you remind me of Kramer's date/Elaine's coworker on Seinfeld. Did you play here on the show?

I am a Lib Dem & love your posts Feisty but I wish you would get off Newt's back, we need him to keep ripping pieces off of the devil (Romney)

Only someone with the intelligence of a pink toy rabbit with 34 year old batteries would think 46 million Americans living on food stamps is delicious (Up 44% since Obama taking office - after the peak of the recession).

Only someone wearing Ray Charles blacked out sunglasses would not see how pathetic it is that according to the Census Bureau, 49% of all American homes have at least one person on federal benefits!

Anyway, keep beating your drum bunny brain Betty.

Be careful what you wish for Feisty ... there isn't enough popcorn in the world for us to survive many more months of this debacle.

bob - There's only so much money to go around, and when the repubs wrote laws from 2001 to 2007 that allow the already wealthy to take an overwhelming chunk of that money, you're going to have an increasing number people who can't afford the basic necessities. Add on top of that the fact that the repubs policies put us into the largest hole since the Great Depression and it makes things even harder for those who are struggling to get by. If you're going to play the blame game, you should point your finger in the correct direction first rather than just pointing it in the direction that doesn't threaten your pre-existing biases.

:(

This is contest number 4 of 48 (8%), so I think it's a little early for 'knockouts'.

This is like watching a bad comedy on TV. It just goes on and on and gets more ridiculous by the minute. And, when it ends, you're still not laughing. Oh well, just the usual for the GOP!

Randy - Did you bother checking when this depression we're in started, October 2008, that's a month before President Obama got elected and a 4 months before he even took office.

timetravelar100 - The President is trying to make life better for ALL Americans, not just those who are already doing well, whereas the repubs are only trying to help those who are already doing well while actively trying to make life HARDER for the 50% of Americans who are having a hard time. So who's the "American-hater" because that 50% is just as American as the rest.

Considering it took 7-13 years to crawl out of the last great depression/recession, I'd say Obama is doing a spectacular job thus far. He avoided turning the recession into a depression. He has turned the economy around in just a couple of years. We are not out of the woods yet, but we have made a lot of headway. And to boot, we have made that progress despite being stopped at every corner by the obstructionist GOP/TP, that group that stated their prime directive is to make Obama a one term president and stop any/all economic policies that would help the 'average American'.

Nice work team Obama and Democratic party - shame on the GOP/TP.

Tim: Again, it's sad that you don't understand how tax rates really work. Read the info. at this link. You may learn something.

www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

betty, just demonstrating how ridiculous your statement is. Is it stalking or am I responding? If I do not respond then what is the point of this site?

Obama is in serious trouble for 2012. His total margin of popular votes over McCain in 2008 was from high school dropouts (63% for Obama vs 35% for McCain) and young inexperienced people who believed his 'hope and change' rhetoric (66% for Obama and 32% for McCain).

When those disenchanted dropouts and immature young people return to their more normal voting patterns, Obama will go down in flames - especially since his 8% advantage with Independents in 2008 has been replaced with a 12% disadvantage in current polls.

His only chance is to wage a negative and divisive class war, and that will merely discourage his supporters even more.

On top of that, the Democrats will have 23 Senate seats up for election in 2012, vs only 10 for the Republicans. If the Republicans pick up only 4 net seats, they will control the Senate (The Republicans picked up a net of 7 out of 19 in 2010).

It should be an interesting year - perhaps Obama should consider starting a war (Wag the Dog) as a diversion from his dismal economic results.

Rick - The numbers on that website of yours seem a little off. Here is the real distribution of wealth in this country:

http://www.mybudget360.com/top-1-percent-control-42-percent-of-financial-wealth-in-the-us-how-average-americans-are-lured-into-debt-servitude-by-promises-of-mega-wealth/

All this pontificating about President Obama from the right wingers is hilarious!

Why can't you all talk about your candidates clunkers & their records?

Kind of strange if you ask me!

Oh, how I love the smell of desperation! lol

Schoolyard taunts, cherry picked numbers & wishful thinking isn't gonna cut it kids!

Just a question, is being an American also having acute amnesia? Does anyone recall the fact that Newt Gingrich was fined $300,000.00 for ethics violation then in 1997 was forced to resign as Speaker of the House or is it just me?

RedDev,

Actually we have had 11 recessions since the Great Depression with the average lasting 10 months - the longest prior was 16 months.

The recession began in December 2007, officially ended in June 2009 (18 months).

The Obama recovery is actually worse on the middle class than the actual recession - median income has DROPPED TWICE AS MUCH UNDER OBAMA THAN IN THE ACTUAL RECESSION UNDER BUSH!

Regardless, the recession started 4 years ago - Obama has been in office 3 years - 2 1/2 years since the recession ended.

The worst recovery since the Great Depression. Fact.

There is no excuse.

Bush's revenues were all bubble based, and not real. They were the cause of the economic meltdown, as a result of Bush deregulaiton, both legislated, and defacto, caused by regulators ignoring all warning signes, including repeated warnings that Bernie's sucesses in the markets were impossible, and fraudulent. Instead of being stopped, he was lecturing the SEC on how to spot fraud.

By the way, Bush went for one war, just to correct what he viewed an error by his father. In fact, if you check the records following his election, he had instructed his staff to begin planning for attacking Iraq within 4 months of his election.

Yes, this nation has much to blame Bush and co for, including our economic meltdown, which like the Titanic, took a long time to change course. Luckily, our economy did not sink into a massive depression, as it was headed for, but because of massive spending, was turned into a recession. To be fair, over half of the Obama deficits should be laid at Bush's feet, as his and GOP incompetence made such spending necessary to prevent total economic disaster. But then the GOP loves to cut off Bush's responsiblity in January. when he left office. Sorry, it is not that easy.

You people make me laugh. Many of you speak as if the govenment has money. The government has no money. We do. If redistribution of my wealth is in order, then when a student in any form of education is awarded an A he/she should give some of their points to whomever are getting D's and C's so that they all can have a B. Are you willing to do that? or have your children do that? I think not, or there would not be so many folks with bumper stickers proclaiming " My Child is on the Honor Role at ....so and so school.

