LOL!!! Not even the canidates can keep the projection based B.S. straight.

Romney - “housing values still going down. You have a crisis of foreclosures in this country.”

And his proposal is … do nothing !!!

Haven't you heard... he's the Anti-Christ?

They've already tried that one and it has been put to rest. Of course, the Christian right-wing extremists do love a good resurrection, perhaps we will see it rise again.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obamaantichrist.htm

Funny you should mention the "Anti-Christ" Feisty. While I think I have pretty much established my anti-Willard bona fides, I think those who knock him for his religious beliefs are daffy, especially considering that most Republicans beleive that the Anti-Christ is here and will conduct their foreign policy in the Middle East accordingly. That is something I find real chilling.

What are your running on now Mitt? The economy? Your business recond? Your humility? Your likability? Your proposal not to bail out American auto companies? You have nothing! You spend every night praying for a double dip recession to catapult you into office. Sick.

The GNOP is only good at 3 things.....saying NO to progress, Lying and being disrespectful to the POTUS!

and as they say in baseball - 3 strikes and 'yer out"

By the way - GOOOO Giants......(apologies to Pat in Boston)....

When First Read reached out to the Romney campaign to provide additional data to support the claim that Obama has made the economy worse, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul responded: "The economy grew only 1.7% in [all of] 2011, the slowest growth in a non-recession year since the end of World War II. This is worse than growth in 2010 and is worse performance over time."

Could that have something to do with the Republicans gaining control of the House and obstructing the Congress more so then it was prior when they were obstructing the Senate? Funny how it goes down when the House goes Republican. Could it have anything to do with all the cuts to the budget and the elimination of government jobs?

Let the economy recover and then balance the budget. The US isn't Greece, Spain, Ireland, Portugal or Italy. The US dollar is the world currency and that isn't changing anytime soon. The longer the US languishes the worse off the entire world will be. Get back to health and then get things in order.

The train is leaving the station, with or without the GOP...best get aboard Son:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/03/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1

Oh, and then there's this:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/03/news/economy/january_jobs_report/index.htm?iid=Popular

Obama did make the economy worse by passing the dopey Obamacare. Business is still held hostage by this gigantic big hot steaming pile. No health care program would have been far better than what we have now. Without it, the economy would have recovered 18 months ago, Obama would be a shoe in. This ain't over by any stretch. Whatever recovery there has been is fragile at best. Economists are forecasting a recession in Europe, that alone will continue to weigh heavy on our own recovery, if not outright turn thing in a negative direction again.

Notice how this site is strangely bereft of the right wingers today? My! My! What could be causing that???

hardtostarboard - oops! I failed to see your post! Oh well - still in short supply!

Without it, the economy would have recovered 18 months ago,

Is there some article that can be cited to support the statement that AHCA stunted economic growth, or is it a personal opinion without any factual basis.

Unemployment is down, the economy is growing and Americans are feeling optimistic about the direction of the country. I guess this means the GOP has to really hustle to come up with new ways to sabotage the economy so they can blame it on Obama. Anybody that votes for a Republican in November hasn’t been paying attention to what the Republican/Tea Party has been up to with all their efforts designed to slow or even stop the economic recovery. They caused the problems the country has been suffering through but to hear them say it, the economic troubles were all caused the day President Obama was born…….. Based on what I have witnessed over the last thirty plus years, the Republican Party has transformed into a coalition of liars, hypocrites, religious extremists, woman haters and racists. I will NEVER vote for a Republican again.

Obama/Biden 2012

Business is still held hostage by this gigantic big hot steaming pile. No health care program would have been far better than what we have now. Without it, the economy would have recovered 18 months ago, Obama would be a shoe in.

So which of these is the smoking gun? Because this is what has changed so far:

2010

• -Insurance companies barred from dropping people from coverage when they get sick, ending the practice of rescission. Lifetime coverage limits eliminated and annual limits restricted.
• -Young adults able to stay on their parents' health plans until age 26. Many health plans previously dropped dependents from coverage when they turned 19 or finished college.
• -Uninsured adults with pre-existing conditions will be able to obtain health coverage through a new program for high risk pools that will expire once new insurance exchanges begin operating in 2014.
• -Insurance companies cannot deny group or new (non-grandfathered) individual coverage to children under age 19 due to a pre-existing condition.
• -A temporary reinsurance program is created to help companies maintain health coverage for early retirees between the ages of 55 and 64. This also expires in 2014.
• -Medicare drug plan beneficiaries who fall into the Medicare Part D coverage gap (the so-called "doughnut hole") will get a $250 rebate. The new law eventually closes that gap completely. (The old law required the sick person to pay 100% of their own annual medicine costs after $2,700 was spent in the coverage year and did not start again until after $6,154 was spent).
• -A tax credit becomes available for some small businesses to help provide coverage for workers.
• -A 10% tax on indoor tanning services that use ultraviolet lamps goes into effect on July 1.

2011

• -Medicare provides 10% bonus payments to primary care physicians and general surgeons.
• -Medicare will cover the full cost of annual wellness visits and personalized prevention plan services for beneficiaries. New health plans will be required to cover preventive services with little or no direct cost to patients.
• -A new program under the Medicaid plan for the poor goes into effect in October that allows states to offer home and community based care for the disabled that might otherwise require institutional care.
• -Payments to insurers offering Medicare Advantage services are frozen at 2010 levels. These payments are to be gradually reduced to bring them more in line with traditional Medicare.
• -Employers are required to disclose the value of health benefits on employees' W-2 tax forms.
• -An annual fee is imposed on pharmaceutical companies according to market share. The fee does not apply to companies with sales of $5 million or less.

BTW Will Hass post 1.13

Perhaps you should stop blaming the national debt on President Obama. Do some basic research and you can find out who REALLY put the debt through the roof. Type U.S. national Debt into your browser to learn the truth and stop blaming the wrong person.

According to the quarterly newsletter from Ford, they have reached an accord with the UAW that will result in 12,000 new jobs in the U.S. through 2015, with a commitment of $62B for next-level manufacturing through the same period. Oh, this agreement was reached through negotiations and compromise with a UNION! Catch that?

Apparently, Ford doesn't share the theories from the chicken-little school of economics the 'wingers attended. They foolishly believe you have to invest in order to grow.

Also, I noticed Willard thinks WE have suffered because of Obama's leadership. What's this WE crap, Willard. $42M is your definition of suffering?

And the masses just keep screaming "feed me more, feed me more"!!!

Thank You Mr. President, for a Job well done.

Obama / Biden 2012

[...because I think we can ALL agree that with Democrats controlling everything, this country was a mess.]

Well, see that's where you are wrong...but you just keep on believing that. Even the diehards here have dropped that talking point because it is false, so the only one "agreeing" with you is well...you.

...you just keep on carrying that torch, Michael...just don't burn yourself.

Why no mention of what the Dow closed at today... righties?

Tunde

How right you are that Gingee may well have another wife if he tries again. But this time Calista will tell him to remove his butt from her home. He will blame her if he can't have the people to vote him in. I notice Clastia doesn't say anything. The last time when Gingrich gave his not won speech, did anyone else see the gaudy cheek rough she wore. First time I noticed it. I would say she probably is a nice person.

My, my, my. How the Republican rhetoric has changed.

I definitely did hear Republicans claiming that Obama was responsible for the recession fro the first two years he was in office. I guess they thought we were all stupid enough to buy that lie!

Now:

“He’s frequently telling us that he did not cause the recession, and that’s true. But he made it worse.”

And, as this article shows, that is a lie too! You know, it is about time that Republicans face up to one fact: they cannot get elected running against Obama. They have to run for something. All I hear from any of the Republican candidates is "Obama screwed up! Elect us! We won't screw up" (again?)

Yet, when Obama's unmitigated power was "neutered" by the results of the November, 2010 elections, the ever-so-slight uptick in jobs is claimed to be the result of Obama the magnificent

Did you not read the article? The CBO and leading economists say entirely the opposite. This uptick is a direct result of Obama's stimulus package, passed before conservatives took over the House. Got to wonder how much better we might have been wiothout the obstructionism, huh? But, then, I guess I should believe an anonymous frothing-at-the-mouth poster on a political board over any of these experts, eh? Back your insinuations up with facts. I'll listen. Until then, adios!

[...way to back up you're statement with any facts...]

Sorry Michael, I know it's a slow day over at FoxNation and The Blaze, your usual trolling grounds, but you talk about backing up statements with facts, yet you mysteriously seem to have omitted yours.

So, allow me:

January 3, 2009 - 111th Congress sworn in. 55 Democrats, 41
Republicans, 2 Independents, 2 vacant.

January 15, 2009 - Roland Burris sworn in to Barack Obama's seat.
56 Democrats, 41 Republicans, 2 Independents, 2 vacant.

April 30, 2009 – Arlen Specter changes parties. 57 Democrats, 40
Republicans, 2 Independents, 1 vacant.

July 7, 2009 – Al Franken seated. 58 Democrats, 40 Republicans, 2
Independents. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THE DEMOCRATS HAD A SHOT AT A
60-VOTE MAJORITY.

August 25, 2009 – Teddy Kennedy dies. Kennedy had missed 97% of
the votes in 2009 and over 90% in the last half of 2008. 57 Democrats, 40
Republicans, 2 Independents, 1 vacant.

September 25, 2009 – Paul Kirk appointed to Teddy Kennedy's seat.
58 Democrats, 40 Republicans, 2 Independents.THIS IS THE SECOND TIME
THE DEMOCRATS HAD A SHOT AT A 60-VOTE MAJORITY.

February 4, 2010 – Scott Brown sworn in to replace Paul Kirk. 57
Democrats, 41 Republicans, 2 Independents.

June 28, 2010 – Robert Byrd dies. Byrd had missed over 90% of the
votes in 2010 and almost 50% in 2009 due to illness. 56 Democrats, 41
Republicans, 2 Independents, 1 vacant.

November 29, 2010 - Mark Kirk sworn in to replace Roland Burris.
56 Democrats, 42 Republicans, 2 Independents.

FACT: The "Democrat supermajority" was a myth, or
rather, a GOP political spin to hide their actions.

FACT: The GOP used every roadblock, filibuster, and secret hold
they could think of so that EVERY bill had to have a 60-vote margin to pass.

So that "Huge, overwhelming super-majority," It existed only for a total of 6 months AND only duringv two periods when Teddy Kennedy and/or Robert Byrd were unable to vote AND required them to get the votes of every Democrat plus BOTH independents.

And the rest of your factless post is, well...you know the answer to that.

Carry that torch high, Michael...carry it high!

Yes, the cut and paste is especially for idiots like you, now run along Michael, FoxNation and The Blaze need you...

...don't forget your torch junior.

[Fastest growing job sector....Clerical staff for processing food stamps! Nice going Obama you're the best.]

Still stuck on stupid, eh Raab?

When is spin considered lies?

"[Obama] has made the economy worse." - Romney

Romney is shown the economy has improved. It then spins to...

"[Obama said] he would hold unemployment below 8%.... That's failure. We're over 9%." - Romney

That is also a lie. Obama never said that would be the case. I'd like to have seen First Read press futher to get to the next spin.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/09/eric-cantor/Cantor-and-other-republicans-say-obama-promised-s/

[Too easy...way too easy.]

Yes you are, Michael...yes you are...

...now run along, Glenn Beck NEEDS you!

Pathetic little Republicans today. They fight the same statistics they glowed about before. So now they just change the conversation to whatever their little minds can make up that they believe the other little GOP minds will latch onto. This is a very sad day for them.

Obama/Biden 2012

"Clerical staff for processing food stamps!"

