Is it just me or does it seem there was a Conference call between D Gregory and Ramney before the MTP interview with Gingrich?

Ramney: Now David, I need for you to attack Newt and get him off the trail. I don't care what it takes. Shoot, if I was already in the Oval Office, I would blow him away with a a lot of guns and rockets.

D Gregory: Yes Sir! King Ramney! I will conduct the interview as you and the Establishment tell me to!!! All Hail King Ramney!!!

Meet the Press is officially owned and operated by the GOP with D Gregory at the helm.

Like I said last week, it sounds like Gregory is on damage control for his boss Ramney... sorry guy, you just can't fix stoopid.

Backhouse

Mr. Romney, Poster-Boy for the 1%:
Was a big-time Job-Terminator for Bain, big news lately.
Romney fired thousands of workers and destroyed communities in the name of greed on top of more greed. And now we know for sure Romney doesn't care about ordinary people who work in ordinary towns, he makes it worse by lying about known reported facts:

WhatIi posted didn't show; correction

Thanks, backhouse. it should be obvious to most people by now.

Mitt Romney In 2008 Nevada Victory Speech Called For Stimulus, Guaranteeing More Home Loans

At a very different political moment, he said the country needed an economic stimulus to prevent a recession. Romney also called for loosening FHA requirements so that more loans could be guaranteed.

posted Feb 4, 2012

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/mitt-romney-in-2008-nevada-victory-speech-called-f

================================================

Now, to be fair, most folks in this country believe that this wingnut have lost their minds. But we have to wonder how they keep getting duped over& over by these candydidates???

Ron, good points, thanks.

Let's remember the salt-of-the-earth-farmers in Kansas, who continue to be duped by ivy league rich guys - that they have their interests in mind.

The right wing machine (especially GOP Fox News) is about getting those people to vote against their own interests.

According to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, President Obama holds a clear lead over GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney.

By a 2-1 margin, Americans said the more they learned about Romney, the less they liked him — likely a function of the overwhelmingly negative primary campaign the candidate has waged against his fellow contenders.

The same poll shows 68% of Americans think the tax code favors the wealthy, including 56% who strongly believe so, while two-thirds think Romney is not paying his fair share in taxes.

Good Morning Feisty!

Missed it. What did Ms. Maddow say?

Good morning Backhouse,

The biggest lie told, "President Obama is always apologizing for America." I bet not one person can tell us when President Obama apologized for America.

Louis, hilarious,

And to quote Romney/Ramney, the Tea Party /hard core conservative/FILL IN THE BLANK/moderate candidate:

"Many tea party folks are going to find me, I believe, to be the ideal candidate. I sure hope so."

= Mr. Tea Party cracking down on Immigration and Romney/ObamaCare.

s

Watching Rachel yesterday, and that was the only reason I was watching, to see her, Castellanos was a classic example of going to a battle of wits........unarmed.

There is no one better than Rachel in a debate/discussion, she comes prepared, having done her research. No wonder she was a Rhodes Scholar. Brilliant woman

Job1, great point,

What President Obama has spoken about: is co-operation, and working alongside international/ global partners.

We don't need go-it-alone in selfish wars.

Backhouse - you are more gracious than I would have been, as soon as I found out his political leaning I think I would have told him not to worry about it, take my warm coffee cup out of his hand, show him to the door and start looking for someone else to do the work my hard earned money pays for - yes, I'm that stringent about where I spend my money and unless there is absolutely no other alternative what so ever, I never, ever spend one dime with republicans. If they are rich enough, or think they are rich enough to aid and abbett the richer getting richer they don't need my money. Guess you could have asked him if he was willing to work for minimum wage - bet that would have set off a firestorm. Anyway, next time vet your repair folks better, it is a lesson we learned the hard way, republicans don't do the real work as well either and everytime we have used their labor it is substandard, hope you got your repairs completed.

Union. Hi there. Ron made that comment.

And you're right, Ron IS a very gracious person!

Note he has no complaints about the work of any kind.

He 'deserves' a second term?

Not that I was going to vote a second time for him, but that would've killed it right there if I was going to. No one 'deserves' to be president. One 'deserves' to go through the process to see if the public wants that person as their president. But, I guess what can you expect from a liberal that supports putting as many people on welfar....erm... excuse me... entitlements as possible. He's basically saying he's 'entitled' to a second term.

As far as the comments about Romney and big business, lets call a spade a spade. How many people lost their jobs in the auto industry when the government took over? That's the same exact scenario as Romney since you have to shed the fat and make a company lean when you're trying to save it. The company I work for has been doing the same exact thing with closing a few plants and distribution centers.

And no, I'm not a Romney fan. I don't think any of the republican candidates can do any better than Obama with jobs, debt and the economy. But I also don't think they can do any worse, and they are far more patriotic to this country than our current president is.

@Union Baby,

Wow, republicans don't do good work? It's always substandard? Way to generalize? How about I go and generalize that liberals are all lazy, good for nothing, college drop out, welfare meth heads? Oh, but it's the same thing you just did! And yea, it sounds pretty damn stupid doesn't it?

I think I'm going to go with the only smart people in this country are the independents since we think with our own brains instead of believing the party mouth pieces like you that vomit hate.

Ron did you also explain the "i like to be able to fire people" was a comment toward insurance providers? Did you explain the "i'm not concerned about poor" was about the safety nets for the poor, as he also mentioned he would fix them if broken in the same paragraph? Did this misinformation just happen to slip your mind, or you playing sound bite politics, or you just using "selective listening"?

It also sounds like you don't like people making a lot of money and getting interest off of that. That is the american dream for a lot of people and he achieved that.

Ron,

At least you could get a word in edgewise, talking to your backhoe Republican. My brother runs rough shod over me, with his Tea Party opinions. It's almost like a mental disease. Thank Goodness he supports Ron Paul and will not vote for Romney; my brother told me he'll write in Ron Paul if Romney is the Republican nominee in the general election.

Backhouse:

Thank you for your gracious comment. You were right that the work was well done.

Ron & Backhouse - my appoligies - did not mean to give the wrong credit for a great read - yes I do believe you! Bubba driving the backhoe likes to make the big bucks, but bet ya he has no health insurance either. At least most in Tennessee don't, and they are the ones who complain because they can't get health insurance, but then don't want anything to do with the healthcare law either, which would allow even 2 pack a day cigarette smoking, beer drinking bubba with all kinds of pre-exisiting conditions to have healthcare coverage.

Ron, Feisty, Bev, Job1, Union, GM, Amy,

Is your "Ignore gross lie/denigrate/deny/button" working today?

Backhouse, Ron, way to start the week.

Rachel did a great job yesterday on MTP. As for the Catholic Bishops and Priests outrage, they cannot have it both ways. They cannot be one of the voices demanding that taxpayer money not fund abortions yet demand that taxpayer money be used to allow them to enforce their religioius doctrine on the public which they serve. Individual church health care plans are exempt from the rule for providing contraception. Catholic universities and hospitals and charities provide a "public" service, a service to all faiths and to those who have no faith. To my knowledge, not every employee at those public institutions is Catholic.

Once a religious organization chooses to serve the general public, to accept taxpayer funds without a requirement to be Catholic, their rights to enforce their religious doctrine on all who work, attend or receive services at those "public/private" institutions is forfeited.

Damage

"what can the government give me as a handout?" Do you realize that some people think it's disgusting that we have a political party that supports the murder of unborn babies, is historically soft on crime etc...?

You talk about handouts, ask the rich like Romney who's been leaving on govt. tax subsidies for donkey yrs now. That I'll expect to disturb you more.

What lives are you protecting when you support death penalty, kill doctors who perform abortions.

Are fighting for God like the Talibans fight for Allah?

paul Thank You for coming on here. I really liked what you said. So now I get to chance to say your wrong! The tea bagger party has done nothing to help. You say it was the tea bag congress thats turning the economy around. governor mcdonald said it was the republican/tea bag party governors that did it. It can't be both and it was none of the above. The President gets all the credit for the start of this turn around. The republican/tea bag party has done nothing to help. They have been blocking the President at every turn. The republican/tea bag leader of the senate wants to make the President a one term President. So why should they do anything. Than blame the President for nothing getting done. The same man said during the debacle at the end of 2010, that keeping the bush tax cuts would create all kinds of jobs, My question is where all those jobs? The only thing the republican/ tea bag party has done is lie! In closing paul please get the tea bags out of your mouth your choking on them.

damage you are the most condescending person on the. Trying to push your view on everyone who does not agree with you!

Ron... If you are so D@@N smart, why didn't YOU grab a shovel and clean out your OWN septic line?

Hiya Kids, the frog is still sick but I want to make a few observations.

I want to avoid the easy comparisons with regards to why GOP voters continue vote against their own interests and look at something very interesting in the Nevada results that seems to be over-looked by the MSM.

The last figures I saw showed Romney with 48% of the vote in Nevada. I think Newt got 28%. Romney is DOWN 3% over his 51% victory in 2008. And he still finished with less than 50%. Not good.

Furthermore, 40% of his votes came from Mormons, which he carried by something like 95%. So if you take out the "Mormon" vote he and Newt are in a statistical tie. So what does that tell us?

It tells us, despite what the MSM keeps saying regarding his "momentum" and his perceived favorable chances to defeat the President there is STILL a VERY VERY strong "any-body-but-Mitt" feeling amongst Republicans.

That's bad. VERY bad for Romney.

And the economy is getting better and the President approval rating it still on the rise and he's currently six points ahead of Romney in head-to-head polling and Romney continues to put both feet in his mouth. Oh, he's going to get the nomination. Karl already decided that it was Romney's turn. But it's becoming more and more obvious, at least to me, he can't win.