Go Romney! We definitely don't need a Newt anywhere near the Presidency!!!!

(I'll be votin Obama though. I just want a couple of candidates (Obama and Romney) with real character to debate some real issues. NOT A NEWT CLOWN SHOW!!!!!!)

What part of great recession/depression did you miss. There was only one GREAT .. starting in 1929 and ending in about 1941-42. The economic crash of 2008 is not comparable to any other recession.

Gee, it only took Reagan about 1 year to 'crawl out' of the depression/recession of 1982

Now I've heard it all .. history is being re-written to downplay the 2008 economic meltdown. The crash of 2008 was a small, minor bump in the road that Obama blew up into a massive crash based upon his policies. Those bailouts by Bush weren't really needed because banks were not closing by the dozens. Credit was freely flowing during the 2008 crash, unlike the credit freeze of 1929.

Nice re-write of history. Now, go talk to an economist, someone actually trained to evaluate recessions/depressions. They may have a somewhat different view. Oh, wait, the right doesn't believe in education or science. And the bible doesn't talk about the 2008 economic crash, therefore it doesn't exist.

fiesty redhed

that's a good idea why don't you talk about obama's record. One thing though you can't go by liberal democrat rules where you can make up lies and spin.

RedDevPS "Now I've heard it all .. history is being re-written to downplay the 2008 economic meltdown."

Spin it all you want, but the fact remains that Gross Domestic Product (GDP) declined by 4.5% in REAL (inflation adjusted) terms in 1982 vs only 3.89% for Obama's 'great recession', which ended in 2009 (2 and a half years ago). The lack of a strong recovery is attributable to Obama's anti-business, anti-growth, anti-domestic energy policies.

You've been fooled by the 'great media' hype.

You've been fooled by the 'great media' hype.

That may be, but I'll take the 'great media' hype over the drivel you post any day. Maybe Newt or Romney would appreciate your stumping the claim that the 2008 crash is comparable to a fly hitting the windshield of a 747 flying at 500 mph.

Bob,

Your numbers are bolonie! Except for the first two years when Clinton passed him a surplus, He spent near 500 billion over every year. 1 trillion in 08, and part of the 2 trillion in 09.

You fail to realize that he never put the 2x wars in the budget. Made the budget numbers look good, but look at public debt. The actual money we had to borrow. Would be nice if we could all exclude major expenditures from our budget.

And Obama is more centrist than Clinton. That's why he is not doing as well. But thanks for admitting that Clinton did a great job!

This whole Romney train wreck is just SO delicious! He is going to spend GOK how many millions to keep bashing his head against a concrete wall. Dick-head Cheney must be just SO proud of him! ANewtnd in the smoldering carnage of his so-called campaign next November, his wife can ask, 'Willard, did we save America?' he can reply, 'Oh, yes, Ann, America has been saved from Newt, Rick, Paul, Cain, Donald, and--especially--Batsh!t.' Come, my dear, let us take our zillions and go have long, long guffaws at all those lame-brained idiots who contributed to our campaign PACs!

The Gross Domestic Product during the Great Depression declined by over30%.

In the Recession under Reagan in 1982, GDP declined by 4.5%.

In the Recession under Bush/Obama, GDP declined by only 3.89%.

The biggest difference between the Reagan recession and the Bush/Obama recession is the lack of a meaningful economic/jobs recovery. That's what happens when you impose a record 81,000 pages of new regulations in 2009, put moratoriums on domestic energy production and demonize our business community.

I'm sorry that you don't seem to be able to 'connect the dots'.

111,

Every one of those numbers in 1.16 was referenced, as noted, to the OMB.

Have a clue what the OMB is?

Bush's 2 wars not in the budget?

Do you not realize that Obama doesn't even have budgets .... that just because it is not in a budget doesn't mean it is not spent and added to the deficit / debt? Gosh you kiddos are easy to fool.

"bolonie"

Sheesh .... you can't even spell it.

bob-1805084 "Btw - Bush's average spending was 95 billion .... Obama's average spending over the first 3 years was 165 billion!"

I'm not sure where you got your numbers, but average Federal spending under Bush was $2.396 Trillion/yr.

Average Federal spending under Obama has been $3.487 Trillion per year.

That extra $1.091 Trillion per year of spending under Obama is the biggest reason for the skyrocketing Deficits/National Debt.

Bob, you really are an imbecile. Your statistics are nothing but lies. Here are federal government receipts in 2005 dollars:

2000: 2310 B

2001: 2215 B

2002: 2028 B

2003: 1901 B

2004: 1950 B

2005: 2154 B

2006: 2324 B

In other words, it took six years of economic growth to return revenues to where they were before Dunbya's tax cuts. If the tax cuts hadn't been made, they would have been far higher.

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

COMEDY GOLD. I guess if you neglect to correct for inflation you can prove anything.

In inflation corrected 2005 dollars, government revenues were $2.310 billion in 2000, and $2.287 in 2008. A DECREASE of about 1% over an 8-year period, despite the economy being much larger.

Comparision to Clinton's 8 years: from $1.468 billion in 1992 to $2,310 in 2000. An INCREASE of 55%.

My facts are more factual than your facts. Your facts have a liberal/conservative bias. blah blah it never ends.

Roy,

My apologies for not making it clear ... those numbers were for averaged annual expenditures on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Bush's average annual spending on the wars (2001-2008) was $95 billion.

Obama's average annual spending on the wars (2009-2011) was $162.84 billion.

Source was the Congressional Research Service.

Btw - Roy ... I have missed seeing your posts as frequently lately.

Really enjoy your comments.

Bob -- Care to answer MarkC? And just to remind you once again $360+ billion of that revenue came from repatriation....you know the tax holiday Bush signed so the Big Boys could bring some of their money home.