Cute one Rob. So tell us -- it that an original with you or did you hear that from Rush the junkie?

When unemployment is high the economy suffers no matter what was the cause of the unemployment for two reasons ..... (1) unemployed people do not have disposal income to buy many of the products and services that keep businesses profitable and (2) diminished tax revenue causes government deficits.

The Republicans have resisted efforts proposed by President Obama to increase employment and have forced budged reductions that increase the number of unemployed citizens, particularly public servants such as teachers. These were the ridiculous kind of economic measures that Hoover employed to lead us into the Great Depression in the early '30's. Those austerity programs did not work in the 1930's, they are not working in the UK now, and they won't work for us.

We need to work to reduce the deficit when we get our employment situation repaired; for now we should take advantage of a surplus of available workers and low interest rates to repair, replace and expand our infrastructure. That "stimulus" will make our economy healthy again and we can take positive measures to lower the deficit.

Oh this is really going to make the right wingers heads spin. The report indicates that more jobs and increasing employment lie ahead! Get ready for it - their little heads are going to explode!!!!!

Henry

Thank you for your biased and unfounded statement. I eagerly await your next insightful comment.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports are always “cooked” when your Party is not in power.

I was reading an analysis of incumbent presidents and what wins or loses the election for them, done by Harvard and essentially they said that it always came down to economic trends at the time. Specific numbers really don't have much impact, because the economy is recovering they say Obama has a very good chance of winning the election.

Even with that though, the republicans are running out of things to attack him on, most Americans support withdrawing from war. As long as the economy is improving, Romney has nothing. Actually I am not sure he had anything worth saying in first place but this just affirms to me, this is going to be a 2 term president, despite the best efforts of the republican house.

So we find out Romney lies, what a surprise. I suppose the next thing you are going to tell us is he changes his position for political gain.

Well spider, thanks for pointing out how you and the country were duped by Bush and his tax cuts into thinking you had more than you had. I do not see how having to come back into the real world can be blamed on President Obama. All of your problems were created by the rich having too much money and not having any place to invest it. Had they not had all of that extra money provided by the Bush tax cuts, housing would not have been inflated and we would not be where we are today.

"It's morning in America." Can't you feel the sunshine peeking through? Here comes the sun. So nice now that the residue of Dummy and Darth Vader is fading. Our intelligent and sensitive president is ending their wars (albeit slowly) and methodically rejuvenating the economy with something foreign to them - demand for goods from ordinary folks. Notice that Europe, preoccupied with austerity, is NOT rejuvenating.

Why would Romney tell the truth? The Republicans have a real problem with the truth. They constantly LIE about how good President Reagan was and how he cut taxes etc. BULL He raised taxes 11 times while he was in office.

The debt when he took office was $1,028T and when he left office it was $2,684T. Way to go Reagan a conserative with a 189% increase in the National Debt. If I were Republican I would not want to talk about the facts. These numbers are posted on the Bureau of Public Debt web site. Real facts NOT Republican facts.

Financing people's jobs by skyrocketing the debt is not making the economy better. It is just postponing the worst.

Republicans lie.

Feisty Redhead... now theres a screen name i havent seen in a long time.. Funny how folks tend to run across each other on the big wide internets...

Bob-3374873

Can anyone say hypocrite?

Top three Presidents who increased the national debt:

#1 Ronald Reagan, 187% increase!

#2 Dubya Bush (not far behind)

#3 H.W. Bush sr. made third place with only ONE term!

And now, boob, YOU try to reflect those facts to President Obama??????

YES! I can say "hypocrit"

...any more questions?

TheOverlord

Republicans lie.

So do Democrats

The GOP Teapugs blocked nearly every bill that Obama tried to pass to create jobs, they are deliberately sabotaging our Country and this is Treason. they should all be prosecuted and put in jail. Their conservative values are destroying this nation. "Where is the Dept., of Justice"

Another GOP lie put to rest. Score: Obama 469; Republicans 0. The GOP are running out of lies as they are being quickly disproved. And Davset, anybody who actually knows something about economics would realize that unemployment includes working-age people who are actually TRYING to find work. You can check it out in any economics book (and if your scared that they're full of liberal propaganda, look at one from 2003).

If the GOP was all for jobs, why did they abandon a measure that could have created 2 million of them??? I mean, since they technically got 98% of what they wanted in the summer debt deal, why couldn't they give the Democrats this one??? Just another proof that they have NO compassion towards anyone who they oppose.

Romney is desperate for things to throw at Obama now that the economy is recovering, his platform is becoming less stable, and his own credibility as an "expert" at creating jobs is shaking. That, and the discord that his financial status (plus his off-key remarks and crude tax plans) is throwing off many voters. He is in trouble, and he needs to cement support with independents. So he is playing the blame game, even though Obama can barely be blamed for the slow recovery (unlike the GOP).

The GOP has bungled up everything from the debt ceiling to deficit reduction to the payroll tax cut. I doubt the American voter is willing to risk another debacle.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

DEMOCRATS 2012

AMERICA 2012

HOPE AND CHANGE (Real change, without the GOP to stop it)

The gop Teapugs should be facing federal corruption investigation for what they are doing and ignoring the American peoples well. They are so desperate for power they will destroy our Country.

Not as long as the right wing controls the courts...

I believe that progress in the economy is debatable and definitely less than what the President promised. It has not been worth the more than 5 trillion dollars that has been added to the National Debt.

am I the only one that thinks romney and newt should be drug tested to make sure they are not on stuck on stupid pills

How can you tell Willard Romney is lying? His lips are moving.

Speaking of lies, here's a good one;

Improvements did not start to materialize until well after the GOP took over the House.

In January economic activity in the manufacturing sector increased for the 30th consecutive month, in the overall economy for the 32nd consecutive month. That's WELL BEFORE the GOP took control of the House of Representatives. http://www.ism.ws/ISMReport/MfgROB.cfm

This on top of the rest of the bad news for the GNOP today - is SURE to set their hair on fire! lol

@Fiesty: with Mittless and The Donald standing together, that could be a 5-alarm blaze

In the past ten years I haven't felt more unsecured and lost.

The real problem WE all face is that with Republicans and TPers all concentrating on replacing Obama, none of them are devoting any time to solving the country's problems. They block anything that Obama says and tries to do and their NO votes are getting quite old because they don't have anything that isn't aimed at "reducing taxes" (on the rich primarily) and "reducing the size of government" (by getting rid of EPA and any other regulatory agencies that impede raping our air, water and national park lands).

The reducing taxes and size of government ploys are old and tired songs........look at the last Bush administration to see what happened to size of government and the surplus that was available in 2000...............Let's have some REAL plans for the economy and us little people and we will all be happy to vote for your goals but not your lies.

Buck Naked Sr.,

RE: your post #1.21

The same way you go from graduating from college with a degree in education to being a high school teacher the next semester. Or go from being a lawyer one day to a U.S. Senator the next day. Or a businessman to President of the U.S. (Mitt Romney), or any other promotion. Not too very hard to answer. Of course it depends on level of talent and level of responsibility, right?

don97524

Henry

Thank you for your biased and unfounded statement. I eagerly await your next insightful comment.

You're just saying that because I'm black.

I love how the conservatives who don't like the facts, make up their own. Here's the GDP growth chart rate.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

Now notice how in 2009 when Obama took office it was -6.8% then notice how after one year of Obama and the Democrat policies in 2010 it went to 5% growth. Those are facts and if it wasn't for the wars and huge feficit Obama inherited it would have been much better.

Now here's the unemployment rate.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&fdim_y=seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment

Now notice how at the end of every Republican presidency the unemployment rate was on the rise and how at the end of every Democrat presidency the rate of unemployment was on the down turn. Those are facts.

Henry

You're just saying that because I'm black.

The fact is that you have no idea about my motivation for anything, but since I said nothing that had anything to do with race your accusation is particularly ridiculous.

This is simple. It's Obama's fault. No really, listen just a minute!

Had Obama not been in office, the Republicans would never have engaged in such a wide-spread campaign of hate. That campaign of hate was well known to make him fail and to physically hold back any economic recovery. They did this by stomping on the very consumer confidence required for this economy to recover. They did it 24/7 and often. They did it in every media possible. They did it with unbelievable purpose.

So, you see? It's Obama's fault.

Obama has done an EXCELLENT job with the State of the Union as it was given to him. This man is solid and has not lost one minute of decency as everybody and their uncle attack him personally or professionally. Not to mention the legacy he inherited.

gwb and dick broke this country. reagan and his trickle down shower broke this economy. I have noticed how Clinton gave a solvent country to dubya who quickly decided to redistribute public wealth into the hands of private buddies in order to guarantee their bonuses and not to mention his private mission to remove saddam and find WMD. Only he did so with public funds and with American blood.

I love the right wing talking point that Obama increased the debt by 5 trillion. How convenient you don't subtract the 3 trillion and change that came from the two wars started by Bush. You know, the 3 trillion that Bush didn't put on the books, but Obama was honest enough to put on the books and account for during his term? You know, the 3 trillion that was spent on Iraq and Afghanistan during Bush's term?
Yeah, that 3 trillion is surely due to Obama's policies huh?

The GOP have it down, repeat something enough times, some people will believe it to be fact. But they are lying thru their teeth.

But you must admit, it's great fun to watch the Republicans/Tea Bigots twist into pretzel shapes trying to turn good into bad, right into wrong, and leadership into failure. It's been a tough year, watching a war end, terrorists get terminated, and America recover credibility and its economy all at the same time. Mix in the pathetic examples of Republican candidates and even Reagan is twisting in his grave.

I see some big chiropractor bills in their future as the right eventually get tied into knots telling their lies.

Yep, the Republicans are great practitioners of 'doublethink' like in the book '1984' where you falsify history and create your own reality. Lie = Truth, Rich = Poor, Evil = Good, Ignorance = Strength

FactCheck: Do Republicans lie?

Well, as FOX News says, "We believe our viewers can tell the difference between entertainment and news."

Now if they could just learn to tell the difference between fact and fiction......

Um, the dollar has appreciated 14% since 2008. Nice try. Unemployment was out of control, and stablized, dropping a percentage point or so in the last few months (unemployment increased 66% under bush, by the way...raised 21% under Obama). Nice try. The housing prices have gone down, but that is the second and third waves of foreclosures from people who refinanced last year and still couldn't get above water...not exactly the power of the president to regulate housing prices. Finally, the trajectory of the debt has been consistent since the republican granddaddy, ronald reagan, in the 80's, and that trajectory remains largely unchanged since then. Obama has the largest dollar amount, but the next president, no matter who it is or what cuts they make, will have a debt that dwarfs Obamas. As you said, it is an exponential gain. Why? tax breaks for the rich and deregulation. Europe woes haven't helped. So 1 out of 4 there messenger. I guess 25% on a test isn't that bad of an "F" (sarcasm).

I guess you've never had to deal with a problem before, so here's how it goes. It takes a short time to get into financial trouble, and maybe 10x as long clawing your way back out of it. Problems don't go away overnight, captain impatient.

@Bill-2910238 I keep on hearing and reading from all of you Republicans that the reason the unemployment is low its because people have given up looking for work. Tell me this... where is you data that states how many people have given up looking for work? Have you thought that may be, just maybe if true, these individuals may be working, getting paid in cash and getting their unemployment check... I am just saying. And maybe just maybe there is a lot of people who would rather get unemployment after finding out that the available jobs (in the fields) my actually pay them less and work very hard long hours and still not make as much as they do in unemployment?... IF you do not have any facts to back up your claims don't even bother responding to my comment.