Look at the numbers kiddies, the REAL numbers. Sometimes the MSM is as bad as FOX. Don't listen to them, look at the numbers. They continue to tell an unmistakable tale.

Don't worry Mr. President, you're going to get that second term.

Obama/Biden 2012

Damn..This one may come back to hurt him. He should have said "earned" rather then "deserve"

"We've created 3.7 million jobs in the last 23 months."

Let's look at the real OVERALL record;

Total employment for December 2008 (Bush's last full month) = 134,383,000.

Total employment for December 2011 (After 3 years of Obama) = 131,900,000.

That's a LOSS of 2,483,000 net jobs under Obama.

Need proof? - Here is the official government Bureau of Labor Statistics site to verify;

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

By the way - 'What do you mean by 'WE' Kemosabe?' Private industry creates jobs 'in spite of you', not because of you.

Now Roy, you know you are going to confuse people putting up official numbers. Seems people here don't like looking at actual numbers.

ROY WILSON WHOPPER CORRECTION:

More jobs created under President Obama since 2005.

About the state of affairs at the end of President Bush's term = Millions of jobs lost:

G.D.P. is the market value of everything produced within America.
"...the overall downward revision was concentrated at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009.

2008: Q4 was revised to -8.9 percent from -6.8 percent
2009: Q1 was revised to -6.7 percent from -4.9 percent.

(UNDER PRESIDENT BUSH) "What was already the deepest reported recession
since official quarterly estimates began in 1947 is now reported to have been
significantly worse."

Our GDP in the 4th quarter of 2008 was first thought to be minus 6.8% (-6.8%).
This figure was revised to a shocking minus 8.9% (-8.9%).

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/07/29/advance-estimate-gdp-second-quarter-2011-and-annual-revision

Smitty-

All I am saying is that yup, the Tea Party caucus has tried to reign in spending and now that unemployment is trending downward, how come the Tea Party can't get credit for it, but Obama can?

I reality, my point is that the economy is WAY TOO complex for anyone to get credit or not. The Republicans tend to make way too intelligent comments (i.e. the workforce shrunk by 1.2 million people and that caused the employment to drop) for the average voter to comprehend (I don't mean that in a condenscending way, just that they don't pay attention enough to understand what that means). But, the Democratic simple message of "Republicans want to through Grannie off the cliff" by trying to preserve Medicare for all of us, just not the Seniors, actually plays well to the vast majority that don't pay attention.

The one item I do know and care about is the debt. And every person in America owes about $50,000 to foreign governements, and yes, the vast majority of that has occured in the last five years under Democratic control of Congress and mostly the Presidency. And, considering that only about half of folks pay income taxes, my 12 year old daughter's debt is already probably north of $75,000.

So, until we hold our leaders accountable for the debt, this counrty is going to collapse. And, before you raise one cent in taxes on anyone, the federal government should streamline and become more efficient. The waste is ridiculous (I work as a private consultant that sometimes has to work through the EPA and the COE to get projects implemented) and I see it first hand. Obamacare as a rule that reqiures that 85% of all premiums must go to paying medical claims. While I don't like the governement "regulating" a business like that, I understand the concept. In any case, what do you think is the ROI on our taxes? How much actually goes to the people that it's supposed to. How much of education budget actually makes it to teachers and students? Well, until we ask one American to pay more, we need to get the current house in order and if the administrators in those departments can't reduce expenses by 20% (like nearly every private sector employer has done in the last 5 years), then they should be fired and replaced with someone who will.

Then, if the current revenues are still not enough, then consider raising taxes. While I'm sure we have different priorities, I'd bet you a very nice steak dinner that 5 people that work and watch Fox News and 5 people that work and are MSNBC faithful could come together, eliminate the waste and fraud and balance the budget in a few weeks. The Democrats won't even let a Balanced Budget Amendment come of for a vote? How can they do that to our kids....

How does that old saying go?

You don't get what you deserve in life. You get what you get.

hardtostarboard, I believe it is spelled 'hail', but your sarcasm was right on! Obama is succeeding in his own mind.... creating an America that is dependent on big government, and eating away and destroying the US Constitution! All for the cause of liberalism, lol!

I keep asking but can never get an answer to this question: Name a country that has thrived while encumbered by the restrictions of liberalism? Argentina, no! Greece, no! Spain, no! Portugal, no! There are too many examples of liberalism/socialism destroying countries, nary a single example of a country that has succeeded because of liberalism/socialism..... Obama is trying his best to see if it will work in the USA..... he is wrong! Let us make sure he doesn't succeed!

"I deserve a second term"......pathetic......and the Left is EATING it up. This is just like getting the Nobel Peace Prize....didn't do anything but was "GIVEN" it.

LOL.....Pleading AGAIN, just like EVERY piece of legislation Mr. Obama backs and then "campaigns" to the public (all over the U.S.) for support when HE knows the legislation is only for his voter base.

Yeah, you will not HEAR anything about Mr. Obama's FAILED Domestic and International agendas on his continuous campaign stints. I would provide a list of 16 (and counting) FAILED programs, but the Left would collapse it and say the post was SPAM.

Mr. Obama is ONE and gone.

ROY WILSON,

Our President said over the last 23 months not the last 36 months.

Yes there are still fewer people working today than in 2008 but if you look back at the 8 years before he took office there should have been 12 million jobs created and there were only a net 3 million created so our President started our 9,000,000 jobs in the hole. [Based on 125,000 needed every month to keep up with the population growth]

I guess I shoulda stayed in bed.

Luckily, the President's people are way ahead of the rest of you.

Maybe you shoulda stayed in bed.

Obama/Biden 2012

My take on the contraception issue. Did the President say that

a) If I liked my insurance I could keep it

b) That over time I would see around $2500 in premium reduction

c) That insurance premiums would be so reasonable that there would be no need for a mandate (wage garnishment)

Has he kept any of these promises? Every mandate they add to an insurance policy will be passed along to the consumer in higher premium costs.

When is this Administration going to understand "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"?

BTW I hope you all read the NYT article over the weekend which documented that Fannie Mae knew it was breaking the law as early as 2006, and did nothing to rectify the situation. So when you decry corporations as being evil you should consider that GSE's are no different, and this one was protected by both sides of the aisle.

Damn..This one may come back to hurt him. He should have said "earned" rather then "deserve"

____________________________________________

At least "deserve" is one notch better than what Barry and his lefty liberal supporters really believe:

That he is "entitled" to a second term.

My slippers are off and I will be the judge if Obama has earned another 4 years leading our country.

To quote Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven: "Deserving has nothing to do with it"

Ron Paul for President! The only candidate not owned by special interests.

63.6% of Americans say the country is headed in the wrong direction. Therefore, you DO NOT deserve another term, Mr. Obama.

Nothing but hypocrites supporting either side of the isle. Clinton signed NAFTA into law which sent millions of jobs overseas. Bush spent wildly and got us into at least one war he never should have. Obama has added more to our national debt in one term then any previous president in history has added in two terms.

Obama might be the most unqualified individual ever elected president in history. The ability to read is hardly a qualification to lead. But it does appear that the ability to read is all anyone needs to do to get elected, and what a sad commentary that is on the American voter.

Remember the definition of insanity is electing the same people but expecting different results. You have all had more then 3 years to see the disaster that is Obama, don't expect anything more if he is re-elected.

Obama is breaking another campaign promise.

Remember, an Obama supporter owns MSNBC.

paul In your post that I first responded to you said your daughter owes 50 thousand to the government. In your last post you say she owes 75 thousand. Thats about 25 k increase in a hour. The debt cannot be fixed without spending cuts alone. Revenue has to be raised. Raise the tax rate back to the rate where it was when President Clinton left office. The country had a balanced budget at that time. Remember? Dude look outside the tea bag it whole different world.

Remember when health care was a not for profit business? To make money off peoples pain and suffering is wrong. If health care went back to being a not for profit cost would go down.

Obama Biden 2012

J. Merle Stanley,

Could the high “wrong direction” percentage be due to the do-nothing Congress with its 13% approval rating?

"I deserve a second term"

Really? BWAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Who knew...? He is also a comedian!

Paul --

Biggest holders of US Debt:

1. Federal Reserve and Intragovernmental Holdings U.S. debt holdings: $6.328 trillion

2. China U.S. debt holdings: $1.132 trillion

3. Other Investors/Savings Bonds U.S. debt holdings $1.107 trillion

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/biggest-holders-of-us-gov-t-debt.html

Why is it that First Read and most other news organizations are not covering or even mentioning the firing of Brett O'Donnell, the Romney debate coach that was brought on prior to the two Florida debates?

The Romney campaign fired him on Wednesday:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/03/romney-campaign-lets-go-of-new-debate-coach/

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/romney-camp-fires-new-debate-coach

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/02/romneyland-splits-with-new-debate-coach-odonnell-113459.html

I'm sure Jimmy Carter thought he DESERVED another term.

Clint Eastwood Makes Obama's Day

President Obama's ad-makers may have to pay royalties to Clint Eastwood after a remarkable two-minute Chrysler commercial that aired on the biggest of all stages - the Super Bowl - and gave a pretty good preview of what the president's reelection commercials might look like. At the very least, the ad and Eastwood's powerful narration make it much, much more difficult for Republican front-runner Mitt Romney to keep pushing his line that Washington should have let the automakers go into bankruptcy.

And don't think that Team Obama wasn't watching the Super Bowl along with millions of other Americans and immediately grasped the boost they could get from the commercial. White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer quickly tweeted "Saving the America auto industry: something Eminem and Clint Eastwood can agree on." Senior strategist David Axelrod tweeted "Powerful spot. Did Clint shoot that, or just narrate it?" Former White House aide Bill Burton tweeted, "Clinton Eastwood #winning."

