumbocrats signed a pledge:

http://www.americansunitedforchange.org/news/clip/investors_business_daily_dems_lining_up_behind_pledge_to_fight_social_secur/

Investor’s Business Daily: ‘Dems Lining Up Behind Pledge To Fight Social Security Reform’

Investor's Business Daily
Dems Lining Up Behind Pledge To Fight Social Security Reform
Monday October 2, 7:00 pm ET
Jed Graham

With Republicans in control of Congress and the White House, Democrats have been the party of "No." No to the Republican agenda. No to tax cuts. No to spending cuts. And, most of all, no to Social Security reform with personal accounts.

But what would happen if Democrats pull off a clean sweep Nov. 7 and retake both houses of Congress? Having rejected President Bush's approach, would they finally offer their own plan to fix Social Security? Or will the looming entitlement spending crisis simply fester until 2009?

It's impossible to know for sure, but Democrats have taken an uncompromising line in their effort to capitalize on Social Security fears in the upcoming election.

Last month, the party's House and Senate leaders, Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid, joined dozens of other Democratic lawmakers to kick off the "Golden Promise" campaign. The labor-backed Americans United, which has strong Democratic ties, is spearheading the effort.

The top Democrats all signed the Americans United pledge, which reads, in part: "We will work to improve the retirement security of all Americans and will oppose any scheme for deep benefit cuts or massive debt to fund risky private accounts."

"We want people to be on record," said Americans United spokesman Brad Woodhouse. By getting enough members of Congress to sign, the group hopes to "make it clear from the get-go that (the president) doesn't have the votes" to divert any portion of Social Security payroll taxes to finance personal accounts.

Bob Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, which advocates fiscal responsibility, sees a danger that candidates will make commitments in their campaigns "that prevent them from doing anything meaningful on Social Security" after the election.

"In any election season, people start throwing charges at each other," and candidates stake out rigid positions, Bixby said. "Slowly and surely, it has taken all reasonable options off the table."

Enter a bipartisan group called For Our Grandchildren, which asks candidates to pledge to put aside partisanship and keep "all options on the table."

The For Our Grandchildren pledge also commits signatories to "honestly address the unfunded obligations of the current system and reduce the pressures on future taxpayers and other budgetary priorities."

Former Democratic Rep. Tim Penny, one of 10 members of Bush's Social Security commission who are part of the group -- said the goal is "to elevate the debate" and get candidates "to acknowledge that something must be done."

Penny said the pledge is broad and inclusive enough that it is consistent with either an AARP approach to reform or the president's plan.

'Options' Are Not An Option

But Americans United sees the For Our Grandchildren pledge as doing the bidding of the "privatizers."

"When they say 'all options on the table' ... you've got to consider privatization," Woodhouse said.

In August, Americans United ran an ad saying, "If George Bush and his backers in Congress privatize Social Security and cut benefits almost in half, what will you cut in half?"

The ad ran in Montana, Missouri, Ohio and Pennsylvania, where GOP Sens. Conrad Burns, Jim Talent, Mike DeWine and Rick Santorum, respectively, face tough re-election battles. It also targeted some vulnerable Republican House members.

Woodhouse predicts that if the president took personal accounts off the table, "the floodgates of cooperation would open." However, he said, "We don't think the conversation should start with benefit cuts."

11 Years Left

By 2017, Social Security will begin acting as a drain on the budget. In 2022, Social Security will pay out $100 billion more in benefits than it collects in taxes (in 2006 dollars). That will rise to $200 billion in 2027 and $300 billion in 2032.

Officially, the Social Security trust fund has enough money until 2040. But taxpayers will have to pay the cost to redeem the trust fund bonds.

In the president's 2006 State of the Union address, he said he wanted to create a commission for Congress to come up with a bipartisan agreement to reform Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

By 2030, the three programs are projected to cost 15.5% of GDP, up from 8.4% currently. In recent decades, annual federal tax revenue has averaged just over 18% of GDP.

But Bush's effort to find Democrats for his panel went nowhere after Robert Rubin, treasury secretary under President Clinton, said Democrats should take part only if Bush's tax cuts were on the table.

Penny said Bush wants to give Social Security reform another try, no matter who wins the election.

Would the dynamic be different if Democrats retake Congress?

Maybe, said Bixby of the Concord Coalition.

"It would be more likely that we would have a Social Security reform plan if Democrats get control of one branch of government and thus have a stake in the result," he said.

But there's plenty of reason to doubt "that the political climate is right" for a deal, Bixby said, including the continuing battle to make Bush's tax cuts permanent.

Poor Ben, Your have no clue of right or wrong. I guess you are brain washed, which is sad.

@job1 -- Save your pity wanker. It's not accurate nor wanted, nor needed. You lady are The Stepford Wife of the dumbocrat party.

Blingrich - another useless "celebrity" politician just like Trump, Palin, Cain. The clown circus continues...

I'm voting for the one who will not barter nor bargain for the Presidency. RON PAUL 2012

Our government, Dems & Repubs.... 1 Bird, 2 Wings, Same poop.