Bill

Actually the BLS specifically cautions about using labor participation rates to gauge unemployment which is the crux of republk party complaints now;

 The adjustment increased the estimated size of the civilian
  noninstitutional population in December by 1,510,000, the civilian
  labor force by 258,000, employment by 216,000, unemployment by 42,000,
  and persons not in the labor force by 1,252,000. Although the total
  unemployment rate was unaffected, the labor force participation rate
  and the employment-population ratio were each reduced by 0.3
  percentage point. This was because the population increase was
  primarily among persons 55 and older and, to a lesser degree, persons
  16 to 24 years of age. Both these age groups have lower levels of
  labor force participation than the general population.

  Data users are cautioned that these annual population adjustments
  affect the comparability of household data series over time. Table C
  shows the effect of the introduction of new population estimates on
  the comparison of selected labor force measures between December 2011 and
  January 2012. Additional information on the population adjustments and
  their effect on national labor force estimates is available at
  www.bls.gov/cps/cps12adj.pdf.
  

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Well said.

Teapubs have been using this tactic for the past 50 years. Get into office, screw things up royally, get kicked out of power and blame the current administration for the results of their actions. Its amazing that Teapubs religiously overlook their contribution (CAUSE) of the previous administration's policies on joblessness (EFFECT) in this country, and believe somehow the EFFECT disappeared when Bush left office. Anyone with the slightest bit of sense knows labor is always a lagging indicator.

Did Obama make things worse? No!!!

OABAM IN 2012

70+ SEATS FOR DEMS IN THE SENATE

CONTROL OF THE HOUSE

In the end, you can bring up statistics, numbers, facts, counterfacts, counterarguments, and new arguments entirely. However, the truth is that most people have already made up their mind and are now siding with whomever is making the argument that alligns with their preexisting personal beliefs.

Randy McMurphy this article is for you. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/implied-unemployment-rate-rises-115-spread-propaganda-number-surges-30-year-high

Tidywhite,

Any number is fine if and only if you use the same method every time for consistency. So that link is fine but show us the same data based on the same information for every month for the last 10 years or more otherwise it is meaningless.

For the last 60 years the only accepted unemployment data has been provided by the BLS and yes anyone can point out what it doesn’t count or what data point is missing but the fact is that it is the consistent standard used by all financial reporting and news outlets.

Even your link compares their report to the BLS data proving it is the standard.

Okay This site has not been around for sixty years? Did you look at the two graphs. one stretches back over thirty years and the other one goes back 10 years or did you overlook this? Oh and as the article states they used the bls reports for the graphs. They even provided a link for you. How nice of them.

One component of economics rarely explored, is its' inextricable link with human psychology. When our leaders in Washington create the perception that they are hostile toward business, general optimism becomes fettered by fear and uncertainty. Businesses typically react by reducing spending, investment and hiring, and that creates the kind of downward economic spiral that we have painfully witnessed over the last 3 years.
The liberally-biased media can hand-pick economists that will claim that "things aren't that bad", but gaggles of small businesses and millions of unemployed workers will testify otherwise.
Obama's myopic pursuit of his agenda for "hope and change" has resulted in little more than a period of economic despair and broken dreams that we have not witnessed since the great depression

Thats what happened under Clinton and the Dems in his first term right? You know that period of time when taxes were increased, military spending was cut and a single payer universal health care system was attempting to be put in place, and all during a recession caused by a war and tax increase from the prior administration. How did business respond? Did they contract?

Obama is not anti-business, but we as a country have to start being a little anti-extreme profits. These 20-30% ROE's do not help us as a country, and extreme profits void of reinvestment should be taxed and reinvested in this country (paying off debt today, R&D investment tomorrow).....same goes for carried interest, capital gains and any other loophole that allows a billionnaire to pay less taxes than a factory worker.

These are not anti-business proposals, they are just not the proposals of an oligarchy, which is what we have been transitioning to for 30 years. We have great debt, which has paid for many of these entitlements, and part of those entitlements is the consistenly regressive tax policies that have applied to the extremely wealthy. Obama and the Dems are currently on the right side of this issue, Republicans have been at different times in history. Reagan was right in lowing the top tax rate from a penalizing 60%, which reduced the willingness to work harder (currently 15% capital gains does not hinder this, neither would 30%). HW Bush made the right decision and paid for his war with taxes. Nixon paid for his war with taxes.....until Reagan Republicans weren't against taxes, they were only against debt. The Dems have more in common with that Republican party (one I would fully support) than the current day John Birch Society we call the GOP.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&fdim_y=seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment

Notice how at the end of every Republican presidency the unemployment rate was on the rise and how at the end of every Democrat presidency the rate of unemployment was on the down turn. Those are facts.

Also when Obama took office the GDP growth was -6.8% and improved to 5% growth in his first year in office. Another fact.

Those are hard numbers for Republicans to dispute for a president that took office under the worse economic conditions since FDR and two wars eating up the budget.

Oh, and by the way MSNBC:

"And another analysis, by economists Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi, estimated that the stimulus raised 2010 real GDP by 3.4%, held the unemployment rate about 1.5 percentage points lower, and added nearly 2.7 jobs to U.S. payrolls".

My guess is that this paragraph should read 2.7 million jobs.

.

Old Timer - 88224 - well said. I hope your condition gets better. You're a good one to have around!

Seasonally Adjusted

Dec 2011 = 132,166,000

Jan 2012 = 132,409,000

Delta = +243,000 jobs

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

243,000 jobs were added in Jan. (257,000 in the private sector)

Nov. and Dec. were revised upward by 60,000 jobs added

The annual prior year revision (done every February) adjusted 2011 upward by 165,000 jobs

In total this report added 468,000 jobs.

The average pay increased and the average hours worked increased. The increase in average hours being worked is an indicator of future hiring.

Among the marginally attached, there were 1.1 million discouraged workers in January, little different from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.)

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

This says that there was near zero change in the number of workers that quit looking for work (dropped out).

A ruler with no understanding will oppress his people, but one who hates corruption will have a long life.

A just king gives stability to his nation, but one who demands bribes destroys it.

@TheChristian Solution

I agree that both parties are to blame for this fiasco. However, I refuse to place a greater oneous on President Obama, and I am an independent. I know that you may not agree with the fiscal and monetary policies being implemented at this time, but by all appearances, it appears to be helping the economy. This is also evidence by what is happening in European countries that took a conservative approach to addressing the economy and are an economic nose dive along with significant inflation.

I agree that quantative easing can have negative and an inflationary effect which may ultimately harm the economy if not managed properly. Also, I am in no way totally trusting of that blackhole called the federal reserve. However, Bernanke's, whose expertise during his academic career was the great depression, monetary policies appear to have been successful in keeping inflation within a normal/reasonable rates along with better economic growth than Europe. Draghi, the newly appointed president of the European Central Bank, used Bernanke's strategies in the last 2 months to stop the Euro zone from going into a great depression. I don't know, but there is a possibility that Bernanke may rival Paul Volcker (who even Ron Paul has praised). As in Volcker's case, history will decide this not current emotional public opinion. Thus, in my opinion, the jury is still out especially in view of what happened with the disasterous conservative monetary and fiscal policies initially implemented in Europe.

This is simple. It's Obama's fault. No really, listen just a minute!

Had Obama not been in office, the Republicans would never have engaged in such a wide-spread campaign of hate. That campaign of hate was well known to make him fail and to physically hold back any economic recovery. They did this by stomping on the very consumer confidence required for this economy to recover. They did it 24/7 and often. They did it in every media possible. They did it with unbelievable purpose.

So, you see? It's Obama's fault.

How Employers Can Help Our Country

If every employer in the country with greater than 200 employees would just add 1% to their employee base than they need for just 1 year. That would add at least 2 million jobs and help jump start the economy. This is how employers could invest in our recovery, help our country. For employers it wouldn’t be much different than increasing their advertising because with more people working there will be more money spent which means the company will sell more products and/or services.

Well said, Old Timer (#2.21). Clear, concise, everything is spelled correctly, grammar is spot-on... good LORD, I wish more people could post this way. Even if I didn't agree with their points, it would still be a joy to read intelligent, correctly punctuated prose.

Mitt and the Donald ... the thing they have in common are their disregard for anyone below their social standing ...How did they accumulate their wealth .. Not by working their way to the top .. both were born rich .. neither one ever had a real job.. their only job was to see how much $$$ they could make on the backs of others

As reported the unemployment percentage as reported is amiss.

Among those not in the accounting are 1.5 million American taxpayers in self-employment who had been earning $59K+ who have not received a paycheck or an unemployment check since 2010, have resolved their lives accepting earlier than hoped for Social Security checks which they now live on, supplemented by savings.

If you tack this group into the statistics you wipe out all the supposed job gains over the past 16 months and farther. An additional problem is this group of people joins the group of Americans that pay no income tax.

Credit card debt is again on the rise. Gas prices are rising faster than paychecks hurting those with jobs as well as those without.

One of the major arguments is Obama adding almost $5 trillion to the national debt. Let's use GWB as an example for spending as the liberals always bring up. If spending was bad for Bush, and the liberals always bring this up... I will agree with them. The spending during the Bush administration was bad... very bad in fact.

Now that we have that all agreed on, I would like to know why Obama's spending is good. If the act of spending on that level is so bad for Bush, how come it's not just as bad for Obama? Please explain

Brian,

Yes the spending under Bush wasn’t good but with the things his administration contracted Americans to pay for with an already smaller income (due to the 2 rounds of tax cuts) so when the recession started causing an even smaller income the current administration had no choice but to run a larger deficit. The only exception would be the stimulus that can be said to be all Obama which is only 17% in the debt increase.

Repubs only believe the CBO if the figures go their way. "The math," remember? They are the party of Doublethink, and most of them have an inability to understand the irony and/or hypocrisy of their statements, because of an authoritarian mind-set that insists they MUST be right. Someday it will be classed as what it is, a self-defeating disease, like hoarding, and they'll make reality shows about those afflicted. Until then, we are subjected to lies, prevarications, and hatred of not just progressive policies but progressives themselves.

Its not good that Obama had to spend, but he spent to keep us from going into a great depression. The banks that were bailed out have paid back the money WITH INTEREST! All that he has done has helped our economy to grow. I dread to think of where we would be now if he wasn't elected, and we had McPalin in office. <shudder> Bush raped this country in 8 years... Obama has improved the economy, unemployment rate, and kept the banks from crashing. I guess that's nothing in the eyes of the Repubnuts and clown show teabaggers. So bash on if it makes you feel better... facts are facts!

Ron, you have a pretty short memory. Democrats controlled congress fron 2007 thru 2010 and the populace wasn't happy with the program. Now you want to return to it?

Pamela - I found it interesting that in 2011 we had substantial gridlock in congress and between congress and the WH, yet the economy still progressed. Really points out that the economy can improve without constant political manuevering from either political side or the WH.

With more gridlock expected in 2012 it remains to see if the private sector flips off the politicians and continues to grow.

One of the major arguments is Obama adding almost $5 trillion to the national debt. Let's use GWB as an example for spending as the liberals always bring up. If spending was bad for Bush, and the liberals always bring this up... I will agree with them. The spending during the Bush administration was bad... very bad in fact.

Now that we have that all agreed on, I would like to know why Obama's spending is good. If the act of spending on that level is so bad for Bush, how come it's not just as bad for Obama? Please explain

For once, you raise a fair point that needs to be clarified. Obama's spending is actually better than Bush's, because, counting 2009 as Bush's deficit (because it kinda is), Obama's deficits are lower than Bush's. This is because the problem with the debt is not spending, but rather lack of revenue. Furthermore, Obama has cut back on Bush's larger points of spending, such as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Stimulus money did not add very much to the debt, and may have even generated more revenue.