Of course, this isn't the first time Eastwood has been identified with cars -- he starred in Pink Cadillac in 1989 and Gran Torino in 2008. But those weren't in the Super Bowl with a bigger audience than probably saw both those movies combined.

http://decoded.nationaljournal.com/2012/02/clint-eastwood-makes-obamas-da.php

================================================================

YES , whoa, hoa hoa hoo 3 thumbs up for a long, long long time!!!

None of the GOP candidates talk about fundamental change; just the same old eggs in a different carton. The Public expect for very red states are behind the President and even they are likely to flip for President Obama.

FOX NOISE really ♥ ♥ ♥s to LIE.

[Clinton signed NAFTA into law which sent millions of jobs overseas.]

NAFTA was a Republican/Conservative wet dream...Clinton merely ratified it.

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

Bottom line: The powers that be wanted a global economy, and NAFTA was an important part of the puzzle.

What's that saying? Be careful what you ask for...you just might get it.

...welcome to hell...

After reading carrot top's drunken comments yesterday we thought she'd be sleeping it off today, yet here the old gal is... back with the old 'cut and paste' liberal nonsense and she brought her pets Bev and Ron.....to back it up.... lol!

One thing you'll never hear from these sheep is a reason why in the world obama could possiblly think he 'deserves' a second term!! What arrogance!

By the way, congratulations to Eli Manning and the NY Giants! Great job guys!

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio "ROY WILSON, Our President said over the last 23 months not the last 36 months....our President started our 9,000,000 jobs in the hole. [Based on 125,000 needed every month to keep up with the population growth]"

Yes, he did only count 23 months instead of his entire 36 month record which shows a 2.4 million jobs lost - it's called 'cherry picking data to give it a spin'.

My research says that we need an average of about 160,000 net new jobs a month to keep up with population growth, but even using your figure of 125,000 per month, the figures would be as follows;

Jobs at end of December 2008 = 134,383,000.

Add 36 months at 125,000 per month to keep up with population growth = 4,500,000

Total jobs needed to maintain 'equilibrium' = 138,883,000.

Actual jobs 'created or saved' = 131,900,000.

Net jobs NOT 'created or saved' since Obama took office = 6,983,000.

It would appear that Obama has put us ANOTHER 7 million jobs 'in the hole'.

57% OF REPUBLICANS think the government is NOT DOING ENOUGH

In related news, The Nobel Peace Prize is under investigation due to Obama receiving one...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obamas-nobel-peace-prize-win-leads-to-formal-investigation-of-award/

Of course, MSNBC can't cover a story like that, questioning Obama? How dare they!

He didn't deserve the Peace Prize, and he definitely does not deserve a second term, neither does Romney!

Ron Paul 2012!!! An actual change for America!

There's a reason MSNBC hired Dr. Maddow. She just has a way with explaining complex political matters in clear and understandable ways.

Hey Roy,

What % of those numbers you post are public worker jobs? Those laid off by the Feds and States? And what % are private sector jobs? You know, the ones you say we want to create because the government is too big? Obama has added over 3 million private sector jobs. What is wrong with that? Especiall when he took office we were losing over 700,000 jobs PER MONTH.

ROY WILSON,

It is not “cherry picking” when you define the parameters of the data.

If you use the 160,000 number to keep up with population growth then during Bush they fell short another 3.4 million or a total of 12.4 million jobs short of the country’s needs.

Over the past 5 months we have averaged well over the 160,000 jobs needed.

[In related news, The Nobel Peace Prize is under investigation due to Obama receiving one...]

...and then you post a link to...The Blaze...BAAAAHAHAHAHWHAAAAAAAAAAA!

Still wondering why MSNBC isn't carrying the "big story"? The answer is in the link you posted...

Conservatism truly is a mental disorder...

Imagine this,

You come home and there has been a sewer back-up in your neighbor hood. You look in the window of your house and from floor to ceiling it is full of sh!t water. The question is do you raise the ceilings or do you pump out the sh!t water??? Raising taxes won't solve a thing, the sh!t water will still be there. Can you live with it???

I love how the libbies keep talking about fox news. Guess what? the only people watching fox news are liberals looking for imaginary conspiracies. the fox news line is old and tired...talk about sheep...

We aren't keeping up. Usually by now post recession growth the economy grows at 4 to 6 percent in the rebound. I think the last estimate i heard was 1.8%. We need to be averaging well over 400,000 jobs a month minimum and would take years to get us on track.

Sorry Obama you need to earn a second term. Nobody deserves a second term. No wonder the libs love entitlement programs. Its something they deserve. "Why not I was born in America so give me something, I deserve it".

President Obama didn't deserve a 1st term. He is delusional about deserving a 2nd term. The President has done more than enough damage already.

Deserve a Second Term?:

One is voted for re election.

The Country has been through hell the last 3 years.

Obama judging Obama's performance ??????? Are you kidding me ?????????????????????

This is "newsworthy " ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

MSNBC has become a sad joke with jounalism !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So Roy, the way you figure things Obama is responsible for every job lost from the day he walked into the office? No accounting for the fact that we were losing hundreds of thousands of jobs every month before he stepped in? He was supposed to wave a magic wand and make it all stop the moment he took the oath of office?

You may be spouting correct numbers but your interpretation of them is twisted and wrong. Figures don't lie, but liars figure.

Mickey, conservatism is a mental disorder, that coming from a Liberal New Yorker can't get any more laughable, walked by mugging lately.

Good to see you left wingers are getting a good bong hit this morning, but geez that is some nasty stuff to put you this high in the clouds of clueless. Obama a second term? Are you totally lost or what?

Backhouse,

The truth is never the truth with you is it.

Ford never took government money--they filed bankruptcy and came out of it. GM, although they tout they have paid back their loans, have borrowed more TARP money to repay 6.7 billion dollars--but they borrowed originally 52 billion. Maybe you should quit following the alphabet news and research yourself. Just google "Government loans repaid by GM" and find the truth, Dawg.

Backhouse,

The truth is never the truth with you is it.

Ford never took government money--they filed bankruptcy and came out of it. GM, although they tout they have paid back their loans, have borrowed more TARP money to repay 6.7 billion dollars--but they borrowed originally 52 billion. Maybe you should quit following the alphabet news and research yourself. Just google "Government loans repaid by GM" and find the truth, Dawg.

He deserves?!?! Just the typical mentality of those on his side of the aisle, on the dole or otherwise sucking off people that actually work hard for a living and are sick of giving it to the useless - he thinks he deserves what he hasn't earned! Shame on him as the President of the United States thinking he deserves. Sorry, the affirmative action ticket doesn't work for the White House!

He deserves a swift kick in the a s s out the door of the White House, which he will be getting in January!

I love how he likes to spin and twist the reality of his abysmal records to not sound as bad as it truly is.

Ron Indiana:

That was a great story! And if you could bag that shi*, you'd have your own little greenie business. You might even make a buck so you won't need to take the bucks that others earn!

The only thing Obama deserves is to be shown the door. The great experiment has failed. (Shaming people into voting for a person based on race and not qualifications.) We need to move on and not be sucked in by the propaganda coming from the President's mouth. As Roy Wilson and many others have pointed out....the numbers he is using are simply untrue where jobs are concerned. Yet he is willing to repeat the lie in hopes the sheeple will believe it. And the sheeple will. It is time to thin the sheeple herd and get the real story in their minds.

NOBAMA 2012

I just love how everyone wants to be critical of campaign promises, as if Obama(or any president for that matter) is going to have the giant mess the country was already in completely turned around in one term. A lot of good has been done(that is for anyone viewing facts and not per-conceived opinions based on what they have heard from other misinformed people.

If Romney would get elected, I can't wait to hear the excuses in 4 years as to why the budget isn't balanced. He got huge cheers in Nevada this weekend by his ludicrous comment that he will balance the budget. Really? Trillions of dollars in deficit, magically gone in just a few years? Seriously? You're going to be critical that the country isn't completely turned around in just a few years but believe that someone else will balance the budget. Wow.

Maybe one day people will grasp the fact that regardless of what side you're on, the candidates will always make claims that will never come to fruition. Romney just appears to me making ones that aren't even remotely feasible in one term. What a joke.

Baby Boomers are potentially leaving the work force at a rate of 10,000 per day (or at least eligible to leave),...

Of course things are never nuanced for the tighty righties,...just one set of 'facts', repeated over and over.

And Ron, Indiance - great post! I love to see the Righty spin about Romney taken out of context, don't you? I mean seriously,...HE chose and approved a message to deliberately film President Obama QUOTING John McCain, as though Obama had made the asinine comment - and he doesn't think a little Karma should come his way?

LMFAO at the Tight Righties,....because they can't see the forest for the number of hypocritical trees in the way!

Mr. Romney, Poster-Boy for the 1%:

Yes, and so is Obama. But libs are too stupid to see that.

Making @!$%# up again I see.

Paul or anyone else,

You said it was because the TP took office, but I've got news for you...

Things don't instantly change on inaugeration day. Hell, what exactly has this congress done/pass which supports your hypothesis?

Their big battle of spending and raising the debt ceiling has been one of the major contributers to uncertainty in our economy. They talk about fiscal responsibility, and than focus solely on discretionary spending, like NPR and WIC got us into debt. They eliminate anything that might actually work like cutting defense spending, ending war, or tax/trade reform. In fact, they want to lower taxes and go back to war, like that was a winning combination. They talk about deregulation in vague terms, and than discount that the repeal of Glass-Stegal was what got us into this mess. They boast about "limited government" than try to invade woman's bodies, gay people's bedrooms, Muslim's mosques, and God help you if you're hispanic or poor. You might as well sign your civil rights away. And they only seem to believe in science when they have to fly somewhere, otherwise, forget it.

The number one reason Obama should ge reelected is the Tea Party. What a freaking mess.