VOTE Ron Paul 2012 as the PEOPLES President

And after the nomination when Paul does not win nor runs as an independent -- who do you vote for then? Or do you shirk your patriotic duty?

Ben-636050

@Beverly -- Mrs. Gingrich dresses with class. Michelle "junk in the trunk back shelf rump" Obama dresses like a dime store whore.

Ben

You "F"ing freak, first of all, why are are looking at another man's woman's ass? The next thing you got wrong is how the First Lady dresses.

August 4, 2011

Michelle Obama, 47, is known for rocking everything from Tom Ford to Target brand Merona -- all while making whatever she's clad in look like a million bucks. But the First Lady isn't the only stylish Obama -- her husband President Barack joins her on the Best-Dressed Couples list.

Read more: http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-style/news/kate-middleton-michelle-obama-lady-gaga-top-vanity-fairs-best-dressed-list-201148#ixzz1g79MFhrr

Thirdly, Callista Gringrigh is an empty headed blonde bimbo. Any time a wife would cause her husband to vacation in the Greek isle and shop @ Tiffany's which they could afford rather than put his campaign 1st she is one dumb ass

The last 3 yrs has proven, at least to me, that republicans are the most unhonorable people to walk modern american soil. Am also positive that the next year will be no different. People making $100,000.00 or less a year and voting republican should be the dictionary's new definition of stupid and ignorant.

The one and best choice for President is President Obama. These radical right folks are clowns, and the fact prove so.

Drive-by - to answer one of your questions, Obama absolutely promised things would be fixed in 3 years:

In February 2009, when employment was at 8.2 percent, he declared, "If I don't get this done in three years, then this is going to be a one term proposition."

He also JOKED after blowing $800 billion to benefit his cronies and not the general public that "I guess those shovel-ready jobs weren't so shovel ready" ha ha ha. Yeah, jokes on us for believing this con-man millionaire man-child.

You keep believing, and we'll keep working to make sure he is unemployed come 2013. Now let's see if you can respond to the topic and not attack me.

@Ben 636054... If I followed my patriotic duty I would have to spill the blood of tyrants from time to time to preserve the tree of liberty. But then people like you who know no better would not understand what the founders meant when they said this and you would think it was wrong.... But the answer is no.. I would have to write the name of a leader who I feel will uphold the only OATH we ask them to swear on a BIBLE in front of us. Just like I have to do every 4 years. I sure hope you guys wake up to the ideas of the founding fathers instead of being tricked by the medias ideas.

@Paul F... Thank you, well said!! As a ditch digger who lost his job to illegals and saw the money and illegal issues dumped in the toilet that Obama promised was a big lie!!!! Ron Paul for President!!! End these wasteful programs and pay of my country's debt to china please!! Protect my borders and start programs for ditch diggers like me to rebuild my countrys infrastructure!! Bring my soilders home!! AMERICA FIRST!! RON PAUL

Of the $880 billion, over $300b went to tax breaks and another $300b went to states to help them avoid an even more significant unemployment crisis. How is that not benefiting the general public?

care4:

Why are you blaming the govt for the actions of your employer? Did the govt hire them instead of you?

Did you know the president tried to work with Lindsey Graham because Lindsey was stirring the pot to get something going on immigration issues, but when Obama said he was ready to talk turkey, Lindsey suddenly became very busy with something else? Typical repub tactic to want to do something until Obama does too, then they are no longer interested.

Jody, Great wrap up for the week.

Especially like the one about ACA providing relief for Medicare part D drug coverage payments.

Hope the Christmas tree in front of Capitol is working by now. I will be in D.C. today.

Maybe I will see where Newt " the book peddler" is singing books. Oops, I am sure it is not a Barnes and Noble!

"Cain Train Derailed at Petticoat Junction".

What an awesome headline that would be!

A real life headline regarding our big mouth Teapublican governor, this week in the Bangor Daily News reported: LePage Meets with Democratic Rep, Then Curses Him.

http://ericrussell.bangordailynews.com/2011/12/05/gov-lepage-meets-with-democratic-rep-then-curses-him/

As always Jody that's fine like frog hair split two ways that there is. Backhoe standing by to clear off your porch.

Another *touchdown* from Jody!

*applauds*

Floyd, good to see you have our Iowa ace covered! ;o)

Thanks, glad the backhoe's ready. It was longer than I like but couldn't decide what to cut.

Northstar, yes, the Capital tree was fixed later that same night and is gorgeous; going dark was temporary but seemed to suit Congress this year. Those numbers about the ACA are just for Iowa; just think of the total savings for seniors nationwide.

Amy, our local newspaper editor has a good sense of humor. Your Governor is a real piece of work.

Jody--thank you for the great round-up of the news. I can always count on finding something I missed. I appreciate all your hard work that goes into keeping us updated every week! The whole political scene is fascinating--it's a shame there is so much at stake for 2012.

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

Hi Jody,

Wonderful!

couldn't decide what to cut.