Roy Wilson -- What I remember under Reagan; the mortgage interest rates were extremely high...between 9-13%. That kind of policy would decimate an already strained industry today.

Tom1040943-this comment

"bob - There's only so much money to go around, and when the repubs wrote laws from 2001 to 2007 that allow the already wealthy to take an overwhelming chunk of that money, you're going t..."

is a complete fallacy, and explains much of the angst over the gap between rich and poor. The US is truly a country where the rich are richer, and the poor are richer (by any measure) also!

And Roy -- Were we fighting wars, a euro crisis, a tragedy of historic proportion in Japan and a deadlocked do nothing Congress during the recoveries of the other recessions???? Not to mention it is taking a long time for the banks to finish socializing their losses. The rest of us our trying to get by with the fact that much of wealth just disappeared somewhere!!

Mark,

The numbers I used were actual.

Yea, the constant value of the dollar, inflation, (Bush's devaluation of the dollar) .... The DOT.COM RECESSION that Bush "inherited", the effect of 9/11 on business and the economy, war spending, etc. all factor in.

So how would you adjust for comparing Clinton's healthy balanced budget (thanks to repubs) with Bush's economy where he inherited a recession? How would you factor in the economic cost of 9/11?

Interesting that you chose to use 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 - years before the 2003 tax cuts had been effected or had time to take effect and left off the years when they had the most effect such as 2007 and 2008.

Not trying to skew the tax rate / tax revenue issue much?

Regardless, it is asinine to suggest that the Bush tax cuts of 2003 "cost" money or redistributed wealth to the rich.

You know it .... you are not as obtuse as most of the libs who couldn't even think of constant dollar values.

Dont_carry_it_all "Roy Wilson -- What I remember under Reagan; the mortgage interest rates were extremely high...between 9-13%. That kind of policy would decimate an already strained industry today."

I think you confused interest rates under Carter for those under Reagan. Mortgage rates in Carter's last year were close to 20%. The interest rate on the National Debt in Carter's last year (1980) was 12.23%, and the interest rate in Reagan's last year (1988) was only 7.5%.

Nope you are wrong Roy. Below is link to chart on rates during all of Reagan's Presidency.

http://mortgage-x.com/general/indexes/contract_rate_history.asp

No reply to the fact this recovery is facing many challenges that have nothing to do with this President. In fact government spending was down and that single factor brought the latest GDP numbers down. Can you imagine what GDP would be if we institute drastic cuts all at once? No only would it halt the little growth we have it would put us in a another recession if not depression.

bob-1805084 "Btw - Roy ... I have missed seeing your posts as frequently lately."

Thanks for the clarification on your numbers. The last thing that liberals like to see are actual numbers - it drives them crazy when their rhetoric doesn't match reality.

I'll be going to Costa Rica for several months in February, but thanks to the Internet, I can still keep up with events.

Don't,

You are over your head with Roy.

He can answer for himself, (and certainly better than I can), but you don't remember the costs of the Cold War .... a Euro crisis that would mean nothing but opportunity if we had a healthy economy (think of the devastation to Europe after WW II - there were no economies) .... little tsunami - give me a break (hurt Japan a lot worse .... you think GM was able to get back to #1 without the Japanese auto industry being crushed?) .... deadlocked Congress - sheesh, the dems have had control of the Senate 5 out of the last 5 years and the House 4 out of the last 5 years and your bitching .... when Clinton dealt with repub House and Senate?

You guys should leave it to the MarkCs to argue this stuff, some of you guys just aren't equipped.

Dont_carry_it_all "Nope you are wrong Roy."

Thanks for the link - I track interest rates on the National Debt but not mortgage rates, but my figures for interest rates on the National Debt are accurate.

I will add your mortgage rate data to my files for future reference. Thanks

I'm sorry that you don't seem to be able to 'connect the dots'.

Roy - I've seen you posts in previous posts in which you post figures that do not seem to be published anywhere but in your head. And of course you never post a source. So why should I trust any of your numbers to connect dots? Point is, I don't.

Source for your GPD numbers? Source for your 81,000 pages of regulations?

Now, unlike you, I will post a source of a GDP decline in the 1982 recession of -2.7, and a -5.1 for the 2009 recession, nearly twice the '82 recession. Your numbers do not jive. You also fail completely to understand the causes. The crash of 2008 was a result of bank failures and stock market crash and housing bubble, mirroring the 1929 crash. The 1982 is attributed to a hang-over from the 1979 oil crisis and financial controls of the markets as a result.

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

Bob, when it comes to numbers Roy's pretty damn smart. That's why I will engage him in dialogue. Surprisingly he also has some good ideas on health care. As for his politics...well lets just say I don't subscribe. ; ) But he did suggest letting the Bush tax cuts expire for all to help bring in more revenue and bring down the deficits/debt. So there is that. I would say half that idea is correct policy.

Roy -- Have a great time in Costa Rica!

bob-1805084 "Don't, you don't remember the costs of the Cold War"

Thanks for the reminder bob - Most people don't realize that Defense spending was actually about 64% higher in the 1980s than what it was from 2001-2010 (in inflation adjusted terms). That amounted to about an extra $2.8 Trillion in Defense spending for the 10 years before the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Since the total Deficits for the 1980s were about $1.7 Trillion, the readers are free to decide for themselves whether Reagan's extra Defense spending (which effectively ended the Cold War) was money well spent.

I do have to wonder what we have to show for Obama's $4 Trillion in Deficits over the last 3 years has accomplished, other than making us "Another day older and deeper in debt" (apologies to Johnny Cash).

Roy -- I'm assuming all that Defense spending increased the GDP during the Reagan years as it did under Bush.

Also, would like to see your answer to Red.