Now what about the remaining deficit, which is some $1.1 trillion? Yes, this is pretty bad. However, keep in mind that many of Obama's proposals to lower the debt (remove Bush Tax Cuts for wealthy Americans, drastically cut on defense spending, consolidate government departments) have been blocked by congress.

That was pretty much as I expected. The liberals always justify Obama's spending as a good thing. They always state Bush's spending was bad. Now asked to make a comparison between the money spent by Obama as compared to Bush, the most ridiculous things come out of the brains of liberals.

Obama's spending is atrocious and unjustified. Get it through your heads... $5 trillion in additional national debt in 4 years is NOT a good thing for this country... I know spending wasn't a good thing in Bush's administration. There is NO difference now. Why won't you liberals see it?

Neither was Reagans doubling of the National debt during the 1980's as he tried to recover from a recession. A recession by the way that was not nearly as bad as this one. The negative GDP this time was almost double what it was then.

BTW there is never anything good about debt !!!!

BrianB did you not read the post I made? It is not a spending problem, it is a revenue problem due to the recession. Of course additional spending was necessary through the form of increased relief and tax cuts; that is how you fix a recession (and it worked, as you see from this article). Outside of this, however, Obama has decreased the deficit.

Tidywhite
Randy McMurphy this article is for you. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/implied-unemployment-rate-rises-115-spread-propaganda-number-surges-30-year-high

!
#2.13 - Sat Feb 4, 2012 6:49 AM PST

Tidy

Apparently reading comprehension is sorley lacking on right wing pundits and adherents alike....Please READ the BLS report in full then try to tell me 1.2 million people left the labor force in 1 month;

So today following an otherwise pretty darn good jobs report, we get the usual perma-pessimists at Zero Hedge and Rick Santelli over at CNBC proclaiming that the report showed a drop of over 1 million people from the labor force in one month. Of course, as ususal, both Santelli and Zero Hedge have a real reading comprehension problem and completely missed that this million+ people isn't some new January phenomenon, but a result of the BLS using the 2010 census data to have more accurate data. In other words, the changes in the Household Survey to the various measures had taken place over the years prior to 2010, but for simplicity's sake, the BLS incorporates these changes into one month (which they clearly point out). The relevant text from the report is below (bold is mine):

"Effective with data for January 2012, updated population estimates which reflect the results of Census2010 have been used in the household survey. Population estimates for the household survey are developed by the U.S. Census Bureau. Each year, the Census Bureau updates the estimates to reflect new information and assumptions about the growth of the population during the decade. The change in population reflected in the new estimates results from the introduction of the Census 2010 count as the new population base, adjustments for net international migration, updated vital statistics and other information, and some methodological changes in the estimation process. The vast majority of the population change, however, is due to the change in base population from Census 2000 to Census 2010.

So Rick/Zero Hedge, unless you would like to argue that the population of the United States also grew by 1.5 million in one month (since that is from the exact same report/revision you quoted), I think both of you should retract your extremely misleading statements about those not in the labor force increasing by over a million in January and simply admit that you are either too stupid or too focused on selling a particular world view to read the data correctly.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/02/no-rick-santelli-and-zero-hedge-one-million-people-did-not-drop-out-of-the-labor-force-last-month/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Liberals always justify Obama's failures on the failures of other people. Oh, Ronald Reagan did it... George Bush did it... must be OK for Obama to fail too!

It is a spending thing! If you are faced with losing a job... do you go out and spend all that you have and then borrow on the future? There is no difference in the federal government. When times get lean, you lean up. When times get fat, you pay back that what you borrowed. When is this government EVER going to do that? They run the risk of causing us collapse because they do NOT adjust for lean times. There is NO justification for increased spending and borrowing... unless you have a partisan view.

We have cut over a trillion dollars and we will cut another 1.2 trillion by law.

But why did Boehner walk away from the 4 trillion dollar deal ??

Dennis - Why does Boehner breathe? He's wasting air. They should fire Boehner - cast him out into the corn field. Who knows why he did that. Does it matter now?

We haven't cut anything. It's all a smokescreen. Cut 1.2 trillion in 10 years... did you read the fine print in that deal? In 10 years we'll be over $20 trillion in debt... what will $1.2 trillion matter? We're not talking Monopoly money here. We are talking about the currency that keeps this country moving. Have any idea what the interest is on $20 trillion?

Brianb-999431
Liberals always justify Obama's failures on the failures of other people

Thats just pantywaist nonsense from sorelosers who want to deflect blame from their disasters onto others...2.24 million jobs were lost 3 months before President Obama took office, a total 4.3 million in 2008 alone! Obama is responsible for this..how? Oh the Democrats were i congress...well name the legislation which caused this...it was all because the junk loans sold under the republik majority were reseting and defaulting, non e of the Loans sold under Clinton failed at this spectacular levels, nor did the loans sold in after 2006. Yeah some Blue Dogs Dems were on board with the con agenda as always, but you can't point to one thing Democrats did to make the disaster WORSE

If Obama failed, the unemployment this year would be at 34%. But it is down to 8.3,.5% of what he inherited it. If He failed , GDP wold still be in negatives, that was stopped in the 2nd quarter of 2009, When a republican had a similar level crisis, and the same ethos as teabaggers, unemployment shot from 4.7% to 35.3%...and -9% GDP went to -28% GDP

American Enterprise analysis ; Stimulus grew the economy in 2009 by 3%

he 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/article/economics/fiscal-policy/the-year-ahead/

If Obama didn't inherit such a cluster Muck, he would like Clinton be reversing Bushs' Deficits the way Clinton did his daddys....But trying to balance the budget during a crisis like this is proven to create a potential depression level event. Republicans are responsible for about 9.5 trillion of the national debt, but they are also responsible for the need to recover the economy from certain disaster...If Clinton reduced Bushs 340 billion $ debt to zero in one year the 90's would have played out very differently...

Brian,

I believe Boehner was for the 4 trillion dollar deal until his caucus rejected it.

The reason that the cuts are spread over 10 years is to not slow spending too quickly hurting the economic growth. Also if we can get the economy humming again bringing in more revenue the debt may not reach 20 trillion. But we all know that to have any real impact on our long term debt we will need to cut cost/spending and raise taxes.

It took from 1945 to 1980 (35 years) to cut the debt by 65% so I believe it will take about 50 years to get this debt down to below 20% of GDP.

The interest payment on 20 trillion at the current interest rates would be about 30% more than it is today.

A couple of more things. This country has a workforce of 141 million people. The official unemployment rate is 13 million. How come the actual rate of 23 million isn't used? That's unemployed people. Not those on pensions, retired, injured, or disabled. 23 million are unemployed but the government only reports 13 million of them. Why do they do this? It's because 13 million sounds better than 23 million. It's better sounding for Obama. So, when it's reported that 200-300 thousand get jobs, It's a smaller percentage of the 23 million unemployed.

Again, all this is a smokescreen to fool the public that the government is doing good. Don't believe it.

Lets see:

2008 = "Give me $1 trillion and I will make sure unemployment stays below 8%"

2012 = Unemployment DROPS to "only" 8.3%.

$1 TRILLION more in debt AND worse unemployment than Obama ever predicted and the pathetic U.S. media has the nerve to try to convince Americans that he has not made things worse; unreal.

Randy - since I've not seen your name here before, don't talk about things you know nothing of. Liberals do it on First Read all the time. Mention something Obama does wrong.. the first thing that pops out is George Bush. So unless you have anything else to say about it...

Let Obama report the real numbers concerning unemployment... then we'll talk. Until then your numbers are all made up.

Brian,

The unemployment reporting has been the same as long as I can remember. There is no accurate way to count or keep track of people that drop out. The data would be inaccurate at best.

During the 1980’s recession I remember the same discussion that the actual unemployment under Reagan was over 20%, not the 10.8% reported. People said he fudged the numbers but the fact is he did not and Obama is not.

There are companies that try to tract what is called Unemployment plus underemployment. Gallup is one of them.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125639/Gallup-Daily-Workforce.aspx

Liberals always justify Obama's failures on the failures of other people. Oh, Ronald Reagan did it... George Bush did it... must be OK for Obama to fail too!

The point is those presidents had virtually the opposite policies that Obama had. You have failed to propose your plans of how to fix the problems we face.

It is a spending thing! If you are faced with losing a job... do you go out and spend all that you have and then borrow on the future? There is no difference in the federal government. When times get lean, you lean up. When times get fat, you pay back that what you borrowed. When is this government EVER going to do that? They run the risk of causing us collapse because they do NOT adjust for lean times. There is NO justification for increased spending and borrowing... unless you have a partisan view.

First off, your claim that consumers should cut on spending when the economy is doing badly is false in itself (consumer spending ideally stimulates a healthy economy). In any case, your analogy is false. The government's duty is to its people. We cut taxes and raise spending when there is a recession. It worked for FDR, it worked for Carter (contrary to popular belief), it worked for Obama.

We haven't cut anything. It's all a smokescreen. Cut 1.2 trillion in 10 years... did you read the fine print in that deal? In 10 years we'll be over $20 trillion in debt... what will $1.2 trillion matter? We're not talking Monopoly money here. We are talking about the currency that keeps this country moving. Have any idea what the interest is on $20 trillion?

First off, it's very important to know the context of this $20 trillion figure. Remember, gross numbers are not important, but rather we have to focus on debt as a percentage of GDP. As you see from projections (http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/spending_chart_2007_2016USb_XXs1li111mcn_H0f), the debt will likely go down as a percentage of the GDP under President Obama's second term. Furthermore, the $1.2 trillion figure is actually cut from the deficit, not the debt. This means that by 2022, we will be running surpluses, which will pay down the debt over time.

A couple of more things. This country has a workforce of 141 million people. The official unemployment rate is 13 million. How come the actual rate of 23 million isn't used? That's unemployed people. Not those on pensions, retired, injured, or disabled. 23 million are unemployed but the government only reports 13 million of them. Why do they do this? It's because 13 million sounds better than 23 million. It's better sounding for Obama. So, when it's reported that 200-300 thousand get jobs, It's a smaller percentage of the 23 million unemployed.

This is because the additional 10 million people are not seeking work. This includes people who come from rich families and such. It is true a number of people in this number have simply given up, but as the unemployment rate of people seeking work decreases, more people will begin looking for work. This is why unemployment numbers are projected to rise during the spring, even though it shows a healthy economy.

pjam,

2008 = "Give me $1 trillion and I will make sure unemployment stays below 8%"

You forget that this was before enough data had been collected to see just how bad the recession was. In any case, I am calling bull@!$%# on this quote, as Obama himself never promised any figures.

Randy - since I've not seen your name here before, don't talk about things you know nothing of

Now this is PRICELESS - a low information newbie & hypocrite, telling someone else they don't know what they're talking about! LMFAO

I must of missed your promotion BB - in the meantime, sit down and STFU! Eventually you may earn a seat at the adult table! :o)

Better yet... go find Skanky & cower behind his skirt along with the other moron WCA!

Brain b

I know what I am talking about, no matter where I go online there seems to be right wangers trying to blame Obama for an economy in collapse, when he indeed stopped a full on depression, something republicans did not.

And now you informed yourself with more rightie pablum that tells you laborforce participation dropped by a over million workers to which I would say read the godamned bls report, which specifically states its incorporating the difference in census data previously used with the updated data from the 2010 census...As I posted in #2.8 ,please read, fully and comprehend

"Effective with data for January 2012, updated population estimates which reflect the results of Census2010 have been used in the household survey. Population estimates for the household survey are developed by the U.S. Census Bureau. Each year, the Census Bureau updates the estimates to reflect new information and assumptions about the growth of the population during the decade. The change in population reflected in the new estimates results from the introduction of the Census 2010 count as the new population base, adjustments for net international migration, updated vital statistics and other information, and some methodological changes in the estimation process. The vast majority of the population change, however, is due to the change in base population from Census 2000 to Census 2010.