Jody,

Don't worry about the cutting. Those of us who appreciate your work would rather have more than less. So much happens in a week that we it's informative to go back and revisit the entire spectrum of events. Great job!

I vote for good men of good character, not for slimey sleazeballs like Blingrich because they have good debatin skills.... yeesh!!!!!

Jack, glad to hear that more is fine.

Jody,

More and more fabulous, thank you.

Who is this guy that has never heard of infections you can get from cleaning toilets?

Infections that can spread, like HEPATITUS.

And Grinchgeek thinks that is something young children can control for....?

And on their OWN?

Dickens wrote a couple of roles just for him.

The PEOPLES President. Not the MEDIAS..... RON PAUL 2012

Cares4,

Except if you are in a hellish Disaster,

then you will have to call up your insurance company while you are drowning.

Or do it On Your Own.

Ron Paul neglects to tell you that the people he will be turning the government over too (privatize) will be the 1%. Paul claims he cares about the rich running our government and then forgets to tell you he voted for the very tax cuts that not only drove up the deficit, but gives more money and more power to the rich 1%. Paul even voted to keep the special tax cuts for the billion dollar oil companies.

Didn't it ever occur to you that the smaller government he so likes to push benefits the rich 1% the most?

Once again for the corporations Paul voted against increasing the minimum wage. Isn't that how you would vote if you claimed to care for the people more than the corporations?

I find Ron Paul dishonorable as he claims to be for the people but always votes in congress for the 1%.

Funny - Obama and his cronies overspend by 400% more than his predecessor while "cutting taxes" and y'all are still blaming Bush?

No wonder this con-man still has a job. It's simple math folks. Even a 10 year old can understand this.

If the "other guys" overspent, regardless of how "hard" it is, you must cut spending first to fix this "mess".

But Democrats don't and won't cut spending. Well, unless you want to cut the 1 thing the Federal Government is actually supposed to do, was created to do, which is to protect the states - you know, defense. And don't misunderstand, I think it's time to cut defense spending, as it has spiraled out of control just like the rest of the federal government.

These idiots overspend more in 1 day than most states overspend in a year. The federal government is a mix of organized crime, incest, corruption and incompetence like never before seen on this earth.

Bottom line is blame whoever you like. These clowns are not fixing anything except for their own wealth and retirement. You are being duped if you believe otherwise. Only a 3rd party has any chance of breaking the hold this crime syndicate has on our nation. And that chance is slim.

FALSE.

FALSE.

..wait a minute...FALSE.

Amazing that.

Jody, Iowa:

Just back in town. First job - check out the week that was. As always, a simply fabulous job of recapping, even if some of the news is outright unbelievable and a great deal terribly sad.

Well, I have to run. I hear that a fellow named Corzine has lost a billion-dollars. I'm going to see if I can locate the money. Finders, keepers, right?

@ backhouse. I guess you were not in Katrina waiting for help while FEMA blocks the borders and keeps fellow Americans from coming to help for weeks!!! Your tax dollars give FEMA a regular huge pile of money but when the DISASTER comes (like our Missouri river floods here in Iowa) FEMA has to go back and hold the hand out for more of your tax dollars because they wasted the one you just gave them. FEMA is useless!! Every single time they have come for DISASTER, RON PAUL VOTED FOR FUNDING HELP. Please get your facts about Paul. BUT, he feels the check for relief should go straight to the community so they can get busy doing what they need and further it keeps the funds local to local workers who usely need that work the MOST. FEMA instead overcharges while bringing in its contractor Buddie's from out of state, who screw up on purpose to milk your tax dollars. Worse, they take forever to get anything done. The checks for relief to the IOWA locals did not come till just 2 months ago while people have had to find shelter "ON THEIR OWN" and many our still waiting.. THANKS TO FEMA..... So wake up before you make MEDIA statements like that... Enough of this bureaucracy. END IT. Thats how a big dog rolls.. Stand up to this crap.. RON PAUL 2012

@NoJo

Now, we're on "fairness". Nice, ephemeral term- like "hope", and "change". Tell me, though, what is "fairness"? Is it "fair" that some have done without certain amenities in order to save the maximum for retirement- while others have not? Does Obama think it only "fair" to take the 401k money from those who saved, to redistribute to those who have not saved?

So Jo, who's butt did you pull this one out of. How about a little proof lady.

Ben-636050

@Beverly -- Mrs. Gingrich dresses with class. Michelle "junk in the trunk back shelf rump" Obama dresses like a dime store whore.

Hey Ben, the white trash bus is pulling out soon. Please be on it you POS.

Care 4,

Katrina happpened under Bush, you know that ---??

We all know Katrina was managed badly.

This year FEMA provided critical, essential services to victims of many tornados and floods.

The right wing (e.g. Cantor) is using the Katrina failure by President Bush, to gut public services. And to use your term, that is the is the way the right wing 'rolls'.

Ron Paul's "Freedom" is about gutting federal agencies and deregulation. Translation: You are On your Own.

Meaning health care, disaster relief etc. will be privatized under Ron Paul/GOP/Koch.