Obama's simply a man. A man with a realy shi($%* job, during a really sh(%*$ period of history. A man, a father, a husband, and an American, who's doing the best he can, all things considered.

Sarah, you must have pretty low expectations if you think the President is doing the best he can, all things considered. His lack of doing anything for the good of the American people is why he needs to go. Payoffs to those who supported his campaign, spending money we don't have and wanting to spend still more on repeats of failed previous programs and Obamacare are no where near doing the best he could do.

If the last three years represent his "best", I would certainly not want to see his worst !

Obama's answer for everything is to GROW GOVERNMENT wherever possible.

Willowbrook,

First, I don't take stranger's assertions as facts. If you're making those claims against the president, please support them with non-partisan sources.

Lemme guess....

Solyndra. Okay, if I had stood in front of the Hyndenburg, and spoke about the future of air travel as a means of globalization, would it make what I said about the future of air travel anyless true???

Fast and Furius. Okay, how exactly was that Obama's fault? Aren't you people always griping about the size of the Federal Government? How is it logical to think that Obama knows everything that goes down in every department. Please, provide me a source that is credible and proves Obama had anything to do with it.

Obamacare. Okay, it's a GOOD thing.

We will, every last one of us, at some point in time, become ill and need services. We can all contribute to the tab since we all need services, or only those who do contribute to the tab for the services we all use can cover it. Consider the individual mandate, like a savings account for when you inevitably do need healthcare. Furthermore, by focusing on preventative care, we can not only remain healthier and improve our quality of life, but we will avoid, more expensive, riskier, procedures and care that oftentimes comes too late. The problem is neither the individual mandate, nor preventative care, it's that we have a healthcare system which is a monoply and a "fee for service" set up. That's the real issue, but you'll never focus on that, because the GOP and the DEMS don't want to lose the cash cow that is the healthcare lobby.

And yes, I'm sure he does some shady, "politician" crap, but so does every other politician, including those running against him.

If I have to vote for a shady politician, I at least want one who makes sense.

Interesting take there Sarah.....

1. Bailout to GM, which directly benefited the Unions. The Stimulus, which went to keeping State Union workers and Union Teachers employed. Son of Stimulus, which, thank God didn't pass...was more of the same. These tactics used in the stimulus only served to delay the inevitable, that we had too many persons working in those fields and being paid far more than equal jobs in the private sector.

2. Solyndra, even the govt. advised the President that Solyndra would fail and even predicted the month they did fail, but the President persisted in providing the money anyway. That is only a tip on this iceberg.

3. Fast and Furious was incredibly stupid from the get go, and that wasn't part of topics I was referring to.

4. I already pay towards my own care and toward those who don't have their own plan. Now, we have a plan that is taking away from people like me and only giving it to those who don't. I already have far less access to care than I did pre-Obamacare and may well lose my plan come 8/1, when we renew for the third time since Obamacare became law. Premiums for our company tripled since Obamacare was signed. Not seeing a costs savings of any sort. I'm don't see the benefit of taking care away from the providers to give even more to those who don't provide their own. All costs are skyrocketing as Obamacare is not the plan the sheeple thought it was. We still need health care reform. Obamacare is not reform, but a poorly written govt. takeover of the industry.

Willowbrook,

1. I'm from Detroit and your fear of the union is way out of proportion. Yes, the unions need to be reformed. Get rid of first in last out, punish cronyism, protect whistleblowers... They conceded to salary cuts, healthcare cuts, and agreed not to strike over compensation for five years. They were also not the sole reason for the collapse of the auto industry. The bailout worked. Regardless of what you say or believe about unions, it worked. I know. I'm living it.

2. I already mentioned I don't accept assertions as proof. Where is the rest of the iceberg?

4. No, Obamacare takes nothing from you, it just ends you having to pay for those who don't have it. Premiums tripled because our healthcare system is a monopoly and they can. No longer exempt them from the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and that problem will be solved. This is a result of money in politics and lobbies, not Obamacare.

The Obama will give the US to the invading Mexican't, but I want my free health insurance.

So vote for The Obama

Again back to your talking points about job growth, seems some people on this vine think that we just had a hiccup and the economy would turn around just like that. This was the worst economic disaster since well the great depression. I would remind you that the austerity platform that Hoover initiated only made things worst so why would you think it would help this time? The previous administration failed to provide for adequate job for eight years and we are reaping those failures, however I do not recall any of you cons speaking out about this. Let me put it this way your boy Dubya dug a deep hole and his house of cards fell and we are still removing the debris while shoveling in the hole a mighty task. Your boy was failure and you remain failures with him.

Thanks Sarah. You pointed out everything Obama did wrong. Sad that some people look at life through a tube. Turn your head and see what is around you for once. He is the worst President in our history. Plenty of proof but you are so worried about being called a racist that you refuse to see the big picture. Look at politics through patriot eyes. Big Government isn't the answer even though you probably get paid by US. He has cost us more than all others Presidents combined. How does that not scare you if your a taxpayer?

The worst president in our history? Hey selective memory your boy Dubya was presiding over this grand mess (you do remember him coming hat in hand asking for TARP to be approved). Dubya grew government fought two wars on the credit card (a first in history), No real job growth for eight years, on his watch 9/11 occurred and you do remember his guys saying we must decide on a president or we will be vulnerable to our enemies (his watch no matter how you try to spin it) and of course he forgot about Bin-Laden and decided to stop hunting for him. You been spun so much you don't know up from down...don't start following politics after some one you do like enters office but learn some history first cause you weren't paying attention before.

Them,

To make it about big government or small government is overly simplistic. It should be about smart government and efficiency. Too small and it's powerless. Too big and it's inflexible. Reallocate the resources to where our problem lay, if somethings are too overly inflated cut them, if other's need growth, grow them.

I'm not worried about being called a racist. I'm not one. The only thing more taboo than being a racist these days, is calling someone a racist. Why? Because those who are racist know they are in the wrong, but don't want to give up their defense mechanism, so they demonize the truth. I'm not afraid of the truth, either hearing it or speaking it.

I'll tell you what I see around me. This is what I see. A country that's being eaten alive by the 24 hour news cycle that makes money off of wedge issues and partisanship. Simple issues, to rile up simple people, to keep the focus off of the root of the problem, that being the unholy alliance of Wall St and Washington.

We need to regulate/reform Wall St and the labor unions. We need to fix the tax code and trade policy. We need to cut spending and invest.

Your post is a perfect example of everything that's going wrong, right now. Instead of a disrespectful tone and patronizing me, why don't you try asking questions or presenting something substantive?

I say yes, Obama does deserve another term. Why, may you conservatives ask??? Well, first take a look at his record, the problems he faced, his accomplishments, and his opposition.

Let's take a look at the problems he faced. When Obama came into office, he was presented with a dual problem. One, the United States labor market was losing 700,000 jobs a month and GDP was in an economic free-fall. In addition, the financial market was in chaos, as big banks and financial conglomerates like AIG, Goldman Sachs, and Bank of America were reeling and the financial deposits and investments of millions of Americans was in danger. Add to that the popped housing market, the core of the American economy, which had exploded under huge speculation and terrible loans to people who could not afford them. Not to mention the huge fiscal debt and deficit, which limited the size and scope of any stimulus package and hampered America's ability to repair the economy without worrying about its line of credit.

Now let's take a look at Obama's accomplishments. In order to save space, I will name about four of them. The first is stimulus package. Contrary to what conservatives claim, the stimulus package saved and/or created at least 2 million jobs and provided a huge injection of cash which enabled demand (and thus the entire economy) to grow, albeit on a tepid pace. The second major accomplishment is the auto bailout. When Chrysler and General Motors practically collapsed due to the economic crisis, a million jobs (and the entire economy itself) was placed on the edge of a cliff. Then came the US government, which in effect nationalized the corporations (note: it can be beneficial for the temporary nationalization of national corporations in order to maintain economic stability) and brought a needed inflow of cash and leadership that saved the auto industry and helped start an almost miraculous recovery that has continued to this day. Third, is Obama's foreign policy accomplishments. Out of 5, I would give Obama a 3.5 to 4, as he killed bin Laden, has dealt with Iran in a tough yet calm-headed fashion (not like Bush, who would probably bomb Tehran and send 40,000 paratroopers to bring "democracy" to the Iranians), helped America's operations in Afghanistan, removed Gaddafi from power, and improved the image of America to its neighbors by discarding our blustering Texas cowboy policy for a more diplomatic and flexible stance that has enabled us to somewhat repair our credibility with the world. And finally, Obama has shown political maturity in Washington, even while the GOP assailed him with everything from birther and personal matters to his leadership style, even putting into question his love of America (shocking, especially since this guy has done nothing but try to help our nation recover). He offered a bipartisan compromise on the debt deal, containing both entitlement reform, tax code reform, AND spending cuts (but the anti-compromise GOP said no); taking the public option out of Obamacare to placate the right; putting tax cuts in the stimulus; extending the Bush tax cuts FOR EVERYONE in return for unemployment benefits; practically reaching out his hand to the GOP to the shock of his allies, even while the people he tried to compromise with constantly pulled the rug out from under him.