The adjustment increased the estimated size of the civilian noninstitutional population in December by 1,510,000, the civilian labor force by 258,000, employment by 216,000, unemployment by 42,000, and persons not in the labor force by 1,252,000. Although the total unemployment rate was unaffected, the labor force participation rate and the employment-population ratio were each reduced by 0.3 percentage point. This was because the population increase was primarily among persons 55 and older and, to a lesser degree, persons 16 to 24 years of age. Both these age groups have lower levels of labor force participation than the general population."

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Dennis - Here's about the most up to the minute chart of most of the vitals of this country:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

While it's an algorithmic chart based on addition and subtraction of numbers based on averages, it keeps pretty good track of where we stand both in terms of employment and the basic economic data. There's a defined accuracy rating and from what I understand, they change the basis numbers whenever there's a change in the tracking data.

Mr Anon - in typical form, you are obfuscating my points. Either read my remarks and comment on what they are saying, or ask if you aren't sure. Don't just assume the liberal reply is going to work. For example, I didn't say consumers anything. I said if a person is facing the loss of a job... they should cut back. Substitute the person for the government, not the consumers. Now where I want you to provide a source is where you say 10 million aren't seeking work. I would like for you to show me where you get these numbers. If not, then I'll call bullsh!t. There aren't 10 million ultra rich people in this country that don't work. That's just nonsense. Most rich people DO work. You can call anything you want on the 2008 comment because I didn't post that.

Crusty Betty Carrot top in drag - go crawl back into your cave to smoke your Marlboros and drink your screw top wine. While you're at it, take a bath. You stink.

Randy McMurphy - la de dah. Another liberal that uses the government's information as if it's written in stone. Come back in a month and you will find those numbers to be all changed. More on.

Like I said Mr. Anon - You obfuscate everything. I've called GWB and Ronald Reagan marxists? Wow, what a stretch. Twiddle on your merry way. When you learn to read and comprehend, you are welcome to come back anytime. It's too bad you can't stand criticism about your reading... but it's really not my problem. Reading is fundamental... you should try it some time.

Randy McMurphy - la de dah. Another liberal that uses the government's information as if it's written in stone. Come back in a month and you will find those numbers to be all changed. More on.

OOH an insult...I take that as compliment considering the source anyway where are you drawing you figures from unemployed? you are trying to say there are more unemployed that dropped out of the laborforce, rather inartfully I might add.This is a familiar meme that Ringht wangers like Santelli and so called economists to say the current bls report is not good news...well they are wrong and you are wrong, and the fools that you inform your opinion with are....reading government information and not understanding it. Please respond if you can't tell me just what the hell you are talking about in #2.51

Randy - No need to insult you at all. 2.51 is very simple. The government is not reporting actual unemployment. They are under by very close to 10 million citizens. Instead of 13 million, it's closer to 23 million. I hope that clears it up for you.

Randy - since I've not seen your name here before, don't talk about things you know nothing of.

Well, well. Looks like we've got a new little self-appointed dictator here. :)

Randy...

You're forgetting something very important...it seems that most Republicans can't read and those who can have difficulty with comprehension...is there a connection between this fact and their apparent hatred for teachers and science? Hmmmm......

FEBRUARY 3-5, 2012

The Banks Want to Dump Millions of Risky Mortgages Onto FHA

Obama’s Refinancing Swindle

by MIKE WHITNEY

Barack Obama’s new housing refinance plan has nothing to do with “lowering monthly mortgage payments so responsible borrowers can stay in their homes”. That’s all public relations bunkum. The truth is the banks want to offload their garbage mortgages onto Uncle Sam to avoid hundreds of billions of dollars in losses. That’s what this refi-ruse is really all about.

The administration estimates that 3.5 million people with private label mortgages will be eligible to refinance into loans backed by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Many of these are high risk mortgages that will eventually go into foreclosure which is why the banks want to get them off their books. Regrettably, Obama is only too happy to help them achieve that goal….

…Why are so many more “private label” mortgages underwater than loans that were issued by
Fannie or Freddie?

...Here’s a little refresher from the Washington Post on how we got to where we are today:

“The biggest culprits in the housing fiasco came from the private sector, and more specifically from a mortgage industry that was out of control. These included lenders who originated home loans, investment bankers who packaged them into securities, rating agencies that misjudged these securities, and global investors who bought them without much, if any, study….

Between 2004 and 2007, private lenders originated three quarters of all subprime and alt-A mortgage loans. These were loans to financially fragile homeowners with credit scores under 660, well below the U.S. average, which is closer to 700. But only a fourth of such loans were originated by government agencies, including Fannie, Freddie and the Federal Housing Administration… (“Fannie and Freddie don’t deserve blame for bubble,” Mark Zandi, Washington Post)

…To be eligible for Obama’s refi-program, borrowers will need a credit score (FICO) above 580,(which is extremely low), they’ll have to be employed, and they’ll have to be current on their mortgage payments. (for the last 6 months) In other words, lending standards are being eased so the banks can dump as many high-risk mortgages on the FHA as possible. Obama breezily refers to these abysmal lending standards as “cutting through the red tape.”

Applicants will also be able to refinance under the Obama’s program with loan balances up to (get this) 140 percent of the value of their home. So, even if you owe $560,000 on a home that is currently worth $400,000–and you don’t have a dime’s worth of equity in the house–have no fear–you can still get money from Uncle Sugar. This isn’t a good way to keep people in their homes. It just turns them into debt slaves.

One last thing, all the talk about a “bank tax” is pure blather. The banks will be more than happy to cough-up $5 billion or so if it means they’ll be able to jettison the hundreds of billions in crappy loans on their books. As far as they’re concerned, that’s money “well spent”.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/03/obamas-refinancing-swindle/

Republicant...

Reality will not stop the willfully deluded from believing anything that helps preserve the leftover campaign crap they never let go.

Stupid is what stupid is fed.

Interesting that this is the basis of the Obama machine. You must be still drinking the cool aid!

RealAmericansFirst

FactCheck: Do Republicans lie?

Well, as FOX News says, "We believe our viewers can tell the difference between entertainment and news."

Now if they could just learn to tell the difference between fact and fiction......

Fox News is nothing but entertainment. Their viewers are fed a steady diet of lies and partisan propaganda.

It's a travesty that such blatant propaganda is even allowed on the air.

To take a line out of the presidents own hand-book: "Blame, blame and blame some more".

That's how to 'run' a country! Right?, Mr. President?

Unemployment rate when Obama took office 7.7%, Unemployment Rate Now 8.5%. No net jobs were "created", when there are less jobs than when you started that means you didn’t create any. Remember unemployment is higher than when he took office.

These numbers everyone is quoting does not show the actual unemployment: people who no longer receive unemployment, people who never got unemployment, nor does it include those who are now underemployed (with a major decrease in earnings).

"Economists debate whether the stimulus lived up to its promise or was worth the cost, but no one seriously argues that it created no jobs."
And by doing simple division 814 billion/<whatever million "created" jobs you would like to put here> No one seriously argues that it was worth the cost. Considering you could pay people $50,000/year for 5 years to stay home for the cost of the jobs that were "Created".

(con't)

The facts are: We spent $812 billion dollars! Unemployment almost doubled afterwards, and Unemployment is STILL higher than Obama claimed it would be if we did not pass his stimulus bill. These are the incontrovertible facts!

Remember this? With unemployment hovering near 10 percent nearly two years after President Obama signed his economic stimulus package, Mr. Obama is acknowledging that, despite his campaign promises, "there's no such thing as shovel-ready projects."

When the president campaigned for the stimulus package at the start of his presidency, he and others in his administration repeatedly insisted the investments would go to "shovel-ready" projects - projects that would put people to work right away. (He lied to get it passed)

White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley took heat from business executives Thursday for the Obama administration’s regulatory expansions. Daley also said he didn’t have any good answers for some of what President Obama is doing and expressed frustration about the “bureaucratic stuff that’s hard to defend.”

“Sometimes you can’t defend the indefensible,” Daley said at a National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) meeting.

Americans for Limited Government Communications Director and former Labor Department Public Affairs Chief of Staff Rick Manning told The Daily Caller that Daley’s inability to defend Obama’s regulations is an indication that the administration’s plans aren’t working. Manning also points out that Daley’s meeting may have large political implications.

The Workforce Fairness Institute’s Fred Wszolek told The Daily Caller that Daley’s lackluster performance is even more questionable when comes to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

When it comes to government, "a penny saved" is often confused with "a penny not spent." The dollars that the U.S. will not spend in Iraq and Afghanistan (as the latter conflict winds down) do not get thrown back into some imaginary pot (Republicans might say, "slush fund") for paying down the debt or building high-speed railways. In fact, the billions authorized by the Federal government for fighting abroad helped to create that debt. Less spending on the war front will surely help with the bottom line.

But let's accept the lies. Hey, its Obama. Look at how many people in this comment section today used "King" in their descriptions, and as if it is a good thing. They are getting you used to the idea so it will be more .. "palatable" later on when he declares it. ""Obama essentially said yesterday that the judicial branch has no power over him. He ordered his attorneys to stay away from the hearing. He didn’t petition a higher court in a legitimate attempt to stay the hearing. Instead he showed complete contempt for the entire judicial branch and for the rule of law. Rather than respecting the legal process Obama went around the courts and tried to put political pressure directly on the Georgia Secretary of State. When that failed, he simply ignored the judicial branch completely."

Why are you not all calling for his arrest? It is okay with you that he and his wife committed crimes we would be arrested for? Obama used a different Social Security number as a senator, then he is currently using now. As did his wife. That evidence was submitted and accepted by court. That is ID Theft, this is all covered up, ignored by the mainstream media. It seems to be ignored by all of you also. Yet, it is true. Yet it is real.

Thomas Jefferson expressed the importance of binding the hands of the central government directly: “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so they will not become the legalized version of the first.”

The United States Constitution gives significant power to the individual state governments. States are not mere provinces set up to take orders from a central authority in Washington DC and execute these orders regionally. States are afforded sovereign powers of their own. In Federalist #45, the powers assigned to the individual states were summarized by James Madison: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

As sovereign entities with their own executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government; states are free to govern without federal influence within the confines of their own state constitutions. In addition to the domestic powers outlined by Madison, states assumed the responsibility to actively limit central government’s natural desire to grow beyond the enumerated powers of the Constitution. In Federalist #28, Alexander Hamilton spoke concisely of the state’s duty to provide a check on the power of a growing central government: “…the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.”

When the federal government signs unconstitutional legislation into law, a more timely solution is required than the slow-moving and centralized federal judicial branch. This is especially true for unconstitutional laws that deny any citizen a basic right. State nullification of these laws is the proper course. States naturally pose an impediment to centralized power, and this competition between the central government and the state government is the key to preserving liberty in such a culturally diverse and regionally large country as the United States.

Interestingly, the recent NDAA legislation shares commonality with the historic Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798; in that both laws attempt to circumvent clear Constitutional rights through standard legislation. In 1798, as a response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, Jefferson and Madison, drafted resolutions outlining the proper course states should take when the central government assumes powers outside the powers specifically granted by the Constitution. Jefferson wrote: “Resolved, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government . . . . and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force. . . . that the government created by this compact [the Constitution for the United States] was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; . . . . that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; . . . and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorised by the Constitution, shall be exercised within their respective territories.”