That means we will have to pay for it through the nose......

Even as we are drowning.

Take it back, Fiesty (post #4) before JoAnna or Spanker has to get on here and declare you wrong AGAIN!

What happened Feisty, were you going to repost your rant for the third time and changed your mind at the last minute?

What happened Feisty, were you going to repost your rant for the third time and changed your mind at the last minute?

Uh oh - someone is looking for some Feisty attention this morning! lol

Quit trolling me you freak!

What an incredible inflated opinion you seem to have of yourself.

What an incredible inflated opinion you seem to have of yourself.

I think that describes you pretty well, wca.

white collar,

Feisty is a nasty name caller who revels in attacks on any opinion that disagrees with her own.

Her kids must be proud (NOT).

Hey Henny-Penny!

Don't fret my little pet about my children...

I already told you, my daughter would eat you for lunch and stifle the burp afterwards...

Now be a dear, run along and drop your cackle-berries else where!

Clearly x is the most brilliant post EVER from FR. Bravo!

Too many on this site thinks Obama does not wrong, others think Obama does nothing right. I say those absolute views are both wrong. I fall in the middle.

Obama's biggest mistake was dealing with Republicans as if they were reasonable people with the best interests of the country as their number one priority even after Mitch McConnell publicly stated that HIS number one priority was defeating Obama in 2012. At least now, it seems that Obama has seen the error of his ways.

Yellowdog Mark. While I agree with you about disagreeing without being disagreeable, many of us have written posts previously expressing that same view over the years only to be attacked for being against free speech. I've been reading this site for over 6 years and posting since late 2008; the closer elections get, the meaner it gets. Much as we'd like FR to always be a pleasant experience, free speech is what it is. We only need to listen to the nasty attacks by republican candidates, the character assassinations of a candidate by other candidates and on President Obama to realize that such nastiness by politicians reflects on what happens here. It would be wonderful if everyone played nice but until politics becomes less divisive, posts like yours urging less nasty back and forth will work a few days and then go to the archives like all previous similar ones. I believe that everyone, right and left, should just be who they are and each of us can make our own decision about what we say and how we say it.

It is the nature of the beast Yellowdog ... better here than on the streets where free discourse often turns violent.

"Again, we can disagree without being disagreeable"

You'll get no argument from me on that one, Mark. And I would also agree that true Independents are sadly under-represented here, if not virtually non-existent.

But obviously, this already is a very enjoyable site to most of the people who frequent it on a regular basis, or they wouldn't keep coming back as often as they do. And from the less frequent times I've ventured into other sites that invite comments and discussion - not just on politics, but on other news stories, sports, entertainment, etc. - I'd actually have to say that this is actually one of the less "disagreeable" ones I've come across, which is probably why it's the only one I've ever commented on so far myself. I have a hard time believing that people would talk to each other face to face the way we do behind the safety of anonymity. And I think we all tend to get carried away sometimes by the ego-boosting idea that our thoughts are being read by thousands of people all across the country and we want our comments to be the ones that everyone will remember, so we'll say almost anything sometimes to stand out from the crowd. And apparently very few of us remember our mothers saying they didn't care "who started it first" and sending us both to our rooms no matter who was "right" or "wrong".

So much as I agree with you, I'm afraid I have to repeat one of my bosses' favorite sayings (and one which I can't stand, by the way!) - "It is what it is". You're never going to be able to change it.

But does that mean you should stop trying, or stop posting here? Hell, no. Don't even think about it. You have as much right to be heard as anyone. And don't forget, there are plenty of people out there who read here all the time and never post themselves - they're your audience too.

We all have to be who we are and we all have to live with what we say here. I doubt that's ever a problem for you.

We have to remember that the Republicans-Radical Right Tea Party, along with big corporation’s are the number one contributors to this country’s problems and their main goal has been to stop our President and see him fail, by trying to de-rail his efforts. In my heart and soul I know that Our President is a great and caring person, who is trying to do his best for us all. We just need to show him support and send a message to the Republicans-Radical Right Tea Party and big corporation’s that their efforts to block the President is hurting us all and they are not going to get away with it.

I think the country would be well served if the Republicans would try to work with the President and the rest of Congress, instead of bickering and trying to hurt the President and the American people.

The Republicans just need to work for the people instead of groups such as the Koch brothers who are waging a war against the President on not wanting to pay their fair share of taxes and play by the rules.

Also, the Radical Right Tea Party should be careful, because these same brothers and some corporation’s are using them as puppets to do their bidding for them, and once they get what they want these little solders will be thrown on the trash heap.

JoAnne, well said.

Job 1, also well said. I absolutely agree about President Obama; I do not agree with everything done but I recognize that he is President of ALL the people not just those who voted for him. It troubles me that since he took the oath of office, the right has done nothing except say NO and denigrate, demonize and preach hatred about him. Never have I seen such complete disregard for the country's well being by one party in order to defeat a man who is trying so hard to help us all.

Thank you, President Obama for doing what you think best and fighting for all of us.