RedDevPS

I used the decline in GDP between 1979-1982, which Wiki says were two separate recessions. Combining those two from Wiki results in a 4.9% drop on GDP, which is slightly higher than the 4.5% figure I quoted. I also used the yearly GDP averages for my calculations, not the 'peak to trough' used by Wiki. As for the most recent recession, the figures I used were in inflation adjusted figures (2010 = 100) as follows;

2007 GDP (start of recession) = $14.7356 Trillion.

2009 GDP (end of the recession) = $14.1622 Trillion, a drop of 3.89%

My GDP figures come from the White House historical figures, and my Inflation adjustments come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics - both official government sites (Wiki is nice, but not always reliable).

Hotpockets 44

I want to make one thing clear - I am not a Gingrich supporter for a lot of sound reasons, to which ethics is not one of them.

Unfortuneately for you, you have been deliberately misinformed. To be properly informed, attached is the link to a PDF of the resolution. http://ethics.house.gov/sites/ethics.house.gov/files/House%20Report%20105-1_1.pdf

In it you will see that he offered to reimburse the ethics committee for the cost of the investigation.

What Gingrich was Reprimanded for was his failure to provide committee requested information in a "timely" manner. Gringrich may not admit it, but what happened was his legal counsel misfilled the requested information and the committee literally spent hours finding the information.

In there they show that this reprimand was over his possible ethics violation for the College Course and the possible resulting of income tax evasion - which they turned that over to the IRS for their ruling

The IRS ruled three years later that the course was A-political, educational, and did not promote any candidate. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/gingrich020499.htm

As for all the other charges - all dropped for lack of evidence - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/101198.htm

And I would be remiss if I did not divulge the source of the complaints - The Democrat that lost to Gingrich in 1994. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/gingrich/report/part_i.htm

Gingrich was forced to resign because of the loss of confidence by his own party.

Hotpockets - you have to check facts of the people you read. Any time anyone writes they do so to push an opinion and have no obligation to provide all the facts, only the ones that support their opinion.

And Bob you said:

--some of you guys just aren't equipped

Good thing I'm a girl! : )

(And Roy is patient with me.)

Dont_carry_it_all "Roy -- I'm assuming all that Defense spending increased the GDP during the Reagan years as it did under Bush."

Average Defense spending under Reagan was about $385 Billion per year.

Average Defense spending under Bush was about $440 Billion per year.

Average Defense spending under Obama is about $490 Billion per year.

Note - These are nominal figures, not adjusted for inflation. Obviously, since the 1980s were a long time ago, Reagan's figures would be much higher in today's dollars.

PS - I'm impressed with the logic of your comments. Good job.

Ah Roy you are a gentlemen! It helps to figure out your starting point when you present figures so thanks for your patience! Let me know how Costa Rica is and enjoy yourself!

Dont_carry_it_all "Let me know how Costa Rica is and enjoy yourself!"

Thanks - I want to learn to speak Spanish (helpful in California), and think it will help to immerse myself.

Bye

Immersion is a great way to learn. : )

Til next time.

Ok Roy, I concede. If I add 2+2 and it equals 94 based upon an adjusted rate of 4-4, I can only believe you are right that 9-0 equals Pi. Onward Christian Soldier.

Dont,

--some of you guys just aren't equipped

Good thing I'm a girl! : )

My apologies ....

(And Roy is patient with me.)

See ... I told you he was better at this stuff than I was.

Promise to be more patient next time.

Have a good evening Dont.

Btw - Immersion ? .... Feisty? ..... ah, never mind.

Bob -- I'm holding you to that! lol Apology accepted but I'm still going to argue with you tomorrow. ; )

Did you catch the article in WaPo discussing recessions? Have a wonderful night Bob.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/comparing-obama-and-reagans-economic-records/2011/08/25/gIQAHFJcaQ_blog.html?hpid=z3

Red -- You made some very good arguments don't let these guys off the hook! The WaPo article above was pretty good reading if you get the chance.

Dont - thanks, it was a weird day. Didn't mean to spend it exposing the fabrications, but yet was drawn. You are much quicker than I and appreciate the counter points. The political-fact-check point misstatements so many folks on this site have to be pointed out. Many thanks for having my back tonight, it helped. I have no intention of letting these folks off the hook. These are the same folks that beat up and left a friend of mine for dead. While a decidedly gruesome analogy, perhaps it is what they need to discuss vs. beat.

Dont_

Thanks for the WaPo article.

It sounded pretty good, huh?

If you are interested, let be know if you would like to know why / how it doesn't hold up at all.

Or better yet, just start reading better stuff than Ezra such as Investors Business Daily, NRO, etc.

See ya in the FR funnies

Romney is the ideal candidate to derail Obama, because they are one in the same perpetuating ineptocracy.

For those of you unfamiliar with the term, get educated.

Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) -a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Tired Old Guy - I don't think you can use the words Calista and Lady in the same sentence. Just sayin

If this doesn't scare people to death I don't know what will. Anyone who thinks Newt is going to improve anything they are living in a fantasy world, he is such a joke, he is his own worst enemy, shut your mouth Newt, your toast!!

Don't forget Anne Coulter and Nikki Haley of Georgia as the ladies in waiting for Newt's speical service program for ladies in need. (Tired old Guy).

sounds pretty good compared to Obama

Tired Old Guy: I'm becoming a real fan of your posts! Stick around, won't you?

Look at the video tape, Ron Paul said no to Just let him die, look it up. Funny Though.

John -- Cannot use that name for newt. Already in use by Democrat Governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown of California. Moonbeam was the nickname given him in the '70s.

At this point, I think Daffy Duck could beat Obama. In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny, "What a Maroon!"

Newt ftw!

"At this point, I think Daffy Duck could beat Obama."

Which goes to show only what an imbecile you are, considering that Newt trails Obama in the polls by almost 20 points.

and considering frontrunner Mitt has a 20 point drop in independent voters in the last two weeks alone and a net negative nationwide. Right: the Grand old white men party is going to retake the White House with the wealthiest, oddest candidate in modern Republican history. Keep that let em eat cake stuff coming guys...

The Moon Base (51st state should they get 14k people) was Newt's only good idea.