Jefferson believed that states should reject, or nullify, unconstitutional federal laws through state legislative declaration; and deny federal authority of enforcement within their state boundaries.

What Obama says, it much different then what Obama does. Remember he has a GREAT speech writer.

The facts are: We spent $812 billion dollars!

About half of that was tax cuts.

Unemployment almost doubled afterwards

No it did not, if you start counting at September, when stimulus money started being spend.

, and Unemployment is STILL higher than Obama claimed it would be if we did not pass his stimulus bill. These are the incontrovertible facts!

Obama never promised unemployment under 8%. That is a myth propogated by conservatives.

Your entire argument revolves around these "facts". Furthermore, you have yet to propose a plan of your own for creating jobs.

A Messenger-2926105 Under Obama, the dollar has been the most devalued than under any president, un-employment is STILL rising, home values are STILL dropping, the price of gold is skyrocketing, the debt continues to grow exponentially...so YES MSNBC, Obama has made the economy worse and no amount of warm and fuzzy propaganda by you will change that. MSNBC....your "factcheck" is all lies

Rick - 312779 - your post is all lies.

I am never more amazed than when I read all the right wingers on this site. First, anyone who signed up for unemployment, food stamps, etc., wanted to be out of work; was lazy; just wanted a handout - yada yada yada. Now that jobs are being added the feeble right wingers cry is - well there aren't enough. What about the millions out there without jobs? What about them???? While I actually am very concerned about those without jobs, my concern is legit and has always been there. It is not a way to try to put down a President who is doing a good job in the face of the stupid GOP! I would say the right wingers should be ashamed but clearly any sense of morals is lost on that sorry lot!

For once, just once, can a Republican acknowledge that when President Obama took office we were loosing over 750,000 jobs a month?

The Party of Personal Responsibility takes no responsibility at all. The party of Christian values lie, judge and spew hate all the time.

The Teabaggers blasted President Obama with lies and distortion to get into office and then completely forget about their key issue: jobs. But I guess if your true objective is obstructionism, then why worry about jobs.

The whole premise that Msnbc can be objective about Obama is like saying Nancy Pelosi never had

Botox. Msnbc was campaign hq for obama last election and this one. They are simple not

a credible news organization anymore. National Enquirer has more credibility than msnbc or nbc.

They are simply the bottom of barrel.

The whole premise that Msnbc can be objective about Obama is like saying Nancy Pelosi never had

Botox. Msnbc was campaign hq for obama last election and this one. They are simple not

a credible news organization anymore. National Enquirer has more credibility than msnbc or nbc.

They are simply the bottom of barrel.

then go back to your faux news where you rightly belong.

I thought Obama couldn't get anything done due to the "Do Nothing" Congress?

Maybe they deserve the credit...

The jobs are gone thanks to NAFTA, signed by Bill Clinton. It just didn't happen overnight but that does not change the fact it was responsible for the loss of millions of American jobs.

Fact, given a second term and given what he is expected to spend, Obama will add more to our national debt then ALL previous presidents combined. Bush raised the debt ceiling 4 trillion over 8 YEARS! Obama will end his first term having raised the debt ceiling 6 TRILLION! Oh but he had to do it, and the country is so much better off because of it. That is nothing but spin just like this story from a media arm of the Democratic Party.

Obama has outsourced his presidency to Reid and Pelosi and has people working overtime to cover up the disaster it has been. That way he has been free to roam the planet in AF1, play golf endlessly, have some white house concerts, and basically enjoy the Presidency the Ride. Never a more unqualified president, great reader but a terrible leader. I wonder what his magic 8-ball is going to tell him to do today?

Okay, no questionable news links, no questionable source materials, no adjusted statistics....just the facts. Under Obama, my home has devalued by over 2/3, my husband first had hours and benefits cut, then lost his job, got another, and as the last one hired was the first one cut when that company felt crunched, so he has spent more time out of work than in despite "looking for work" being a full time job. Even if he were willing to accept something of lesser pay, he gets the "overqualified" rejections. I haven't seen a raise, cost of living or othewise, but the costs of health insurance, dental insurance, co-payments, pharmacy bills coming out of the same paycheck as I had back in 2008. It is also costing me alot more to go back and forth to work, and no, mass transit is not an option for where I live...gasoline bills are killing us. Money spent to travel to job interviews which bring no income or job offer are feeling like wasted money. My son finished college, and guess what, no jobs for him either....and the student loans are coming due with no real income to pay for them....My neighbors don't have jobs either if you judge by the number of cars sitting idle in driveways when I leave for work that haven't moved an inch by the time I get home.....With a 24 year perfect history of mortgage payments, and 28 years of perfect history with the same institution on my credit cards....my credit card interest rate went up and they reduced my credit limit, and told me that my home isn't worth enough to refinance the primary mortgage and the equity line of credit into one monthly payment.....My property taxes haven't gone down, even though the value of my home has, and everytime I go to the polls, they are asking for millages, referendums, and tax increases to fund reduced services. Don't tell me that this administration has made anything better.

And Saul adds that Obama's economic advisers -- before he took office -- said the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8.0%.

What Saul adds is not even a true statement. Only one person on Candidate Obama's staff was silly enough to guess at unemployment rates, and as the article itself points out, the unemployment rate was ALREADY well over 8% by the time the stimulus bill took effect.

How dumb do you have to be?

What a BS article. You can never prove definitive cause and effect with something as complex as the US economy - especially when nobody has complete control over what gets implemented (so we wind up with partial ideas from multiple groups being implemented). This is just junk journalism designed to drive readers to the site and sell advertising.

Brianb.

How many times to I have to point out the stupidity of your simpleton argument regarding the debt?

You, like the other parrots who know nothing of the issues you blather on about, are looking at the dates, and ignoring the policies and circumstances that led to the debt.

The vast majority of the debt since 2009 is due to the recession in the form of lost federal revenue and increased manditory outlays. Another substantial part is from leftover policies like Medicare D, the wars, and the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

Obama is responsible for spending, but most of it has been to combat the recession. In addition, Obama's policies have added far less then half of the debt added since 2009. The CBO puts out reports every year showing exactly what makes up the debt. Try doing some research.

I kind of agree with the article. Why back in 2007 did we receive a check from the treasury for $1425 and told by the treasury department to go out and spend it on consumables? I'm pretty sure that was a George Bush deal to try to stimulate a SLIDING ECONOMY" I believe a Wall Street article said approximately 60% of Americans took that check and paid off debt with it, because these "unpatriotic" Americans did not follow instructions. Due to the fact that almost 3/4 of Americans were saturated in too much personal debt. They did not go out and spend like the treasury dept told us. The entire stimulus bill was concocted because the Bush administration knew damn well that the economy had sick signs about to hit all of us.

That's awesome Lisa!

Pick your 'poison' - Moet or Tattainger?

Feisty, Moet would be wonderful Thanks for the good wishes.

Feisty, Moet would be wonderful

You got it! ;o) See you over at the DDI!

Thanks for the good wishes.

You're welcome, I can only imagine how excited you must be!

Congratulations, lisa to you & your daughter!! Now we have three things to toast----your daughter, great jobs numbers and the power of the people to raise their voice when something WRONG is going on (SGK Foundation, JCPenney being the latest).

Don't forget the Super Bowl party! ;o)

Lisa s. That's wonderful, you must be excited. We'll toast the new couple tonight at the DDI.

Did obumer make the economy worse? Increased debt 5 trillion plus, gave $500 million to failed

solar company and donors at Solyndra. The highest unemployment under bush was 6.3 and under

obama its been 9.1. So obama doesn't inspire much confidence with those numbers, and that's

why he won't be re-elected.

RD - in your little dreams!

RD-889126
Did obumer make the economy worse? Increased debt 5 trillion plus, gave $500 million to failed

Obumer? Oh another great con "thinker"...5 Trillion? Well not quite...that was Bushs' actual debt, Obamas spending is under 1 trillion dollars...Bush' 2009 budget was 1.4 trillion, when that finished, the debt was 11.9 trillion dollars

solar company and donors at Solyndra.

Solyndra was in a 16 billion dollar loan fund that covers failures of all higher risk investments don't pan out..2 of the 8 high risk companies failed, the fund is set up to cover the cost to the taxpayer if all 10 riskier investments failed. Oh and repugs were lobbying for 11 billion dollars in green jobs loan guarantees as they were crying about green tech funds.

The highest unemployment under bush was 6.3 and under
What extraordinary bull@!$%#, they unemployment rate his last month was 7.8% , after inheriting an unemployment rate of 4.2%, the idiot increased the unemployment rate +3.6%

obama its been 9.1. So obama doesn't inspire much confidence with those numbers, and that's

why he won't be re-elected.

Unemployment is 8.3, .5 more than where he inherited it. Unemployment only increased 2.2% due to Bushs' improvised explosive economy...he is on track to create net new jobs

any more fairy tales you want to have debunked for you?

Obama will be re-elected thanks to the bigotry, selfishness, and ignorance of the clown show Republicants!!! THANK YOU SOOOOO MUCH CLOWN SHOW!

OBAMA/BIDEN 2012!!!

Would you want Obama to be lead attorney at your civil or criminal trial? He did his only work as a researcher for a small law firm dealing in civil rights law suits.

Obama refuses to release his highschool, college and law school transcripts or reveal who paid for the schools, his summer breaks or reveal any job he had besides a legal researcher or state senator whose 130 initiatives were not supported by his democratic colleagues.

Romney worked his summers as a security guard at Chrysler. Got into university based on his grades and was awarded a MBA from Harvard and graduated with honors from Harvard law school at the same time. He ranked at the top 5% of Harvard business school.

He worked his way up the ladder, got his hands dirty, made money and a reputation that others jeer at and emulate. He donated 2 1/2 years of his life as a Mormon missionary.

Now since both Obama and Romney are both lawyers and you have seen their track records. Who would you want to be lead council at your civil or criminal trial?

Now taking their personal records and openness, who would you want to take control of this horrible economy and give people confidence that they know what they are doing.

Remember Obama has no experience in accounting, finance, economics, business or political science. He is hiding all his educational transcripts and work experience.

I don't agree with Romney calling the economy "worse", but the numbers are still nothing to be excited about.

What would the numbers be like if the Republicans had won in 2008, with McCain telling everyone the economy is "fundamentally sound"? The Republicans have tried to block the stimulus and everything else the Dems have offered up to improve things. So I assume that if they had won they would be doing nothing now (like they do in Congress). I shudder to think where the Dow and the unemployment rate would be if that were the case.

NorCal-

"Still nothing to be excited about"?

It's called a TREND, friend, and that trend IS exciting! If it doesn't excite you after what we've been through for the past 12 years, then someone needs to check your pulse.

Norcal, you are sick. get help soon.

But you aren't getting it. Romney doesn't care about you...he has his money:)

What if Mr. Romney wants to take money from the middle class and give it to the rich? Are you okay with that?

Because his policies are the exact same trickle up economics that got us into this recession.

If you vote Republican and you are not a millionaire, you are LITERALLY voting against your interests.

NorCalModerate
Those numbers are an improvement, and I don't agree with Romney calling the economy "worse", but the numbers are still nothing to be excited about.

Consider that when republicans were dealing with the same level crisis their first year, by this time unemployment was 34%

What it comes down to for me -- if Romney wants to make America as successful as he has been, I'M OKAY WITH THAT!!

So you think he is the tony robbins of candidates? Well tony robbins is only successful by convincing people they could be as successful as him.. not a real good metric for a candidate.

Lets see:

2008 = "Give me $1 trillion and I will make sure unemployment stays below 8%"

2012 = Unemployment DROPS to "only" 8.3%.