Houston - I'm a big Cenk Uygur fan - Current TV, he sometimes criticizes the President at times for slipping into the trap. Yes you are right, Obama shouldn't have been so compromising early on. Now we have to live with the small victories he can get for us.

Jody and Ideology yes this is as civil a site as I have seen. Ever look through the yahoo comments sections under the headlines. shudder. The problem is as people become more course on these blogs things get courser in society in general.

Job1 - Yes the country would do well to have people work together. However because both of our groups believe in diametrically opposed plans how can that be done? I agree with what you are saying about the TP radicals but I am honest enough to know that our side, including me by the way, does not have all the answers. What is the answer, to make Congress work for the good of us all - maybe we need to mandate term limits so these guys have to run on their records instead of just getting elected based on how much money they raise.

JoAnne Pa - I will proudly say that I am not an independent, not that there is anything wrong with them. I'm a die hard liberal but every once in a while I can see a common point or arguement that comes from the other side. Every once in a while I disagree with Obama or the democrats.

I like your icon, good to see you back posting. Hope things are well with your life.

Peace on Earth

Hey Mark-

Like the avatar...agree with the sentiment, having expressed the same to no avail on more than one occasion.

You have 8-maybe a dozen folks here who are not entirely predictable in their responses and then you have everyone else on Team Red and Team Blue, who reliably and unfailingly side with their TEAM. Superman can "Change the course of mighty rivers, bend steel in his bare hands", but he couldn't pry an inch of daylight into the calcified positions of the usual suspects...:)

What ever became of Mixed Bag?

The negative discourse coming from our President's mouth on a regular basis is an embarrassment to the office. Obama has sought to divide from the very start, and that is his greatest success.

He has, in record time, turned one against another. He has sewn seeds of envy, vitriol, hate, and dare I say class and race hate not seen in modern times.

We need a change in this nation, and it needs to start with each of us for sure. It also needs to start with the folks holding the microphones and garnering the attention of tv cameras. A leader leads. A narcissist sews seeds of dissension.

DF - agree with the sentiment, having expressed the same to no avail on more than one occasion.

Yes, you were the first, that I remember anyway to call for civility. Some here have the inabilibty to be civil or to see even one ounce of hypocrisy, wrong doing or political gamesmanship within their own side.

I haven't seen Mixed Bag in a long time either. There was also a guy called Ira Lapin I used to enjoy reading. Then there was that jokester Exodite Dragon that gave me a chuckle now and again.

Still enjoying reading many regulars though.

DF - agree with the sentiment, having expressed the same to no avail on more than one occasion.

Yes, you were the first, that I remember anyway to call for civility. Some here have the inabilibty to be civil or to see even one ounce of hypocrisy, wrong doing or political gamesmanship within their own side.

I haven't seen Mixed Bag in a long time either. There was also a guy called Ira Lapin I used to enjoy reading. Then there was that jokester Exodite Dragon that gave me a chuckle now and again.

Still enjoying reading many regulars though.

Paul, you are wrong. Jody, thank you. Job 1, well said and I agree.

Are you saying that electing a person who:

- Is a serial flip flopper;

- is a serial philandered;

- lost the House Speakership because of ethics violations; and,

- thinks kids should clean toilets in schools,

is a good idea?

WOW!

If republicans are so sure of their candidates then why all the voter suppression?

If republicans are so sure of their candidates then why all the lies and statements taken out of context on purpose?

I have to agree on one thing, I also think that Newt is the best the GOP has to offer. Yes a man with no ethics, thrown out of congress for his lack of ethics and was having an affair with a staffer at the same time he was claiming the moral high ground and trying to impeach Clinton for doing the same thing Gingrick was doing.

Did I mention that this was the only time in our history as a nation that a speaker of the house was thrown out on ethics charges.

Republicans should be proud, as this is the best they can come up with.

The only "voters' republicans want to suppress are non-citizens. Just read for 10 minutes all the reports of the suspected voter fraud perpetrated by ACORN. This wasn't a bunch of fluff, they were registering Mickey Mouse, and in Nevada, the Dallas Cowboys team to mention just two obvious examples. Now it appears the fraud runs even deeper, and of course, the same players are associated now with the Obama re-election team.

Keep sewing the hate, its not going to work. Taxpayers and actual voters know what right, 2010 was merely a peek at what is going to occur in 2012, and this is why liberals are bleating at an ever increasing rate.

Paul if Mickey Mouse did not vote then there was no voter fraud. Just because someone used a fake name does not get them registered to vote.

The only real voter fraud that has been to trial and convicted was republicans caught suppressing the vote.

But continue lying for the republicans if it makes you feel better. It certainly lets the rest of us see true republican values in action.

What a freaking riot the RWNJ are! All this rending of clothes and boo-hooing about the Democrats demonizing the poor innocent Repukelicant candudates(like this is a new tactic they are somehow unfamiliar with)! If it wasn't for their bellyaching, two-faced and hypocritical caterwauling, that "party"(term used disparagingly) would have been swept away to the outhouse hole long ago. But don't despair the changing demographics of our nation will finally rid us of that cancerous disease of conservitivism and the sooner the better!