And finally, let's take a look at his opposition. First, we have Ron Paul, a right-wing radical who has some credible ideas on foreign policy but wants to practically eliminate the entitlements that have improved the welfare of seniors, destroy our economy by cutting regulations left and right, cutting education funds and leaving it in the hands of the states (which are currently laying off teachers left and right due to financial troubles), and cut hundreds of billions out of the budget WITHOUT even considering the expiration of the costly Bush tax cuts, even on the wealthy. Then we have Rick Santorum, a far right Christian evangelical radical who cries small government yet seems intent to have the government judge what people can do in their bedrooms. Plus he wants to cut taxes on the wealthy and claims to avoid being dirty even while criticizing his rivals AND Obama. Newt Gingrich is an old and rusty idiot who thinks that doing the same thing again and again and waiting for different results is actually rational (more trickle-down economics), wants to trash the environment by eliminating the EPA, destroying our economy with deregulation (which caused the recession), and is trying to build a moon colony in 8 years WITHOUT consulting scientists. And then we have Slick Willy (Romney), who wants to DEREGULATE our economy (bad), cut our way out of debt, give hundreds of thousands of dollars in cuts to the wealthy by giving the middle class a paltry few hundred and actually raising taxes on those who make UNDER $40,000, and claims to want to sustain the safety net for the poor while supporting billions in cuts to food stamps for the impoverished AND turning Medicare into a private Ponzi scheme that gives seniors a small check and tells them that their "on your own." Plus they all support policies that will destroy the middle class (trickle-down economics) and most of them (except Ron Paul) seem determined to start World War III by invading Iran.

In short, I think Obama deserves another term. I mean, he helped the economy; offered a balanced approach to reducing the deficit; restoring credibility to America's image overseas; etc. If you are still unsure if Obama's the one, I advise you to take a look at the idiocy of the opposition. And if you're still unsure, ask yourself this: if we could give an idiot like Bush 8 years to ruin America and the trickle-down idiots on the right 30 years to fatten up the wealthy while giving the one digit salute to the middle and lower classes, why can't we give Obama 8 years, especially while under his administration the economy has made a complete reversal from 2008????

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

DEATH TO GOP 2012

DEMOCRATS 2012

TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS=FAIL

CLASS WARFARE MY ASS!!!!

Freshiee - you need to join Sarah in looking around you and seeing the big picture. The lame, untrue whine of what Obama inherited is not excuse enough to garner his re-election. Truth be told, the economy was better under GWB and didn't start the huge spiral until it was clear Obama would be the next President. At that point...the economy tanked and businesses stopped taking any risk as Obama's anti-business stance was very clear. Businesses had to scale back to make sure they stay in business. If anything, the election of Obama was the catalyst of the recession of 2008. The other thing you are missing is things are worse now than they were 4 years ago. Despite the spinning the Democrats are doing concerning the unemployment rate, it is not true. When you factor in all the people they've taken out of the %'s as they've run out of benefits and the number of jobs that no longer exist, the picture is much worse than the those being trumpeted by the Administration. We very much need jobs, and this Administration has shown they have zero idea how that is supposed to work.

Yo think the this Administration is on your side? Yesterday morning CBS news ran a clip of where the govt. thinks it's going to get the money from the really stupid idea of scaling back the % employees pay in taxes. From those who are taking out mortgages. They're going to add a tax to those loans. Yup, "we need to help those getting a mortgage." and they turn around and add a tax to that loan to pay for something that should not have been done in the first place. That will encourage people to take out mortgages....(sar)

To do something well and expect to have favourable rewards is what you feel that you deserve.To use his remark as an undeserved claim is the hoped for re-action from those who dislike this president no matter what he accomplishes. Why don't his critics blame him for global warming,the fantastic advancement of the development of the formally undeveloped countries and anything else that they can think of. We were at the start of a major depression and his political party has reduced that into a recession.

.

Good Morning Floyd!

To quote Homer DOH Simpson;

"it takes two to lie, one to hear it and one to tell it

whom is floyd, betty?

IR,

Thanks for the detailed post about the deficit/debt.

Reducing taxes is not the answer. And the Congress has not the will, even though the GOP say they do, to sit down and compromise with the Dems to begin to bring spending down. The only reduction we have in spending is the result of the "super committee" DOING NOTHING. Now, some want to figure out how to stop the spending cuts that will happen to the DOD.

I see one of the trite thinkers is here and .......buck naked too

Thanks for sharing the article, IR and your thoughts as well. The only plan I've heard Republicans mention---lower taxes so the "job creators" can do their thing---has had 30 years of trial and doesn't work. We've seen what they do with the savings from lower taxes---they take it to the Cayman Island and Switzerland and invest it in safe investments to preserve it for their children and grandchildren. That is certainly their right but it doesn't create jobs.

Feisty, I saw Rachel Maddow on MTP on Sunday and she was awesome! Thank God we have Rachel to bust those lazy mainstrem media shows. I love how she doesn't let them frame the argument in the same old way. She really has a first class mind.

Most of our deficits are more spending driven by far than tax policy driven. Go back 50 years and you will see the revenue we take in as a country as a percentage of GDP is around 18%. 30 year average is 18.3% and 50 year is 18%, no matter the tax rate. From 90% range down to 28% and back up. It goes a little above and a little below but stays close. You spend more than 18 or 19% of GDP and you will most certainly have deficits. Spending for the last several years has been around 24% of GDP.

IR, great post.

It would seem to me that the republicans, the tea party folks who yelp about the deficit and the debt the loudest would be asking Romney, Gingrich and friends questions on how they plan to reduce both, asking for details on WHAT goverment programs they will eliminate because it is highly likely, they are things Americans like and need. Trouble is that too many of GOPTPers do not really care despite all the noise they make. If they did, they'd be asking Mitt Romney why is tax plan reduces taxes on the wealthy while raising them on everyone else, why his tax plan adds huge amounts to the deficit and the debt.

"Is it fair to blame Obama for war costs four months after he was inaugurated, or tax collections 10 days after he took office?" That would be patently absurd.

But Obama did campaign on getting us out of Iraq and Afghanistan ASAP. Blaming him for the cost of those wars after he had been in office for more than a year is more than fair.

Yep ATC and I'm an old farmer. We save in times of plenty to make up for times we're short. Just suppose for instance that George and the boys hadn't blown the bottom out of that surplus that Clinton left. Then we wouldn't have had to deficit spend to stimulate. If I coulda woulda ain't solving the problem. Same as creating more deficit ain't solving the problem long term. Quit looking at the problem as cost/benefit to one or the other and start looking at what's best for the most.

People automatically assume raising taxes = more revenue and lowering means less. An easy one to follow is cap gains tax. Look back the last 30 years to Reagan and the last 4 changes to the rate.

From memory from BLS official numbers, may be off a year or so.

1. 1981 rates lowered from 28% to 20%. Revenue forcasted to go down by CBO as they use static numbers. Revenue increased ( i believe almost 4 fold) until 1986

2. 1987 in a compromise with Dem congress raised the rates back to 28%. More revenue? NO. Revenue was lower than the previous year (1986) for the next decade.

3. Clinton cap gains tax cuts. Yes, the 1997 tax cut nobody hears about. 28% back to 20% and revenues took off.

4. 15% rate took effect in i believe may 2003. Revenues go down with lower rate? No, they more than doubled in 3 years.

Last 4 rate changes 1 up and 3 down. Revenues were lower for 10 years (1986 level) following the one increase (1987). All 3 times the rate was lowered revenues increased quite a bit. What people don't take into account that just look at static numbers (like the CBO) is people's behavior.

"Blaming him for the cost of those wars after he had been in office for more than a year is more than fair."

Do you like Fast Food? How much would you say the two Bush wars cost?

The unpaid-for wars under President Bush: were a FIRST in American history.

Independant i agree W, like Obama, spent too much. The "Clinton surplus" as everyone seems to call it was passed by a Republican house and Senate. Led by speaker Gingrich. I give them both credit. The reason they had surplus is they had the lowest SPENDING in proportion to GDP in the last 40 years.

Another thing people forget is that in Bush's first term he had a recession, dot com bubble and 9/11. Each on their on had a drag on the economy and all 3 together surely did.

I was raised by old fashioned parents both raised on a farm that taught me don't spend more than you take in, which is why i have very little debt. It doesn't seem either party wants to spend only what we take in as it wouldn't get them re-elected.

Yes ATC and when in the last thirty years did those revenues balance expenditures. That's right they didn't so we had to deficit spend now didn't we. Balance my son balance. Balance revenues with expenditures with tax code revisions and then you have something. Till then you've just got the same old bushra that got us in the hole in the first place.

Why is it that First Read and most other news organizations are not covering or even mentioning the firing of Brett O'Donnell, the Romney debate coach that was brought on prior to the two Florida debates?

The Romney campaign fired him on Wednesday:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/03/romney-campaign-lets-go-of-new-debate-coach/

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/romney-camp-fires-new-debate-coach

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/02/romneyland-splits-with-new-debate-coach-odonnell-113459.html

After reading carrot top's drunken comments yesterday we thought she'd be sleeping it off today, yet here the old gal is... back with the old 'cut and paste' liberal nonsense and she brought her pets Bev and Ron.....to back it up.... lol!

One thing you'll never hear from these sheep is a reason why in the world obama could possiblly think he 'deserves' a second term!! What arrogance!

By the way, congratulations to Eli Manning and the NY Giants! Great job guys!

ROY WILSON-336103

"We've created 3.7 million jobs in the last 23 months."

Let's look at the real OVERALL record;

Total employment for December 2008 (Bush's last full month) = 134,383,000.

Total employment for December 2011 (After 3 years of Obama) = 131,900,000.

That's a LOSS of 2,483,000 net jobs under Obama.

Need proof? - Here is the official government Bureau of Labor Statistics site to verify;

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

By the way - 'What do you mean by 'WE' Kemosabe?' Private industry creates jobs 'in spite of you', not because of you.

Obama’s decision to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years — at a total cost of $620 billion — to his total. If Obama follows through on his promise to extend all the cuts for income under $250,000 in 2013, it will add trillions more to the deficit.

IR - A good point from Mr. Klein. Didn't Obama say that in 2010 (lame duck session) he needed to extend the cuts one more time, last time. Unfortunately he will do it again in 2012 if he is re elected, and he will add trillions more.

If the individual mandate is overturned and not allowed, won't the Health care act add to the debt? My reason why I thought a harder push should have been made for the public option method to reduce premiums in lieu of the mandate.