The fourth year in a row of $1 TRILLION+ budget deficits AND worse unemployment than Obama ever predicted and the pathetic U.S. media has the nerve to try to convince Americans that he has not made things worse; unreal.

2008 = "Give me $1 trillion and I will make sure unemployment stays below 8%"

LIE. President Obama never said that. It was 8% when he walked into the whitehouse. The stimulus was 787 billion, 40% tax cut, and it is to be spent over 10 years.

When GOP said that president Obama make the economy worse, it's like Sadam Husein said that he loves his people. It's just doesn't make any sense, don't you think? How can a president running for re-election want to do any of GOP crazy theory? The correct question should be, has GOP obstruction slow down US economy recovery. Better yet, if GOP approves president Obama jobs bill that could create 300K jobs for American, wouldn't that help speed up the recovery?

@Randy--

So what if the stimulus couldn't keep jobs lost @ 8 %, as least president Obama is trying his best to clean up your GOP mess. Did your GOP help president Obama or only obstruction to unseat him this November? Should people have a decency to clean up their own mess or at least help? By the way, when GOP press to extend Bush tax cut for super rich like Mitt Romney? where is the jobs do you know? Is it in Mitt Romney pocket and Swiss Bank account?

Yeah, its about them making this @!$%#e up...he never said that, what christine rommer said was that unemployment would not go above 2% of what they were experiencing at the time, to which they will say she lied! as it went up to 2.2% at it height before subsiding. Reagan said after his tax cuts that unemployment wold go down to 6.7%, it shot up to 10.6%, and he didn't inherit the clusterfvck President Obama did..

ram-762581 Lets extend that argument to Obama. He used his office to get rich and has many millions of dollars, not including how many million his wife has. Then we are to believe since Obama and his wife have their millions, they will not care about the poor and every day worker? Right?

You have to extend your logic to all politicians who are in office and super rich. Obama is a politician and is super rich, therefore according to your logic all super rich people shouldn't care about other people.

walkingman1
ram-762581 Lets extend that argument to Obama. He used his office to get rich and has many millions of dollars, not including how many million his wife has. Then we are to believe since Obama and his wife have their millions, they will not care about the poor and every day worker? Right?
You have to extend your logic to all politicians who are in office and super rich. Obama is a politician and is super rich, therefore according to your logic all super rich people shouldn't care about other people.

Well He didn't "use" his office to get rich, as the books he wrote were all before he got into office...his net worth was 1.3 million in 2007, his wealth was estimated lately at 8.5 million, minus the Nobel prize money he donated, which after 3 years of the 400k he makes as president 1.2 million, the rest I am assuming coming from books sales and blind trusts. He was not raised in an extremely wealthy household as Romney had been...I wouldn't say Romney is consciously callous towards the poor, but man, it seems like he had a bionic 6 million dollar tin ear implanted on his head...he seems unable to think outside the gilded gates from whence he came...He like Bush sr. , amazed at the supermarket scanner on steroids

Randy McMurphy, I do not comment before I look up the facts. Obama by himself is worth currently over 8 million dollars. I always look at 3 different information sources.

Romney was not raised in a wealthy family. You can read how many times Romney's father was broke and how many times he worked at meager jobs.

Again read before talking.

Do you want an idiot to run this country or a man who has experience? But answer my question.

You have the choice. You are arrested for a DUI and manslaughter charge, do you want Obama or Romney to represent you and why?

Yes Obama used his political office to generate wealth. Would a white shoe salesman get a $300,000 advance on a book, he never wrote? Now we have a black politician who is running for president and a politician with a sad, liberal story about being abandoned by his bigamist father and a mother who in one version cried rape and his being sent away by a socialist mother who wants her Indonesian husband more than her black child, SOB, SOB, SOB, where is my hanky.

For all you who believe that Romney was of a rich family, here is the background of George Romney, his father.

In the United States, Romney grew up in humble circumstances. The family subsisted with other Mormon refugees on government relief in El Paso, Texas for a few months before moving to Los Angeles, California, where Gaskell Romney worked as a carpenter. In kindergarten, other children mocked Romney's national origin by calling him "Mex".

In 1913, the family moved to Oakley, Idaho, and bought a farm, where they grew and subsisted largely on Idaho potatoes. The farm was not on good land and failed when potato prices fell. The family moved to Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1916, where Gaskell Romney resumed construction work, but the family remained generally poor. In 1917, they moved to Rexburg, Idaho, where Gaskell became a successful home and commercial builder in an area growing due to high World War I commodities prices.

George started working in wheat and sugar beet fields at the age of eleven and was the valedictorian at his grammar school graduation in 1921.The Depression of 1920–21 brought a collapse in prices and local building was abandoned. His family returned to Salt Lake City in 1921, and while his father resumed construction, George became skilled at lath-and-plaster work. The family was again prospering when the Great Depression hit in 1929 and ruined them. George watched his parents fail financially in Idaho and Utah and having to take a dozen years to pay off their debts. Seeing their struggles influenced his life and business career.

In Salt Lake City, Romney worked while attending Roosevelt Junior High School and, beginning in 1922, Latter-day Saints High School. There he played halfback in football, guard in basketball, and right field in baseball, all with more persistence than talent, but in an effort to uphold the family tradition of athleticism, he earned varsity letters in all three sports. In his senior year, he and junior Lenore LaFount became high school sweethearts; she was from a more well-assimilated Mormon family. Academically, Romney was steady but undistinguished. He graduated from high school in 1925; his yearbook picture caption was "Serious, high minded, of noble nature—a real fellow."

Partly to stay near Lenore, Romney spent the next year as a junior college student at the co-located Latter-day Saints University, where he was elected student body president. He was also president of the booster club and played on the basketball team that won the Utah–Idaho Junior College Tournament.

So Romney's family was rich as sin right?

He worked for Massachusetts Democratic U.S. Senator David I. Walsh during 1929 and 1930, first as a stenographer using speedwriting.

With one of his brothers, Romney opened a dairy bar in nearby Virginia during this time. The business soon failed, in the midst of the Great Depression.

Romney became an apprentice for Alcoa in Pittsburgh in 1930.

As a lobbyist, Romney frequently competed on behalf of the aluminum industry against the copper. industry.

In the early 1930s, he helped get aluminum windows installed in the U.S. Department of Commerce Building.

He was chosen by Pyke Johnson, a Denver newspaperman and automotive industry trade representative he met at the Press Club, to join the newly formed Trade Association Advisory Committee.

After nine years with Alcoa, Romney's career had stagnated.

In 1940, as World War II raged overseas, Romney helped start the Automotive Committee for Air Defense, which coordinated planning between the automobile and aircraft industries.

became managing director of, the Automotive Council for War Production.

Romney was director of the American Trade Association Executives in 1944 and 1947, and managing director of the National Automobile Golden Jubilee Committee in 1946.

From 1946 to 1949, he represented U.S. employers as a delegate to the Metal Trades Industry conference of the International Labor Office.

He really made the big bucks eh?

Anybody really believe the economy has turned around? Here is the quote from the article. Don't forget the 5 TRILLION added to the Federal Debt (and growing) under Obama!

What I said was that economy hasn't turned around, that you've got 20 million Americans out of work, or seriously unemployed; housing values still going down. You have a crisis of foreclosures in this country. The economy, by the way, if you think the economy is great and going well, be my guest. But the president of the United States, when he put in place his stimulus plan and borrowed $787 billion, said he would hold unemployment below 8% -- and 8% seemed like an awfully high number. It hasn't been below 8% since. That's failure. We're over 9% unemployment. That's failure. He set the bogie himself at 8% ,which strikes me as a very high number and we're still above that three years later.

Don't forget the 10.5 trillion national debt under Gerge Bush, 2 wars costing over 2+trillion with no revenue to pay for the nightmare, plenty of Bush tax cuts however. Tax cuts lasting that long was suppose to prevent everything according to Republicans, so they say!

A flip-flop is saying the opposite of what you previously said Einstein, not clarifying what you said or didn't say.

Here is an example:

"Raising the debt ceiling indicates a failure of leadership"... "I want to raise the debt ceiling but I'm doing a super job."

Mitt "Corporations Are People" Romney is a dishonest serial flip-flopper. His campaign is a fountain of misinformation, disinformation and false information. In Romney we have a candidate for President of the United States who thinks nothing of having investment accounts in the Cayman Island tax haven and in Swiss bank accounts. Romney's plan is to give more supply-side, trickle down, voodoo tax cuts for the ultra wealthy and the corporations which are already holding several trillion dollars in reserve. The moneyed don't need more tax cuts from Romney's tax plan and the rest of us don't need more trickle-down voodoo economics from the Quarter Billion Dollar Man. The "Restore Our Future" Super Pac, funded by high finance fortunes is planning on spending tens of million of dollars on behalf of Romney's candidacy. This Super Pac reveals Romney to be the candidate of the powerful, the privileged, the moneyed and of the high rollers of high finance.

In addition, this recession or near depression whatever you want to refer to it as started back in the Bush administration, when flags were popping up. For example, we all received a "stimulus check" for $1425 with(unless you owed back taxes) and told to go out and SPEND IT. Why???? Because the Bush administration knew then that consummer purchasing was coming to a dangerous slowdown. They didn't know what to do with it then either.

Uh...it benefits Willard?

Well--it would benefit the investors who could come in with cash and scoop up the units at a bargain price and then rent them out, thus ending the American dream of home ownership for these people.

Well--it would benefit the investors who could come in with cash and scoop up the units at a bargain price and then rent them out, thus ending the American dream of home ownership for these people.

Exactly! The GOP crushing the American dream one household at a time. Except when you're a corporate raider then you crush hundreds of them in one boardroom vote...

I haven't seen anybody scooping up thousands of units yet; what are they waiting for?

haven't seen anybody scooping up thousands of units yet; what are they waiting for?

The banks to start putting them on the market...

Lets see:

2008 = "Give me $1 trillion and I will make sure unemployment stays below 8%"

2012 = Unemployment DROPS to "only" 8.3%.

The fourth year in a row of $1 TRILLION+ budget deficits AND worse unemployment than Obama ever predicted and the pathetic U.S. media has the nerve to try to convince Americans that he has not made things worse; unreal.

If I see this statement again I will organize a report block to purge this comment thread of false claims.

And his never being able to make up his mind .just scares me as an American.

Me too!

No more blaming Bush, eh, moonbat?

Bob---it was pointed out to you this morning on another thread that we will ALWAYS blame Bush for what he did to put the entire nation in the hole that it is slowly digging out of----two wars, massive tax cuts, unfunded Medicare benefits and a financial situation where "too big to fail" was a plus. And before you pivot to how slow the recovery has been, let's not forget what the GOP has done since 2008 to help----NOTHING.

Bush caused the collapse. And Romney or Gingrich would cause it again pursuing the same policies.

Da Noid:

Don't forget that the NasDaq hit an 11 year high today! It was never this high under Bush.

Bush will always be considered the worst president in modern history, and his mistakes will be remembered for generations. But hopefully, the American spirit and common sense will prevail over mistakes and failed policies (deregulation, tax cuts, trickle-down economics). We CAN fix the debt and the economy. Unemployment is scheduled to decrease dramatically, and with a little help from Congress the housing market could improve.

Don't you love liberals citing a rise on Wall Street as if it was the actual economy while at the same time whining and crying about the rich getting richer.

Who do you think made money today? Main street and the middle class or Banks and millionaire investors?

Not the brightest group are they?

That's funny, because finally my retirement investments are showing some robust behavior, the unemployment rate is dropping, not fast enough, but dropping. But Wall Street the 1%, psychologically must be in a good mood, right???