AF - are you so naive that you believe that an organization that would register the entire Dallas Cowboys team in Nevada would not then use these same methods to defraud us by voting under dead citizens names, which has been done, or vote for someone not otherwise registered, or vote as a "citizen" while not actually being a citizen, in order to gain an advantage?

Honestly, its as if no amount of proof is enough.

People who routinely commit fraud are professionals - they spend every waking hour trying to outsmart the system (which seems pretty easy today), and since we see this behavior from left leaning groups, I worry that these professional criminals are controlling more and more of our government.

Not prone to paranoia, but seriously, when the stories come out nearly every day regarding some form of fraud, one can only imagine what the really professional con-men and women are getting away with.

But feel free to parse words and dissect any particular case if that makes you feel better.

As for Amused - the 2010 election results seem to make your statements appear to be utter partisan nonsense, with no relation to the truth or reality.

Can you provide links to actual voter fraud cases? Not voter registration fraud - but actual voter fraud. They are not the same.

And in order for voter fraud to be effective, it would have to be done in great numbers - and that would be more easily detected than the other types of fraud you reference.

Repub fear mongering tactics continue to frighten the weak minded.

Paul F - "Not prone to paranoia," Your rant reeks of paranoia and delusion. Same old cornservatude crap "the sky is falling", "we're afraid, scared and pissing in our pants". Grow up, sonny! Are you so unintelligent to not understand that a voter registration form for every fictional character imaginable isn't going to allow anyone named Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck or Pluto to actually vote. The professional conservative organization to commit voting fraud could use several thousand people of your low IQ to help them provide a counter weight to your imagined and fevered brain fears of left wing voter fraud. Now get to work! Regarding my comments on the increasing numbers of minorities, what part of that confuses you?

Houston, that's so true.

Gingrich created the great divide in Congress and the country. He literally locked the democrats out of the room when creating legislation. His Contract for America idea was that legislators should not live in Washington DC with their families but rather go home every weekend. It used to be that both sides of the aisle's families attended picnics, had dinner together, went to parties with each other--all of which promoted mutual respect, friendships and developed working relationships. Newt ended all that.

You must have been sleeping during the Bush years. The Democrats were obstructionists.

Complete nonsense Houston! Newt and his guys actually did negotiate and were responsible for the near balanced budget you lefties keep trying to pin on Clinton.

Newt Gingrich was the biggest reason Clinton was able to succeed - because they both negotiated and at the end of the day got things done.

Now the Chicago-style is in full force, mowing down anything and anyone who disagrees. The hyper-partisan wrecking ball is Obama, not Newt.

Paul F

Complete nonsense Houston! Newt and his guys actually did negotiate and were responsible for the near balanced budget you lefties keep trying to pin on Clinton.

You're just slinging the same old BS. The truth is that Clinton's tax increases were largely responsible for the balanced budget and the booming economy even though the Republicans were screaming that the tax hike would lead to horrendous economic disaster. You know, like the ones the Republicans brought about during Bush's eight years of misrule.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

Newt was a vicious liar who was forced out of Congress in disgrace. Even Republicans who were members of the Congress back when he was Speaker have said he was a miserable failure as a leader.

Now the Chicago-style is in full force, mowing down anything and anyone who disagrees. The hyper-partisan wrecking ball is Obama, not Newt.

Yeah, like Obama's inclusion of the REPUBLICAN individual mandate in his health insurance reform. Like the Bush tax cuts he agreed to extend. Oh, how terribly partisan of him!

Amen, Houston, Amen...he is a piece of crap, they know it and that is what is scary. Anything to get Obama out of office. Our President is empathetic to the 99%. He cares about the country. How can the republican's be ok with electing someone that is unethical?? I don't get it. That is just blatant stupidity. Man, what kind of world is this? Makes me want to hide.

@Huston

You are so right. Newt was the beginning of all of this mess. He brought the hatred and divisiveness and it just flourished. He fancies himself a statesman but he is only a political hack and has been at best. He will show his true colors. He can't help himself.

I would agree with you, except the "ethics committee" against Newt had the likes of Nancy "Insider Trading" Pelosi on it.

Besides, they dropped all the charges but one, which was also explained away.

Why don't we investigate Nancy, since we already "have the goods" on her?!??

There is something so hypocritical about Republicans picking on Nancy Pelosi because she's one of those "successful" people (i.e. rich) who Democrats are often accussed of being jealous of. Pelosi did nothing wrong, in that Visa did not benefit from legislation under her watch, regardlesss of whether her family bought their stock or not. The truth is, Democrats in general, and Pelosi in particular, have passed more consumer protection laws than Republicans, who hstory has shown, always protect the big corporations over consumers, every time.

Hmmm...he resigned under fire from those within his own Party. The House vote on censure was something like 350-85, with Republicans holding the majority in the House at the time.