I know, the republicans really love to start wars but when it comes to the fighting part they want someone elses kid to be on the front lines. From now on the people who start the wars should be the ones out there on the front lines. The warhawks, the politicians, the CEO's and the Generals, they are the ones who start the wars to protect their wealth, they are the ones who need to be fighting them then.

yea that's the attitude, keep spending your grandkids will thank you when they arre stuck with the bill

Actually -- the recovery is moving along in spite of everything Republicans can do to stop it. When President Obama took office the economy was shrinking at more than 6%. Today it's growing by just under 3%. That's almost a 9% turn-around.

No one has to convince you Louis. No one is going to try. You won't be choosing the next president, the independents will be choosing for you.

Charlie, it hasn't been Obama that turned anything around. Irregardless of any claim you, or he might make, it's cyclical. Obama hasn't done anything to move the economy forward, but that's still not his weakness. His weakness lies in the amount of debt he's accumulated in such a short time with so little to show for it. That record is undeniable.

Charlie, you have a right to vote for obama. In fact, I wouldn't doubt your a campaign staffer. Fact is, obama is a loser on the economy. People are broke and he bailed out the banks. Unless voters are glutons for punishment, this guy is gone. The reason the economy is picking up is because people are counting on this guy being out of office. When people really start getting wind of how obama care is going to affect them and their workplace, you can forget it. OBama will be kicked to the curb really fast.

The republicans stopped the Obama runaway train. You libs all spout it with their "obstructionism". LOL If it wasn't stopped, the economy would not be moving anywhere. Business realized that maybe the ridiculous spending and junk legislation the administration supports is slowly coming to a bit of a halt. Thus, the improvement in hiring and the supposed "created" jobs and a bit of optimism. The jobs are not "created" people. They are not new. They are refilling the holes left by layoffs. Not building up employees for a new venture.

Brianb,

You still out there?

Last I checked the economy is getting stronger and jobs are coming back. The Republicans are well aware that since the stimulus passed the economy has turned around and they are hell bent on lying to the public to make Obama seem like he can't fix anything. Passes the stimulus, economy grows. And yet we're on the wrong path? How is the economy getting stronger the WRONG path? That just doesn't make sense to me, the economy is growing, and it's happening under a Democratic president, which infuriates the Republicans. So lie all you want, my vote is for Obama. Hopefully the House will go back to the Democrats so the recovery can continue, otherwise it won't matter who is at the helm. Nothing helpful will pass in a split Congress.

It took several years to get into the economic mess we are in. While both parties are at fault the Republican President was in charge during the bulk of the down fall. In past wars were actually budgeted for and financed with tax increases or borrowng from AMERICANS with the sale of savings bonds. Bush's little wars were financed with money borrowed from COMMUNIST China.

General and President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Republican, warned us aginst the military-industrial complex but Reagan and every Republican since him (Both Bushs) absolutely love the military-industrial complex.

Ike supported the infrastructure improvements throught he national highway system. Built during the 50s and 60s are falling apart because there is no money around to fix them.

Cutting everything in sight is not the only way to fix the economy. Sure we need to curtail pork barrel spending, we need to stop padding the pockets of lobbyists of all ilk, we need to end the wasteful spending in every office in the government including the Defence Department but we also need tax increases on those who have gotten away with lower taxes and the companies who have gone off shore to avoid taxes. Tax increases won't solve the problem either. It takes both tax increas (small ones) and cuts in spending to accomplish the daunting task of controlling the budget and reducing the deficit. Our grand children and great grandchildren will be paying off the debt to China for Bush's wars but some only blame domestic spending for the excessive spending.

FDR realized that federal programs were necessary to end the great depression and that many of those government programs were turned over to private enterprises and made much more for companies and income for the government than was spent originally.

Putting people to work is a top priority. If people are working they are paying income tax. The more they make the more they pay in taxes so it makes sense to have full employment with people making good money. Unfortunately the greedy would rather see most folks in poverty or near poverty with a stagnant or dying economy so they can get rich on the backs of the poor and middle class. Governor Romney's exposed worth and the Occupy movement have gone a long way in waking up the public to the screwing we have been getting from the neocons and their uberconservative supporters.

Obama isn't perfect, who is, and he hasn't done everything I would have liked him to have done but compared to the alternatives I will gladly vote for him in November.

Hey ideo... I see ya.

Matt - interesting theory you have there. The stimulus was passed 2 1/2 years ago and nothing happened except the temporary saving of a few thousand government employees... nothing in the magnitude of what Obama expressed the reason for the stimulus... shovel ready jobs... well we all know that was a fallacy. Now comes the election of 2010 and the house gets replaced by republicans... we are into one year of republican control of the house and the economy is starting to turn around... Hmmmm... Of course liberals will vehemently deny any correlation.

Brianb....you do know that "irregardless" is not a word, right? Let me guess: You were home schooled?

Matt has always had problems with his liberal ideology. The economy's turned around like a river barge. Extremely slow and will never get decent speed.

Blame Bush again idiot Charlie?

We all agree on one thing, and that is things are screwed up. We need leaders to quit pointing fingers at each other and work TOGETHER TO SOLVE THESE PROBLEMS. It can't come from one side or the other it has to come from both sides working together to solve this mess we are all in.

Liars: Bad timing for you that the recovery from the years of (he who must not be named) is underway. Terribly inconvenient for the far right, but there it is.

Buck naked: not everyone just woke up from the same deep sleep as you did and JUST discovered the deficit. Where were you when two needless wars were launched and a surplus evaporated? NOW you want to get all indignant about spending??

Brian: "nothing happened"?? Well the stimulus saved us from another great depression and Obama has already added more jobs in his first 2.5 years in office than Bush did in all 8. I'd say along with saving the auto industry and the financial industry despite the howls from the extremists on both sides, AND ending one war and winding down the second, that's a helluva lot.

I don't know how Gingrich can cry foul on Romney's campaign tactics when he was the architect of the same strategy Romney is now visiting upon him.