Despite what the GOP says, this president has not raised taxes, he had kept the Bush rates intact and offered hundreds of billions more in tax cuts in his stimulus and payroll tax cut. Why doesn't the GOP complain about giving out tax cuts that compound the deficit.

obama needs to EARN a second term before he 'deserves' it! He has not earned anything but our disgust at his performance these last 3 plus years!

He talks about family values, but has caused more harm to the middle class than anyone before him..... 2 million of the middle class have moved into poverty because of him! We can't afford another 4 years of this, can we?

I had to re-post a comment Free Market guy made in the collapsed 1st thread. A very good point I think!

They balanced in the late 90's when SPENDING was under control. Tax policy (up or down) won't come close to getting our deficit under control. We have around 400 billionaires in this country worth around 1.2 Trillion (Forbes). Our deficit spending is 1.5 Trillion, or was. You can take every cent of Gates, Buffett and all their buds and we would STILL have a deficit.

Clinton rates on the millionaires from last years receipts would get 50 Billion tops. So instead of a 1.5Trillion deficit we have a 1.45Trillion deficit. Then what?

I will disagree with your point we HAD to deficit spend over the last 30 years. We could have chosen to only spend what we take in. Now thats a novel idea huh? Lol

Don't remember who, but i heard someone on CNN talk about limiliting govt spending to 19% of GDP. Think it was a freshman Senator. That got shot down quickly and i'm sure the old timers on the hill put him in his place. "We will have none of that young man" Lol

ROY WILSON,

WHOPPER CORRECTION:

3.7 Million jobs created under President Obama in the last TWENTY-THREE MONTHS.

About the state of affairs at the end of President Bush's term = Millions of jobs lost:

G.D.P. is the market value of everything produced within America.
"...the overall downward revision was concentrated at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009.

2008: Q4 was revised to -8.9 percent from -6.8 percent
2009: Q1 was revised to -6.7 percent from -4.9 percent.

(UNDER PRESIDENT BUSH) "What was already the deepest reported recession
since official quarterly estimates began in 1947 is now reported to have been
significantly worse."

Our GDP in the 4th quarter of 2008 was first thought to be minus 6.8% (-6.8%).
This figure was revised to a shocking minus 8.9% (-8.9%).

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/07/29/advance-estimate-gdp-second-quarter-2011-and-annual-revision

Beverly in Chicago....

..........is that the word from your planet?

Independent Redneck Va. ref: #2.14

What was the National Debt when Clinton left office. Where did the surplus come from so we can go back and do the same?

I have asked these questions before and got no answer, should I just assume what you posted is a lie?

I didn't vote for Obama, and I probably won't vote for him next time if the Republicans choose Gov. Romney. HOWEVER, all things considered, I believe that President Obama has done a satisfactory job as president and I don't have a problem with him winning a second term.

Since this comment is not foam-at-the-mouth liberal or conservative I'll probably get collapsed. :(

Let's see. What are my choices: President Obama or the anointed candidate of the
Republican establishment? Well, should I let the rapist back into my daughter's
bedroom or lock the door? Do you have any advice for me Buck Naked Sr. By the
way, what happened to your clothes?

Another thing Ezra left out of the article on health care costs, the 100 billion in savings didn't include start up costs of the couple of dozen new agencies and 1000's of new people to implement this behemoth. Those costs alone are more than the 100 Billion. Also left out is the "doc fix" which was purposely left out of the estimate that is around 250 Billion. And the fact that a big part of the system, CLASS, has been deemed unsustainable by the actuary of the system AND Sebillius herself.

You mean to say that Obama doesn't believe he is the 2nd coming of Christ, The Savior, The Best President who ever lived and is BLAMING CONGRESS because he couldn't lead a dust mite out of a closet?

HORRORS!

Send him back to the law office so he can sit in his cubbyhole and do research for the lawyers doing the civil rights trials.

Obama: I 'get better as time goes on'

Is this guy serious? He lives in a deluded little world of his own... More appropriately said the less he does the more his polls improve...

After 3 yrs we have high unemployment and gas has doubled. Why would we want more of this "hope and change"????????

"I get better as time goes by".

Yep, that "On The Job Training" is kicking in, just like MY Stimulus #1. Wait a minute, Mr. Biden SAID it didn't work, nor did Omnibus, HAMP #1, HAMP #2, HAMP #3, Cash for Clunkers, Cash for Appliances, Weatherization program, Electric Car in FINLAND, Solyndra (and other "Go Green" companies), Geothermal Plant in Nevada, Fast and Furious, Universal Health Care Reform, et al.

Wait, if I am elected for one more term, I will have a "Laser Beam" on AMNESTY and will NOT put troops on the ground in Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and Iran and live up to my prized trophy....the Nobel Peace Prize.

Amazing how Democrats believe if they say an untruth enough it somehow makes it true!! Let's clarify just a few things:

1) "The Wars": We can argue all day long of whether we should have gone or not but this Democrat bandwagon that the wars are the cause of our massive deficit is silly. The "wars" cost a little over $100 Billion per year but let's not forget that SOME of that money is soldier salaries/etc. and we are not going to fire all of them so let's, for the sake of argument, state the "wars" cost $75 billion "extra" per year. Over 10 years that is $750 Billion. Certainly not chicken feed but don't blame THAT for adding $10 TRILLION in debt over the last 12 years!! So STOP with the "if we hadn't of gone to war" nonsense. THAT is not the cause of our debt.

2) "Bush Tax Cuts": Bush cut taxes and tax revenue ROSE!! Problem was we spent not only the additional tax revenue but even MORE than that. So STOP with the "if we had not cut taxes" nonsense too.

3) "The Rich and their tax breaks": Once again most Democrats don't understand math. Let's even assume we raised the taxes back to pre-Bush levels for "the rich" it would only bring in about $80 Billion in additional tax revenue but that is ASSUMING there is no negative effect to the economy. However, that assumption is false but EVEN if we assume that is true it would only bring in about $800 billion over the last 10 years. Again, not chicken feed but NOT responsible for $10 TRILLION in debt.

4) "Bush responsible for economic collapse": Really? Keep in mind through 2006 the economy was doing GREAT!! Remember in 2006 the election was NOT about the economy it was about the "wars". So Democrats get control of House and Senate and STOP Bush from doing ANYTHING that worked the last 6 years. So the economy collapses and Bush is blamed because Democrats STOPPED what he was wanting to do? How ironic, Republicans are elected in 2010 and STOP Obama so the economy starts to recover a little and Obama wants to take credit. Funny when Democrats STOP the president (Bush) the economy tanks but when Republicans STOP the president (Obama) the economy recovers. Might JUST be a pattern here.

5) "Deficits": Yes Bush borrowed money and many of us Conservatives were yelling and screaming for him to stop but Bush was able to run this country on about $2.5 Trillion a year (borrowing about $200 Billion on average per year) but Obama needs $3.7 TRILLION a year to run this country and borrowing over $1 TRILLION a year for the last 3 years? Borrowing $5 TRILLION?!?!?

Obama and the Democrats have been a DISASTER!! And no "funny Democrat math" can prove otherwise.

Is this guy serious? He lives in a deluded little world of his own... More appropriately said the less he does the more his polls improve...

Yes this is an anomaly! Part of the problem is that 51% of the country is now dependent on his handouts! Much better than working for a living.... that's why those nations that go down that socialist path are all broke today!

So even if we take Obama at his word that he created 3.7 million jobs in the last 23 months, severely debatable, but let's stipulate for now.

$timulous cost us $1.1 trillion so that is $300,000 spent per job he claims to have created. In the company I am employed we hire people for the value they add above their cost. For example, we will gladly spend $75,000 a year for an employee if they generate value in excess of their cost. In this case it is impossible to defend spending $300K per job!

Democrats please explain how this makes sense to you.

Now let's talk about all the people who are underemployed or have stopped looking all together.

Rational,

If you look at what sales are needed to justify $75K per employee you would see that it at least $300K.

The government was buying products and services that permitted hiring.

I've always thought that if you couldn't be humble you should at least feign it. There are few who wear out their welcome faster than the overtly arrogant.

ATC and Yellowdog. Thanks for the discussion. Since it looks like our Hosts have opened up the topic in other forums and the chances of us holding our points together may be slim and none I hope you'll come back again at a later juncture. I'll be looking for you'll.

Walkingman 1, great post, great questions.... I would bet all the money I won in yesterday's game that no liberal at this blog can, or will try, to answer those questions!

Nice game, NY Giants! The good guys do win once in a while!

When Obama speaks, I only hear a man in denial and classic narcissist.

The only people, besides the locked-in-the-box liberals, who want to see Obama remain in the White House for another 4 yrs. are Iran, Syria and Egypt.... oh yea, and China too.

Backhouse "3.7 Million jobs created under President Obama in the last TWENTY-THREE MONTHS...About the state of affairs at the end of President Bush's term = Millions of jobs lost:"

How convenient to ignore Obama's overall record - which shows a loss of 2,483,000 jobs since taking office.

As for Bush, let's take a look at HIS overall record;

Average number of jobs in 2000 (Clinton's last year) = 131,785,000.

Average number of jobs in 2008 (Bush's last year) = 136,790,000, for a net GAIN under Bush of 5,005,000 jobs.

Average number of jobs for 2011 (Obama's third year) = 131,358,000, for a net LOSS of 5,432,000 jobs under Obama.

That's a total 'swing' of 10,437,000 jobs between what Bush GAINED and what Obama LOST.

Note - These are AVERAGE figures for these years, which I believe is a better indicator than 'beginning and ending' figures since average figures are a better gauge of overall performance.