This is the guy who was leading the Clinton impeachment over an affair with a staffer, while having an affair with a staffer. The guy calling for sending Barney Frank to jail, because Frank supported the Freddie/Fannie business model, but who earlier had taken $1.8 million in consulting fees, to promote the Freddie/Fannie business model.

Congratulations GOP...you've finally gotten to the bottom of the barrel.

Leona, that's such a lame argument. The House had a huge republican majority, the vote was well over 350 to about 45; Google it for the exact vote. It was the republican party that went after Gingrich, not the democrats and you know it. The majority party is the only one that can initiate investigations, all the minority can do is ask for them.

Well trollship Leona IS a lame excuse. She'd make a good groupie for New-wit Goodrich.

JODY,

I am not a Gingrich supporter but the hypocrisy here is amazing.

Nancy Pelosi came out a couple days ago and said she has closed files which will expose things about Gingrich, if he keeps running for office, because she was on that committee.

Of course Nancy walked it back because Gingrich countered with the fact that she has no legal right to allow closed documents to get out.

Liberals despise Gingrich for all the same reasons they should also despise Pelosi. It's strange that you libs don't see the same "ugly" traits in Pelosi's integrity that you see in Gingrich's.

We won't wait for that.

Leona, there are a whole lot of Republicans who despise Gingrich. If Republicans give Gingrich the Nomination, that guarantees President Obama's re-election.

haha

Leona and hkdalota-

Just go away. You are sick and mislead.

Diver,

you wish we would "go away" but sorry, it wont happen.

We have freedom of speech, that is, until and unless you liberals have your way.

Liberals stand up for FREE speech, freedom of religion , women's rights, gay rights , etc..................BUT ONLY when everyone agrees with the liberal point of view. They always want all others banned.

Twenty years in the future, the majority of people will look back on 2011 and wonder why the Republicans-Radical Right in office didn’t go to jail for crimes against the United States and it’s people. For any group that is trying to bury the poor and middle class, in order to save the rich and big corporations from paying one dime in additional taxes is treason against the United States.

The biggest problem I have is the fact that so many people are so stupid, that they actually support the likes of the so called Republicans-Radical Right. They are like a group of blind little sheep that fall into lock step with these villains who want nothing more than to destroy our President.

You may ask why, and I think we know why. I will give you a hint. Who signs a pledge to a man who is not elected to any office by the people, to never raise taxes?

Job1,

Stop the misleading rhetoric and get to the truth. Unless and until we reduce our debt , the country will continue to get downgrades. Our country is going down the tubes because of the Democrat liberal agenda .

The "Super Committee" came through with a plausible plan to reduce debt and the President ignored it.

The reason Obama ignored the Super Committee?? Answer: So he can continue to call the Republicans "the Party of No" in order to help him win his re-election.

I call Obama "The President of NO."

HEREIGNS: "Obama State run media" uh, and on what "facts" do you base this absurd statement???

As for "Class Warfare", if I hear one more Right Wing Reactionary chime in on this GOP talking point, I just may postal. Of course, the poor and working class have been beating up on the helpless wealthy because as we all know, the rich are powerless to help themselves. Nor do they have the access to fancy lobbyists on K Street who then buy off Congressman (mostly GOP) to vote in their best interests to meet their personal agenda. No, only the poor have that kind of power. Only the poor control our most powerful finacial & political institutions and can mould legislatioin to their every whim.

I'll leave you with a quote from Warren Buffett. You know him, don't you? At times has been ranked as the wealthiest man in America and consistently listed by Forbes as one of the wealthiest people if not the very wealthiest. I would say his Free Market, Capitalist Bona Fides are beyond reproach, don't you agree???

Quote "There's Class warfare alright, but it's my class, the rich class, that's waging the war, and we're wining"

If you don't realize now what a complete A$$ you sound like, making such a statement, then you're hopelessly beyond any chance at redemption.

If we have Obama State run media, how is it there's FOX, the NY Post, Limbaugh? HeReigns, you really need to try harder--the old he's a "communist" just doesn't cut it any more.

I am not calling him a communists. But I am definitely calling this media leaning towards him as if he was in control. Read Chuck Todd for a while you will understand what I mean.

And Fox is straight up and above board, right? Fox has been lying to the masses for a long time. It is well documented. It is a shame that it is also well documented that those who choose to get their news from that corporation are the most misinformed people in the country. This is a pot and kettle conversation therefore there is no point in it.

Both sides are corrupt, plain and simple.

bob

Why not put Rush and Glen in the clinic line while were at it.

That would be the last nail in our coffin, Nooooooooooooooooo.

Gingrich's intellect and statesmanship is an urban myth.

Well Greg, it's fall, and the grass roots are dormant at best.

Greg Parker,

The Republican Party has a problem when it's difficult for the casual reader to know whether "The question before us today is whether Newt has the intelligence and temperment to be President " is meant as a joke or a statemet of support.

Could this be our first ironic Republican primary?