Rick santorum? Ha ha your funny. Tweedledumb is a better candidate. Don't count out newt. ITs all about 10% -20% of the country that makes the election go. I know, my 401k and all the rest of the economy is not better than 3 years ago, so I know where I am going to vote and it won't be for that deadbeat in office.

jolly joker - if, as you stated, your 401 K isn't better now vs three years ago - you are not a person to listen to in regards to discussions about who the next president will be.

I don't know jolly joker,the big ticket item Gingrich had over Romney was the "fire in his belly",which I think voters are drawn to.But now with Romney getting all feisty and up in Gingrich's face, Romney may attract the voter drawn to spirited rhetoric.

what's the big deal anyone can open a Swiss acct if they want one even US workers. Romney did not set the tax rate he pays the IRS does(I think)

So, Governor Romney left Bain Capital 13 years ago next month. You want him to release all of his returns. Would you expect President Obama to do the same thing?

Highly unlikely that the President would do this after all the grief about the birth thing, his SSN and his transcripts.

So whose propaganda do you want us to buy into? yours? you sound too dumb to be expecting any one to buy into something you say. You need to first go to school and try to acquire some genuine knowledge about what you are talking about. Obama has at least two degrees, and has had experience with student loan and poverty. So, he can talk based on his experience, as well as based on his education. Again, why should we listen to you?

When I asked what Romney was going to do for American workers and the unemployed, I don't get an answer, other than he's white and not Obama. I read his jobs plan on his official website. Two words -- white bread. Nothing specific and nothing of substance.

The only things I can tell Mittens would do is -- tax cuts for the super rich like himself which will (not) create jobs, deregulate banks and wall street so there can be another bubble which I'm sure he'll make money off us and tax payers will pay for when it bursts, and start another unfunded war with Iran.

are you kidding, sounds like you are Obama talking, all talk and no delivery, Romney has real life experience that i would put my own money on if i was hiring for my own corp. Romney's success is a total asset for his desires to serve us as president. did you know he took no money to fix the Olympic problem and has asked to not accept pay to be the president. he is a true man of integrity.

The bottom line is, Mitt Romney have no work income in the last 10 years. His last jobs at Bain Capital is the only source that American voters can tell how much he pays his taxes, and I bet you 10K that he pays less than 13.9% tax rate. Otherwise, what is Mitt hiding?

You said Mitt created jobs while he was at Bain Capital, but so far there is no claim to proof that he created 100K jobs that he said. In fact, equity company don't create jobs, but to make quick profit on the back of American people just like Mitt at Bain Capital.

By the way, last time, American people elected a business executive was George W. Bush, and he tank the U.S and global enconomy, and Mitt will be next, if he gets a chance.

Obama already has

buck: You may have trouble with the concept, but while it's not illegal, using a tax code stacked in your favor to keep hundreds of millions in offshore accounts hardly qualifies you for the Presidency (except of course, for a few folks like you who might actuallyl admire his ingenuity.) Not everyone worships money to the point of thinking that anyone who knows how to make it must be in the best possible position to set policy over all others (and receiving lecutures in the mean time about how stupid they are for not being among the rich elite.)

How about a poll on "how many polls will there be before election day"? Winner will receive their own personal pole ... great for dancing, bumping into, and beating yourself in the head every time another poll result is released.

TOG,

I am so with you!!!!

I think they put these poll threads up just to watch all the whack-a-do's come out and try to whack each other with their best name calling! They get to use the current "poll" to hit each other with! LOL

BTW, my guess on the poll number, 1 gazillion and 43!

No it wasn't the Bush-Republican administration that got us into this mess. It began with a group of liberal democrats who got this going. People like Clinton. Obama, were the latest two. It started with the liberal group who used any type of tatics they could to bankrupt our banks. They used liberal democarats to make laws so they could ruin this country. Banks were forced to make mortages to people using racism. These mealy mouthed hypocrits, used racism to get what they wanted. And the had the help of the unions. They used people who have been walked on to long, the poor and the different races, mostly the black people. Jesse Jackson was in on the scheme also. ACORN was involved. Obama became an activist before he was in politics. Why don't you people want to know the truth? Do you really care about this country, the people, and the future. There are so many questions and no one seems to care. I am hoping our state refuses to allow Obama to campaign here after the voting forgery that went on in the last election. The Federal Gov. didn't even come in to help investigate it. You are rooting for a con artist. And if he should get it, you will have helped put America on the final road of distruction. While he vacations, plays golf, and his wife wears her very expensive clothing, people are going hungry, living on the streets, and very few even seem to care. Don't call yourselves Americans. True Americans really care about others. Delve into finding out just who caused this tragedy we all face today. I can just imagine how the truly good politicans on the democrat feel with the baggage they have to work with. I would like to see an honest, caring Independant jump in there and get elected.

Actually - it was the Regan administration. Oooooooh Republicans just had heart attacks! Their almighty Regan who could do no wrong. But, he did and his stupid policies began this mess. It has just gotten worse with each President until it finally crashed!

Bush inherited a year to year surplus! Then he gave away trillions to the rich with his tax cut and the economy started faltering. To stop the slide, he lowered interest rates to near zero, and everybody and his brother was flipping houses on borrowed money that mortgage brokers were giving away so they could earn their commissions. They only thing was, there were no homebuyers cause millions of manufacturing jobs, 44 months consecutive, were being shipped to China and India. Things were showing signs of failure back in 07 and in 08 the crap hit the fan. Job losses of 750,000/month. 401k losses of over 5 trillion.

I was there. My wife and I both lost jobs. I was unemployed for about 10 weeks, She was unemployed for about 17 months. Both of us are now working again. I'm actually making about 20k more than before and she's making about 10k less. We are actually better off with Obama. Still trying to earn our 401k losses back, but they are coming back. My home value has stopped falling. Lost about 30k on that. We lost about $150,000 of wealth then. How can you blame Obama cause it did not return in 3 years?