Official government Bureau of Labor Statistics source - ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

PS - That doesn't even consider the CAUSE of the financial meltdown that created the crisis. Bush did nothing to precipitate that meltdown, but I could give you plenty of reasons to possibly blame the Democratic Congress. Consider my next post.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ATC and Roy,
What you two seem to forget is that George W. didn't inherit a recession, HE caused it. The Bush administration went behind closed doors with Alan Greenspan to persuade the clown to raise interest rates "in order to stave off projected inflation." according to Greenspan. That was NOT an issue at the time. March 2001.
The FED raised interest rates more than 1/2 percent in less than 6 months. Every time this has been done over the last 40 years we have gone into a recession. The economy was still strong in 2001 when G.W. entered the White House, but that only lasted until June 2001. We have been in a recession continually since then.
The "recession" set events in motion for the Majority GOP to relax and eliminate nearly all regulations that safeguarded consumers and kept interest rates and the stock market under control.

For those who feel that FOX News is a legitimate "News" network...

news story 
noun
a news report of any length, usually presented in a straightforward style and without editorial comment. Also called story. Compare editorial, feature story ( def. 1 ) .

As a former Republican, those of you who feel that the "information" they view on FOX is News, I hope you will look closely at the definition above and re-evaluate your stance.

Dennis the govt bought little of nothing, it mostly just doled out cash that ended up costing per job hundreds of thousands of dollars. Costing me and you, plus the interest we are still paying on it.

Pro, it is funny how every 6 to 9 months like clockwork there is a new buzz word. Radical ......extreme ......millionaires and billionaires ....... pay your fair share, etc. And you can come here and almost like parrots hear those phrases repeated. The funny one was when Schumer got busted on a call he thought was a private conference call and wasn't. He said Dem caucus decided all republican plans were to be called "radical" no matter the plan. That word was soon tossed and "extreme" was the flavor of the day then. Lol

Bottom line: Obama doesn't know what the hell he is doing. Don't let this man, who is basically a communist out to change the United States into a socialist/communist government, BS his way into another four years. The stimulus money was mostly wasted away, and amounts to millions more that we owe the Chinese. I heard another example: $600,000 to create an "app" for smart phones so they could tell the user what the temperature is outside. Unbelievable!!!!!!!!!!! What this country needs, more than anything else is a BUSINESSMAN in the presidency as soon as possible that will cut out this crap. No more politicians that don't know how to create a budget. Please, please, vote Obama out in 2012. He is definitely changing this country for the worse.

Rick,

A big part of that surplus was in a big part due to the work of Congress in combination with the President. Congress sets the budget. That congress was led by Speaker Gingrich... not that I'm saying I'm a supporter of his, just want to make that clear as long as you are asking the question.

So let me get this straight. Oblama knew nothing about running anything and he was elected because??

Now, we are letting him and his idealogy spend and (he hopes) tax us into oblivion while he learns on-the-job? Sorry, this isn't going to happen. I truly think the electorant is going to come to their senses in November and throw this orator-in-chief back to community organizing.

I just hope he and his liberal spend-thrift Dems have not placed us into too deep a hole ever to recover.

No President deserves a second Term.

The President of the United States is not for "Interns" or beginners.

If the Economy stays on track, employment numbers increase, he may be re elected.

He needs to get rid of some of "baggage" in his Secretary's "OF" Cabinet---

Big Act,

Nearly 50% were tax cuts and another 40% went to Cities and States to supplement their loss in income so they didn’t have to lay off public servants immediately.

Here comes Roy the buzzkill, bringing facts into the debate.

Obama judging Obama .... how wonderful and how objective ! LOL !!

MSDNC presents this as a newsworthy article ? I've heard of the heimlich maneuver to keep a person from choking, but this seems more like the "hind lick" maneuver to keep the Campaigner-in-Chief in power !!!

Military the recession officially began in fall of 2000. September or October i can't remember. BEFORE Bush took office. He also had the dot com bubble and 9/11 in his first year.

If anybody wants to listen to the debate about Fannie/Freddie Roy references above and see the differences in the party views go to youtube and hit "Fannie Freddie congress 2004" and listen to the floor debate. You will hear Republicans trying to fix Fannie/Freddie and the Dems outraged at it. Legislation to fix them was killed in the 2005 Senate by Dems, including then Senator Obama.

Oh you must think that Chis Matthews is news without editoral. Have another smoke.

This bears repeating.., from Chuckt56's quote on page 14:

The Washington Post babbled again today about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush. Amazingly enough, a lot of people swallow this nonsense. So once more, a short civics lesson.

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases. For FY 2009, though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period.

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

WAKE UP, AMERICA, BEFORE ITS TO LATE

Military Man

Obama also did not inherit the recession, he ran for the office, it was not given to him.

Exactly Dennis, which totalled close to 300,000 per job

Military, why does every 5 posts someone out of the blue completly off topic starts in with ..."that darn fox news"? What is the fascination when no one ever brings Fox up first?

Kevin thinking,

Please read my post, above yours.

Just what ARE we paying Obama for? Here’s a partial list we worked on:

To fundamentally transform the United States of America.

To put more Americans on food stamps than ever before.

To turn 16% of our economy over to the government (healthcare).

To plunder from the pockets of the producers and redistribute wealth.

To pay off political backers by “investing” in their non-sustainable solar companies.

To change union rules so as to make unionization easier.

To deny American energy efforts for the sake of “green” dreams.

To turn long-established bankruptcy law on its head by giving preferences to unsecured union creditors.

To apologize for America on the world stage.

To bow to the enemies of America.

To demonize millionaires and billionaires.

To implement rules and regulations costing businesses trillions each year.

To give the EPA power to destroy segments of our economy … coal, for instance.

To bailout certain industries and then stick the taxpayers with the tab.

To spend $800 billion on virtual dance projects and bridges for endangered squirrels.

To lose 2.5 million jobs in our economy.

To sue states when they try and do what the federal government fails to do – protect its borders.

The list can go on and on .. and it is way too easy to compile. The bottom line is that Obama is not the leader we want and certainly not the one we need.

Roy, even if the raw numbers you give are true, an accurate analysis would ask "why" and take trending into account. Your quick conclusion is absurd (and I know you know it). It's so absurd that I'm thinking that you're running out of valid material.

Rather than me repeating my Bush/Obama analysis for the hundredth time, please read post 2.0 again. It's excellent... goes into much better detail and accuracy than my $500 Billion-per-year "Bush Debt Train" position.

BTW, it does seem odd that you respond to a post with the very material it debunks... LOL.

Obama only keeps getting better in his own mind. Such a narcissist.

Roy

Last month the number of jobs fell to 129 million - Holiday season drop. Yes that was a seasonal drop, but inside the numbers - retail kept many of their workers, the losses were the higher wage jobs.

Alan, those deficits you are talking about in the 4 years before the mortgage mess blew up went from the 400 billion range down to i believe 155 Billion. Yes our deficit was only 155 Billion in 2007.

"I get better as I go along." "I deserve another four years." Really!!! This isn't academia where you can spend decades learning on the job. I think We'll just say NO! We need someone who has a clue what they are doing. We have the cold war practically started again with Russia, We owe trillions to China, every program imaginable to give houses to those that don't pay for them. Enough!

Military Man-1740371ATC and Roy, What you two seem to forget is that George W. didn't inherit a recession, HE caused it."

How nice of you to forget about 9/11 in your 'Blame Bush' game. I think it had a lot more effect than raising the interest rate by 0.5%.

If you really want to see what caused the 'recession', see Post # 2.47.

Big ATC,

That does not include all the City and State jobs saved.
But for Conservatives “jobs saved” is not real.

Wake up America! Don't let this guy BS his way into four more years, please!

See Chuckt56's posts, 339 (repeated in my post above), and 359, below. Thanks!

alan290 "So once more, a short civics lesson...Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress"

Good point. Let's see how well the economy has worked under Democratic vs Republican control over the last 30 years;

Who's better at running Congress?

Since it's Congress that sets the spending Budgets, sets the Deficits, and passes legislation affecting jobs and the economy (The President cannot spend one penny that has not been authorized by Congress), let's look at the record of Congresses over the last 30 years (Through 2010);

JOBS (39,761,000 Net New Jobs)

Jobs created when Democrats controlled Congress (12 years) = 8,100,000 net new jobs.
Jobs created when Republicans controlled Congress (10 years) = 21,773,000 net new jobs.
Jobs created when Congress was split (8 years) = 9,888,000 net new jobs.

DEFICITS (a) ($7.304 Trillion)

Total Deficits when Democrats controlled Congress (12 years) = $5.022 Trillion.
Total Deficits when Republicans controlled Congress (10 years) = $1.219 Trillion.
Total Deficits when Congress was split (8 years) = $1.063 Trillion.

NATIONAL DEBT ($12.878 Trillion = 93.4% of all the Debt in our History)

Total New Debt when Democrats controlled Congress (12 years) = $7.859 Trillion.
Total New Debt when Republicans controlled Congress (10 years) = $3.238 Trillion.
Total New Debt when Congress was split (8 years) = $1.781 Trillion.

ECONOMIC GROWTH ($11.873 Trillion of GDP growth)

Total Growth (GDP) when Democrats controlled Congress (12 years) = $3.887 Trillion.
Total Growth (GDP) when Republicans controlled Congress (10 years) = $5.623 Trillion.
Total Growth (GDP) when Congress was split (8 years) = $2.363 Trillion.

Draw your own conclusions, but these are undisputed facts from government sources.

(a) Deficits do not equal the increase in the Debt because of the government's 'funny accounting'.

Sources - Democrats controlled Congress from 1987 – 1994, and from 2007 – 2010. Republicans controlled Congress from 1995 – 2000, and from 2003 – 2006. There was a split Congress from 1980 – 1986 and for 2001 & 2002. Links to government data sites are as follows;

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

Deficits - http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals See Table 1.3

National Debt - http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

It's like everything else the Obamas and the democrats say, put on hip waders and hold your nose then it becomes believable.