" Also, memo to the beltway press, we don't care about past scandals, sad marriages, or consulting work"

Speak for yourself. I find myself in curious agreement for once with the conservative pastor (let's repeat that - the conservative pastor) quoted in the article above who says “If Newt Gingrich can betray a woman who has sworn her love and loyalty to him for the rest of her life, not once, but twice, what makes you think he won’t betray you, the faceless voter in a sea of faceless voters?”

I've never understood how people can so blithely claim that a politician's personal life has nothing at all to do with his ability to hold public office. If you can lie to your own family and cheat on your own wife - make that wives - how can I possibly believe you wouldn't do the same thing to me without a second thought? And before you start typing "But Clinton....." or "But Edwards.....", that goes for them, too.

But then, I guess anyone who thinks those are all just "sad marriages" would have no idea what I'm talking about......

(Amy B) intelligence and temperment ... joke or a statemet of support.

* * *

Amy, From my view today, it is THE QUESTION. Of course, I support Newt -- no doubt about it. The irony, this go round, is no greater than last, "shall a community organizer with little experience be trusted with leading America in time of war"? Talk about irony. Wow.

So, if America can trust BHO, then surely America can embrace the older, wiser, and more devout Newt. I'm not saying he is a saint because he isn't, but Newt has certainly mellowed, if you happen to remember him from way back when.

(JoAnne) But then, I guess anyone who thinks those are all just "sad marriages" would have no idea what I'm talking about......

* * *

J,

The reason for this tag line here is not to belittle the sanctity of marriage. BTW, I'm actually pleased that you agree with a conservative pastor. No, the reason I mention it, is because the press has a nasty little way of bringing up past dirt. Now that Newt finds himself in the catbird seat, there is, in the press, a search of all of Newt's dirt. Elitists and sophists of all sorts like to call this "vetting". Since it is OLD DIRT, I prefer the term muck raking.

Newt is guilty of adultery. O.K. It was wrong. Surely, even you, and the conservative pastor believe in forgiveness. It is Christmas, after all. :)

Greg -

Okay, what's your statute of limitations on "old dirt"? And where do you draw the line on what constitutes "dirt" to begin with? If adultery is no problem, would domestic abuse be okay, too?

As for forgiveness, I believe in it wholeheartedly - when I think someone is truly sorry for their misdeeds and is making a good faith effort to change. The last I heard, Gingrich was still blaming his two extra-marital affairs on the pressures of holding political office - while, curiously enough, not allowing Clinton - who was in an even higher pressure office - the same defense. As my old high school Spanish teacher used to say all the time (don't ask me why) "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander".

But hey.... I think George W. Bush actually said it best:

"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again."

"The question before us today is whether Newt has the intelligence and temperment to be President "

The answer is no, Newt Gingrich has neither the temperment or the intelligence to be President of the United States.

"shall a community organizer with little experience be trusted with leading America in time of war"? Talk about irony. Wow.

Obama is an experienced incumbent. Newt was run out of his position of speaker, out of office, and out of town. Tell you anything, since it was Republicans who did that? Large numbers of people in his own party will come out and attack him the closer the election gets. The fact is his own party knows he cannot be trusted. Got to wonder what rock you've been hiding under. People DO care when a liar and a cheat decides we're all stupid enough to make him president, so yes, his past matters as it is a direct indicator as to how he will behave in the future. Wake up and take off the blinders and you wont look so foolish.

A public flogging in order?

All a rant like that is going to win you is a tin hat. You help no cause with that sort of nonsense.

ugh

How do fat, ugly guys find so many women to have extramarital affairs with anyway?

what would you call a woman who sleeps with another woman's husband while the wife is in bed with cancer and chemo? GIANT GOLDIGGER COMES TO MIND, DEFINITELY WHORE.

She knowingly messed around with a married man and directly caused the breakup of his second marriage. If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it's a duck. She's indefensible.

The PEOPLES President not the MEDIAS. Ron Paul 2012

Paul is the peoples president only if you are talking about the 1% of the people. Those are the people that Ron Paul supports with his every vote.

Don't believe me, check out his voting record. Ron Paul says one thing and then always votes for the 1%.

Personally I think that the Republicans will continue to focus most of their attention on state and local level elections in 2012. It is from those positions that they can continue their war to defund public education and disenfranchise entire blocks of voters. They are not really trying to win the presidency this time. These candidates and this entire circus are nothing short of a diversion so you are not placing your attention where it truly needs to be. They don't care about the presidency for then next four years when they can completely eliminate any chance the democrats have at winning anything if they can pass a few more of their Voter Fraud laws and Gerrymander just a few more districts.

It's the same crowd that voted for Bush not only once but TWICE. BLIND SHEEP

LOL, the GOP is so screwed up that they can't even remember history.

But hey who needs ethics or morals when you are white and not a Mormon!! I know Perry is an idiot but that never stopped the neocons from supporting anyone? Whats with Rick Perry - he seems to have all of the traits the Tea Party wants?? White-Male -super christian-and not a Mormon?

Rule, I don't think people like Perry, I don't. He's constantly stumbling and he has a teabagger agenda as if they're all he needs. Well if they are all he needs then he's in, but really, I don't think they like him either.