I don't see how anyone can forget '08. In the final years of Bush's presidency. He had 8 years to prove Republican economics, and at the end, it was total failure. Can anyone but Bush and the Republicans be blamed for that? End the Bush tax cuts

All these Repurgs and tea baggers are good for is using racial discrimination to prop themselves up. They know without racism they will never be able to make it in this country. The best thing that will happen to this country is that we totally remove racial discrimination and favoratism based on race, so that the racists can find their place in the bottom of the economic ladder, where they belong.

Keep believing that kid that it was Bush-Republican administration that got us into this mess, crackhead.

fish -- citing the NY times as a source about republicans has no credibility.

I lived through it. I was there. I know it was Republican economics that caused our present day economic woes. Obama and the Democrats are (slowly) digging our way out.

End the Bush tax cuts!

stevephoneix: you might check when the recession (and two wars and all the red ink) began: (hint: it was during the administration of your hero...he who must not be named).

hahahaha I love it

so, so right!!!!!

funny the only ones in a recession is the middle class..and the poor...the rich are not...can you say that again .in your own understanding?

Great post! Too bad people on these posts can not apprectiate the words from Abraham Lincoln.

Yes, we know the Middle class and the poor are the ones affected by the recession but what is going to get them out of it?? Jobs! Not by Government handouts and punishing the job creators, either won't help put these people back to work.

too bad we are not living in those days..corporations are governing his house now

I say destroy the rich ! let them die !

Mr. PityTheFool: The words you wrote sound good, but unfortunately they were not said by Abraham Lincoln. They were first written by a Rev. William JohnHenry Boetcker in 1916 while he served as president of the Citizen's Industrial Alliance. He produced a phamphlet containing them, but they were mis-quoted as coming from Lincoln. Check out this article on snopes.com for the full story:

Pity the Fool - we DO pity you!

The problem with Repurgs/ Tea Puds, like you, is the utter refusal to update to the 21st. century. You want to perpetually live in the past, because it sounded like things were better then. But, believe me, things have changed since the days of Abraham Lincoln, and if we continue to follow the tenets that make the rich richer while waiting for it to trickle down to the poor and middle-class, then we will ultimately destroy the middle-class. And all we will be left with will be the rich and the poor. There is a study that showed that the rich have increased their wealth by almost 300 percent in 30 years. Whereas, during the same period of time, the middle-class has made no improvement in their income. No wonder, then, that the middle-class is contracting (getting smaller) and the poor is expanding (getting larger). If this trend continues for another 30 years, what do you think will be the ultimate outcome? You guessed it: There will not be any more middle-class. Is this the outcome any reasonable American will support? I hope not.

Abe Lincoln?? The guy Ron Paul called a dictator who fought a needless war over slavery? No one is out to "destroy" the rich. They're just not looking for the richest candidate in history to become President so he can destroy what little they're holding onto....all the while lecturing them that trickle down is the natural order of things. Boy have you swallowed a load....

And Obama should go back to corrupt Chicago and take his staff with him.

dobi -- just where are the Camen Islands?? Any where near the Cayman Islands?

Dee -- Chicago, Honolulu or Indonesia. Any location is fine so long as not Washington D.C.

Thank God you don't make that decision. The voters will make that decision come November. Hopefully they won't let the Repubs in there again after 8 years of destroying the economy.

Obama/ Bidden 2012

can you please take your head out of your azz..its ok.

KC - only in your dreams would Newt destroy Obama in a debate. But, keep dreaming!

If all you libs are so sure of your guy -- why all the hostility and vile name calling. It has been my observation that when the libs have no logical retort, they resort to name calling. As if that will prove some kind of point other than that they are uneducated. Calling other people vile names only makes them want to vote for anybody else. So keep on picking on the Bible belt folks and mid Americans and Independents. Keep alienating them all.!!!

givemeabreak, so it is okay for your side to use terms like libtard but not our side to care criticize your side with or without the epithets? Hypocrisy thy name is GOP/TPers. Name calling is happening on both sides not just one. Wake up and actually pay attention will ya?

Hard core supporters of both sides are dyed in the wool and nothing their opposite says will change a darn thing.

Since most Americans aren't yet paying much attention to what is going on in the election cycle yet all of the vitriol and rhetoric will only be between hard core political junkies and not much more. Most people of this ilk are expressing OPINIONS most of which are supported by single biased sources. This isn't just on one side but both sides. When most folks will start paying attention, just after the conventions, we will get a better feel for the true mood of the country on who will likely win the presidency and who won't.

With the vitriol wielded by both Romney and Gingrich the Democrats need only to sit back and take notes for opportunites to make great ads for the general election campaign and when people are actually paying close attention.

"Libs" may be sure of their guy but the other side is sure of their guy too. The fact that what is occuring with our economy has not happened over night and it won't be cured over night doesn't seem to matter to those who hate the President for whatever reason.

This campaign is more like the ones of the 19th Century when things often got very nasty. We no longer have the bosses of Taminy Hall or the Customs House running things but what we see now is nothing really new in American politics.

Let's face it, like siblings that fight all the time, when the chips are down Americans will support each other despite petty quarrels we may have between ourselves.

Fuax news commenters are just as bad, GO LOOK. I am sure you will love what they have to say. Now git.

hawk -- Talk about flip-flopping how about this one from Senator Obama in 2006. Remember how hard Pesident Obama fought for the increase last year, and just again asked for more money? Somehow his flip-flopping on spending gets little notice.

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

His last sentence nails it -- Americans deserve better than President Obama.

One can only dream. It would be a welcome change from the establishment we have running. And with bought and paid for news networks like MSNBC supporting bought and paid for candidates, completely downplaying the effect Ron Paul really has on this election, it's a real struggle for Paul supporters.

I hate to disappoint you and burst your bubble but there is no conspiracy by the media against Ron Paul or anyone else for that matter. I know you would like the media to drip with praise of the old buzzard with the unworkable ideas but they report what they see. Dr. Paul will not win anything. He has a few loyal followers, like yourself, and that's fine. You are free to support anyone you like but reality is Dr. Ron Paul's ideas are not ideas that ring true with most Americans like it or not.