How in the hell can you not bring George Bush's Presidency into the equation, he was in office 8 years(two years short of a decade) NO DOMESTIC POLICY because namely two advisers, Dick & Don convinced him that after invading Iraq it would take 3 years to get it under control and get out, and 9 years later????????????2 trillion dollars later???????????? No revenue to pay for it later??????????? You are naive to think what George Bush did or didn't do will have a lasting effect for the next 10-15 years!!!!!!!!!!!

What is there to spin? The facts speak for themselves:

2008 = "Give me $1 trillion and I will make sure unemployment stays below 8%"

2012 = Unemployment DROPS to "only" 8.3%.

The fourth year in a row of $1 TRILLION+ budget deficits AND worse unemployment than Obama ever predicted and the pathetic U.S. media has the nerve to try to convince Americans that he has not made things worse; unreal.

Were fortunate that after the George Bush led recession nearly depression unemployment didn't rise twice as much as 8.3%

Just ask yourself: are you better off today comparing to 4 years back?

Why, yes I am - thank you for asking!

Not only are there more rich, but they're also richer. Their financial wealth jumped 9.7% over the last year to $42.7 trillion. Meanwhile, the U.S. GDP grew 1.9% in the first quarter of 2011, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce. Many might agree that Obama's stimulus package isn't creating jobs, but for a lucky few, it is creating a ton of wealth.

I guess you're one of the 1% Congratulations.

"Gasoline price is up - almost twice, if not more. It was around $1.50/Gallon in the fall 2008 - winter 2009".

So tell us --- what were gas prices in the spring and summer of 2008? Do you remember that? I do -- $4.00 or more per gallon reaching an high of $4.71 in July. And who was president then?? Hmmm -- I think it was REPUBLICAN -- George W. Bush --- that guy all you teapublicans want us to forget about.

Anonymous User, you bet I am better off than I was 4 years ago. Because 4 yrs back was the beginning of President George W. Bush and the GOP's Great Recession; the economy was on the down swing, jobs were being lost by the thousands, the number of foreclosures continued to rise, we were fighting two unfunded Bush wars, and in Sep 2008, we suffered the total economic meltdown. Best of all, I no longer have to listen to President Bush annihilate the English language.

Just ask yourself: are you better off today comparing to 4 years back?

Yes -- I am MUCH better off.

Gasoline price is up - almost twice, if not more. It was around $1.50/Gallon in the fall 2008 - winter 2009.

Well, considering we let all these hedge fund managers trade the oil and gasoline contracts and that the market determines the price and Big Oil will report super-duper-mega-record profits again this year I guess my question to you is why you don't like capitalism.

Anonymous User,

Please explain how the president, any president, can change the short term (5 years or so) price of gasoline at the pumps. There could be a degree of control by the president if the federal government were to take control of the oil companies and mandated price controls. Is that what you are advocating? Isn't that socialism?

So many lies - so little time!

Gasoline price is up

Uh, no! I remember the peak - I paid it during the Bush admin. From the US Energy Information Adminstartion: What was the highest U.S. average retail price of regular gasoline? According to EIA's weekly survey, the U.S. average retail price of regular gasoline reached $4.11 per gallon on July 7, 2008.

Energy prices up, no matter what you use - fuel oil, natural gas, or electricity. Don't believe? Just look up your heating bill of 2008-2009 winter, and compare.

Uh, no! From Bloomberg Business Week: Booming production pushes natural gas price down - The price of natural gas dropped back near a 10-year low Wednesday after Exxon Mobil and other energy companies declined to cut production. Since I heat my home with natural gas AND we had a mild winter, my heating bills have been quite nice this year compared to 2009, thank you.

Grocery prices about twice what they were under Bush.

Uh, no! According to the USDA Economic Research Service, the annual increases for the last few years are:

2009: +1.8%

2010: +0.8%

2011: +3.7%

2012 (projected): +2.5-3.5%

Ain't no way that totals to twice what they were when Bush left office!

Just ask yourself: are you better off today comparing to 4 years back?

Why, yes, yes, I am! Thanks for asking!

EEngineer- Careful there. You're talking facts and the little right wing heads can't quite get around those!!!!

The grocery increase list came from the FOX news morning news, so the above did a good job writing it down even if it is UNfactual

South Bay, I don't think they have a clue how ridiculous they sound.

Rudy, well said.

Your a mormon,and a democrat!? Wow, didn't know they existed, but then I'm an evangelical and can't stand the Republican party, so I guess it's possible

"The President said that he was against deficit spending and he vowed to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term."

Hey Will --- do you remember a guy by the name of Ronald Reagan? He didn't promise to cut the deficit in half by then end of his first term, he told us he was going to balance the budget in the first two years of his first term.

George W. Bush and his republican congress managed to turn the largest surplus of all times into the largest deficit of all times, in less than 2 years and without including most of the cost of his two wars in the calculations. Remember what Dick Cheney said?? I do--- he said "deficits don't matter." I find it strange that the ONLY time you Republicans seem to be concerned about deficit spending is when a Democrat is in the White House.

Ronald Reagan is dead and Bush and Cheney are no longer in office. My concern is about the current President.

Well -- we know you want to forget about Bush. All you Republicans want everyone to forget abut Bush -- the one who gave us the worst economy since the depressions. The reality is no president since Kennedy had the keys to the White House turned over to him from the former president with the nation in BETTER shape than did George W. Bush and no president since FDR had the keys to the White House turned over to him from the former president with the nation in WORSE than did President Obama. It may very will take this nation a generation or longer to dig ourselves out of the economic disaster caused by George W. Bush and his Republican controlled Congress.

But during the last years of the Bush administration, the Democrats controlled congress.

Will Haas - too bad you had so little concern about the goons who got us into this mess!

Will Haas - it's really pathetic you have to make up an excuse for every Republican disgrace. But, that would be everything the GOP has been in the last decade!

WillHaas is a mole, the GOP is paying him to make it look like plenty of people support Republican policies. No one supports the GOP's policies, well except fanatical religious nuts and racists.

Silly Teatards, If you vote Republican and are not a millionaire, you are LITERALLY voting against your interests.

No notable progress has been made while Obama has been in office. Progress means that we're in a better position than we were in when Mr. Obama entered office. Progress has not been made. And, we mustn't forget to look at the correlation to when the Democrats took control of congress vs when the economy began to slump and later go into recession.

There was a nice analysis done on one of the networks recently about how much of the deficits of the last three years Obama is responsible for and how much W. is responsible for. The conclusion was that Obama was responsible for 900 billion of the debt amassed in the past three years and that W. (due to the two wars and the tax cuts) was responsible for 3 trillion. Remember, the stimulus was only 800 billion over three years. Obama hasn't increased spending that much on anything else other than increasing the length of unemployment benefits (but perhaps W's mini-depression deserves some of the blame for that). You can find the video on RealClearPolitics.

I think that the major driver of our economic problems has been the trade deficit. It has been getting worse for decades and no administration has found a solution to it. Hats of to the Clinton administration for, with the help of a Republican congress, running a surplus. Of course the expense of the war really started to hurt the economy. The Bush administration tried to shore things up by injecting more money via tax breaks and by not reducing spending but that did not solve the problem and things started to get worse when the Democrats assumed control of congress. Obama and agreed that the deficits run up by the Bush administration were bad. President Obama even vowed to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first administration but that does not seem to be happening. The Obama administration has been trying to spend our way to prosperity but just as with the Bush administration, it is not working. There may be temporary benefits but with all of the money leaking over seas the benefits do not last and all we are left with is the mounting debt. The Presidents promises on the economy have failed because he has not solved the trade deficit problem. With more than 15 trillion dollars in current debt, regarding any additional borrowing, I estimate that it will cost the tax payers 9 times the amount borrowed to pay back the money in 170 years. Remember that we have to pay off the old debt before we can start paying off the new debt. While we are paying off the old debt we still have to pay interest on the new debt. With the deficits that we have been running it will be a long time before we can even begin to pay off the old debt. Borrowing more money is causing the federal government and with it the federal taxpayers more problems then it is it is solving. Interest rates seem to be at historical lows but it they start to climb we are going to be in big trouble.

Joe DeMarco: Thanks for the complement but I am just a common citizen, voluntarily speaking his mind.

Will, you obviously don't know the difference between a trade deficit and a budget deficit. A budget deficit is when you spend more than you make; a trade deficit is when you import more than your export. Second of all, spending our way to prosperity DID work, It worked during the Depression, where we spent our way out of World War II when EVERYONE did their fair share.

And technically, Obama did offer a way to cut down our deficit; unfortunately the GOP said no because it contained tax increases, and so now we are left with a mounting debt and no cooperation because SOME PEOPLE won't compromise. So instead of blaming the president, why don't you start putting some on the GOP. And in case you haven't noticed, Obama can only act with Congress' cooperation. And right now the Republicans in Congress aren't cooperating, so Obama can't do ANYTHING.

You want a deficit reduction plan?? I'll show you one. It won't lower the deficit to $229.27 billion by year's end, but it will give us a surplus by perhaps 2014. Check it out.

I. Reduce the debt by $8 trillion over 10 years.

• $750 billion in defense cuts: cut waste in private contracting; reduce investments in new military projects to more sustainable levels; reduce active military personnel by about 8%; demolish 200 bases to save over $55 billion a year; prioritize investments for drones, efficient weapon systems, and cyber-defense systems.
• $1.25 trillion in entitlement savings: Raise payroll cap to 90% of income; reinstate COLA; reinstate estate taxes; raise premiums for beneficiaries who make over $250,000; progressive indexing.
• Cut $1.5 trillion from discretionary spending except from NASA and Department of Education. Find ways to remove waste, trim costs, etc.
• Save $3.5 trillion by repealing Bush tax cuts.
• Institute Buffet Rule and save $500 billion.
• Total savings=$7.5 trillion plus perhaps $800 billion or more in interest savings.

II. Economic Recovery Package

• Education reform. Increase funding for Department of Education, adopt RAND education policy and further Head Start programs.
• Create Department of Tourism with $36 billion budget to support 150,000 employees to speed up process for foreign tourists to apply for visas to US and make system more efficient.
• $90 billion in infrastructure bank to leverage capital for infrastructure repairs to employ millions of Americans.
• Incorporate policies of Obama's Jobs Bill.
• Offer incentives for businesses to buy US-made equipment and to employ people in America to the tune of perhaps $2,000-$3,000 per head; includes only people earning the median salary that the companies provides for its workers.
• Increase duties and tariffs for Chinese goods to 35% until China appreciates its currency and lowers subsidies; place more cases on Chinese fraud and stealing,
• $60 billion in incentives and federal loans and grants to green technology.
• Regulatory overview to decrease unnecessary regulations for economy and add regulations were needed.
• Reinstate Glass-Steagall.
• Lift moratorium on offshore oil drilling and open up certain areas for energy exploration WITH safety and environmental precautions and insure safety.
• Invest $40 billion in new R&D projects.
• Offer more scholarships and Pell grants; prioritize scholarships to promote getting degrees in engineering, technology, etc.
• Negotiate lower tuition deals with private institutions in return for aid and invest more money public higher education. Negotiate with states for a state education surtax to pay for public universities.
• Help housing market: tighten regulations on housing and financial markets, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; create partnership programs between the government and the private sector to buy houses and rent it out to former owners; persuade banks to write off parts of underwater mortgages; quicken time for foreclosures; demolish old buildings to open up to construction projects.
• Increase federal gasoline tax to $.225/gallon and use extra revenues to revamp infrastructure.
• Extend payroll tax cut.