Here is an article I found that I believe describes Ron Paul very well.

Friday, January 27th, 2012 | Posted by Eric L. Wattree

Ron Paul and Libertarian Idiocy

Ron Paul and Libertarian Idiocy

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

Ron Paul is a typical demagogue. He specializes in combining fact with fiction, and pointing out everything that’s wrong with all of the policies that are contrary to his agenda. Then he claims that his irresponsible solution is a cure for all of our problems, which is an exercise in pure fiction. Paul is quoted as saying the following:“The most basic principle to being a free American is the notion that we as individuals are responsible for our own lives and decisions. We do not have the right to rob our neighbors to make up for our mistakes, neither does our neighbor have any right to tell us how to live, so long as we aren’t infringing on their rights. Freedom to make bad decisions is inherent in the freedom to make good ones. If we are only free to make good decisions, we are not really free.”

Paul’s entire premise is flawed. Total personal freedom was clearly not the intent of the founding fathers. They had the good sense to recognized that a society, or a civilization, as it were, is defined as a “GROUP of people who have joined together to pursue a common interest or goal,” and they clearly set out their intent in the preamble of the United States Constitution, which reads as follows:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare [not just make Ron Paul happy] and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Thus, if Ron Paul doesn’t like the rules we’ve set up to “promote the general welfare,” he has the freedom to move to the wilderness and not live among us. But according Ron Paul’s philosophy, he thinks he should have the right to pee against the wall in the middle of Times Square during rush hour, and the government should be precluded from stopping him. Because you see, according to Paul’s philosophy, and his flawed reading of the United States Constitution, that should be his inalienable right, since he’s not hurting anyone else.

So in essence, Paul wants to have his cake and eat it to. He wants to take advantage of the benefits of living in an ordered society, while not having to adhere to the rules that make it a society. For example, he contends that the civil rights laws that prevent him from refusing to serve certain groups in his restaurant abridges his right to private ownership. But on the other hand, he has absolutely no problem with the fact that the group that he bans is forced to pay taxes that support “his right to private ownership.” If his business catches on fire, he’s going to expect the banned group’s tax supported fire department to come put it out. And if he’s robbed, he’s going to expect the group’s tax supported police department to come to his aid. But the fact is, he can’t have it both ways. If he’s not willing to adhere to society’s rules, he can’t expect to take advantage of the benefits of living in an ordered society.

Paul also wants to abolish the Department of Education, which is essential to maintaining a “more perfect union.” His philosophy also dictates that we should simply “trust” corporations not to grind up rats in our ground beef, or pollute our air and water. He says, “Just let the free market handle it.”

Well, that sounds like a plan, but we saw how the free market handled the Wall Street fiasco, didn’t we? The free market created it, and we paid for it – dearly. The only thing free about the free market is the freedom of ruthless and greedy capitalists to take advantage of a naive and unsuspecting public – and then they tell us we’er un-American if we complain about it.

Thus, Ron Paul’s philosophy represents the rantings of a selfish, unthinking, greedy, and totally irresponsible lunatic. Therefore, if he wants total personal freedom, it’s well within his grasp. He can vote with his feet and move to the wilderness. Then he can pee against any tree in the forest at will – but he shouldn’t expect us to come to his aid if a snake decides to latch on to his pecker. That’s the price of total freedom.

Ron Paul comes across as a bigot, whether he thinks he is or not. It is subtle as it must be in this time but people pick up on that and most people don't like it.

Dream on buddy, your guy will NEVER be President no matter how much wishing you do. He is just to flaky in his beliefs.

"I hate to disappoint you and burst your bubble but there is no conspiracy by the media against Ron Paul"

There may not be a conspiracy but the media has and stiil is not giving Ron Paul the same kind of publicity that the other candidates get. There have been studies to prove this.If you do your research. We all have a right to our opinions. For this reason alone Ron Paul gets my vote. You can rant and rave all you want. You can vote for who you want. But quit spreading the lies that the media is feeding you because it wont change my opinions.

Hey Bob....You and I must be one of the few people on here who work. These liberals love handouts that's why they love Obama. This redistribution of wealth is not what we need, but Obama has $1B for his ad campaigns. He will be tough to beat. At this point I realize that if we can't beat the liberals (have nots) might as well see if I can cash in on some of these handouts. It's my money anyway......I recently started buying EBT cards from welfare recipients for half price. For example I give them $100 and I get $200 of foodstamps. It's unethical, but so isn't this redistribution of wealth. If you can't beat them, join them.

Baldeagle

Lots of words but so little logic.

Well gee then marc let me be the first to say, Thats a Felony Charge right there little Buddy and i hope you spend a decade or so in the pen .

MK, A lot better than what we have now for sure!

All you libs keep harping about what a great candidate Newt would make against BO. Another lib ploy - we know we can beat Newt but not Mitt - so pust Newt. GET REAL!!!!!!

You have got to be kidding. No difference between Romney and Obama? Lets see, Romney was a successful investor and businessman, Obama was a successful community organizer and politician. You can stop right there because the issue this year is out of control government spending and a weak economy. A community organizer just plain doesn't have the juice to do what needs to be done. Obama thinks doing exactly what has been done in Greece, Italy and Spain will somehow produce a different result here than what we are watching happen over there. Romney has no such dilusions. But then I think the only person running who has that delusion is Obama so it doesn't matter who gets the Repbulican nomination they won't be foolish enough to keep this country going in the same direction that Obama has it going. More than $16 trillion in debt by the time Obama leaves office. There is no way Obama has the experience background to manage us out of that level of problem, Romney has experience and a track record of fixing broken companies, broken state olympic games problems and broken Massachuttes government problems. The federal government is broken and Obama isn't fixing it he is making things worse.

I would just like, to get a piece, of that ad money, they're throwing away.

Charlie O

If they invested that ad money in new start up businesses we'd have a pretty strong economy. Of course the ad industry is having a boom time any way right now