I could not find the post you referenced. Would you please respond to this post. There are those that like to talk about Clinton's Surplus but no one will explain what that means or what that meant to the balance in the treasury.

This is the post I am speaking of #2.28

Would you please provide a similar link to your post that you mentioned in 2.64

Rachel Maddow is the Liberal version of Sean Hannity, MSNBC is in last place for a reason and lest we forget the lies by CNN during the Iraq war, so although Fox isn't perfect, it's still the best

@ Independent Redneck #2: Good insight. The mess we face is complex in comprehension for most of the electorate, and too many members of both the Senate and House. Everyone thinks they are right, or their party is right. Much of the electorate believes there are little, if any, differences in the two parties, which, if not boiled down to fundamentalization often does appear valid. Even so , when understood, those fundamentals are most important to enlightened governance choice by the electorate. Toward that, let's look at those fundamentals. Republicans have framed a fundamental governance policy of "Low, or an absence of taxes on the rich, and shrinking government and programs which even hint at assisting the welfare of the middle class and poor". Democrats fundamental governance is "raise taxes on the rich, while trying to expand government benefits, and strengthen the welfare of the middle class and poor". To accomplish either, both parties must gain control of both the Executive and Legislative branchs. Here and there, the democrats deviate some within their overall party agenda, but the republican members seldom ever do. I'm a progressive democrat who concluded during the Reagan fiasco that nothing helpful toward my hoped for ends, could or would be accomplished with a republican controled congress,governing within such a context. If the middle class and poor really wish representation on their behalf, then they , and all who support that governance must get the obstructionist republicans out of the way. Regards

I'm sure it's real. And 100 people will give you 100 different numbers. But approximately 300 Billion to save jobs is still a high cost per job to just keep jobs in place. And didn't do anything to fix the underlying problem of why those job costs were not sustainable in the first place. Just threw money at it.

Roy Wilson,

I am in agreement with you 100%. I understand that Congress approves budgets and spending, and Obama was part of that process when he was a senator, and he is backing them up as President. I think you meant to respond to someone else. I only wish some of your wisdom would sink into these liberals' brains out there. Hopefully most of the independents will see this and vote Obama out this year.

When are the Liberals, like Independent Redneck VA, going to quit blaming Bush? I guess never, because they think that the liberal idiots can do no wrong. Such as those in Congress under President Clinton, who modified the Community Reinvestment Act. They are the real ones to blame, along with Barney Frank, who said, "oh there is nothing to worry about regarding problems at Freddiemac and Fanniemae. Most of them are dropping like flies, and not running for re-election, because they know they screwed up and cannot win now.

Well, lets see here...If I spend millions to create jobs that pay in the thousands what have I accomplished? I've become a democrat.

To the right-wing riff raff in this thread, please answer the following questions directly (yes or no will do):

1) Do you feel Bush/Cheney deserved a second term?

2) We are still operating under GOP policies of deregulation that caused the Great Recession, and deficits due to Bush tax cuts for the rich at the same time of unpaid wars. The stimulus did help the economy, and health care reform is needed and already creating savings -- we would all love to hear a better idea from the Teapublicans. What hideous things has President Obama done in comparison that he is less deserving of a second term?

Watergate? Iran-Contra affair? Outing a CIA operative, or warrant-less wiretaps, or torture, or a Dept. of Justice misuse of the Patriot Act or dismissing US attorneys based on political affiliation? "Fast & Furious," once again a Bush-era extension of “Operation Wide Receiver” that indicts the ATF and not the White House? Solyndra, once again a loan guarantee that was a multi-year process begun during the Bush Administration?

Heck, even the current candidates -- Sex scandals, ethics violations? How about Tax evasion, ripping off the tax payers to cover pension plans and ripping off Medicare to increase already obscene Bain Capital profits? How can you argue that President Obama is less deserving of a second term than Gingrich or Romney is of any term?

Anyone who believes that giving rich people more money will somehow help anyone but rich people are complete idiots. Anyone who believes "starve the beast" is the answer, and only answer to deficits is lacking basic math skills. Anyone who would destroy Medicare, or worse Social Security to protect tax breaks for rich people are far worse than idiotic--they are borderline treasonous. Anyone who helped put Teapublicans back in power in 2010 was truly delusional, and wanting to do it again in 2012 would be -- Well Dubya said it best: "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

Throw out the Do Nothing obstructionist Teapublican Haters. Obama/Biden - 2012!

Not sure who you are referring to as riff raff Patriot, but calling people names you don't agree with probably isn't the best way to have a debate on ideas. I'm mostly a middle of the road guy but ALWAYS fiscally conservative.

1. yes, because they won the most electoral votes. There are things i agree and disagree with as i do with ALL presidents.

2. The mortgage meltdown with all the derivatives, mortgage bonds etc that blew up and the massive credit default swaps owed from the likes of Fannie/Freddie caused the meltdown and credit freeze. If you think it was the Republicans lack of regulation on that industry go to youtube and enter " Fannie Freddie congress 2004" and listen to the floor debate as the Republicans were TRYING TO REGULATE Fannie/Freddie. Only to be told there by the Dems all is well and the Dem Senate killed legislation that would have done so, including then Sen Obama.

If you think lowering the top tax rate 4.6 points caused this mess, then when it was dropped in the Reagan years 42 points that should have totally decimated the economy under the same line of thinking but it didn't. The deficits then were the same as now, caused by too much spending.

true patriot..... your post 2.81 is garbage... you have to get beyond Bush and look around you today... are we better off than we were 3 years ago, at the end of Bush's term? No, we are far worse off today... and 90% rests in obama's performance, or lack thereof!

here is some great advice for you tp: Sometimes it is better to keep quiet and let people think you are a fool, rather than to speak up and remove all doubt....

Increasing taxes and cutting spending are NOT mutually exclusive concepts.

Democrats seem to understand this, and have no issue with decreasing spending - given that it's a smart and efficient cut in spending. They want to explore all avenues of economic repair.

Republicans, on the other hand, seem to think that ONLY cutting spending will work, and only if we cut spending THEIR WAY. And if we cut spending in the ways they want to (not that they have been all that specific when you get down to it), it will create a whole host of new problems and controversy, that will only cost us more in the long run sorting it out. If you abolish abortion, make contraception illegal, or any of those ridiculous proposals, we will have a population explosion of citizens we can't support, who can't afford healthcare, who can't find jobs since there's only so many and there'd be more people competing for them, and who need assistance. And since the Repubs also want to cut "entitlements" like welfare, food stamps and unemployment, we will end up having to increase homeless assistance programs, since none of our citizens will have other resources. Sounds like a great plan, right?

Raising taxes doesn't always bring in mor revenue either. We saw who wanted to cut more as the house passed 6 trillion in cuts and barely got a trillion passed the dems. The trillion in cuts is 100 billion a year which gets the deficit to 1.4 trillion instead of 1.5 trillion.

True patriot, suffice it to say you and your kind assume far more than you can prove.

You assume that policy starts and stops with each administration, unless of course the admistration changes from right to left. To bad for you we live with the policies of all past administrations...

I understand that for those like you and mr. obama it will always be someone elses fault. Not how do we change the narrative to move together and and get out of the swamp.

This is why obama doesn't deserva a secon term!

ProBusiness – the wars: you say they cost $750billion over 10 years. You also point out in “the rich and their tax breaks” that taxing them more would “only” have brought in $800billion over 10 years. Well, at least it would have paid for “the wars” and then some, eh? It would have balanced out the "spending" wouldn't it? But of course, increased taxes creating revenue is a myth. *sarcasm

“through 2006 the economy was doing great” – it may have looked great, but it was all a hollow house of cards that collapsed in the end. It only seemed great because of all the fraud and misrepresentation and false reporting on Wall Street and in the housing markets.

And as far as Bush only needing however many trillions to run this country – that’s because he did NOT put the cost of “the wars” on the books. Part of Obama’s “deficit” is not due to him, it’s due to him putting those costs on the books like Bush should have. Bush acted like Wall Street and misrepresented the numbers to make himself look better. Imagine that.

Walkingman1: “I still want to know why he doesn't want the U.S. to be energy self sufficient.” – he does, just not on oil alone. And if we pump out more oil, do you really think the oil companies are going to turn around and pass along their savings to the customer? Hell no, next the excuse would be “we have to pay to get to the oil so we can't afford to lower prices.”

"I want to know why he refuses to implement successful teaching programs in public American Schools." – what? because education decline wasn’t an issue before Obama? And how can you implement new programs without spending anything - which I thought the Republicans were staunchly against. You can't have it both ways. I can just see the Repubs deciding we shouldn't feel "entitled" to a good education.

As to where are his transcripts, why didn’t he have a job during college, who paid for his college, how did he get in, etc. – are you kidding me? How did rich Republicans get into Ivy League schools? Rich daddies. Did anyone ever ask these types of questions of any other candidate in the history of our Presidency? No.

american - "I understand that for those like you and mr. obama it will always be someone elses fault. Not how do we change the narrative to move together and and get out of the swamp."

Really? Cuz I'm pretty sure "Mr. Obama" has been trying to "change the narrative" and work as a team for his entire Presidency, but his efforts have been blocked and thwarted by his opposition, for no other reason than spite. If you want to point fingers at the party who should be trying to cooperate, point at the right.

I think Obama picked the wrong words in saying he "deserves" a second term. He does "deserve" a chance though, and he hasn't gotten one so far.

Deserve a Second Term?:

One is voted for re election.

The Country has been through hell the last 3 years.

BA read the post he said raise taxes and cut spending...Are we better off than when Bush left office? Please we were falling into a depression most economists agree the stimulus stopped that free-fall. So if yor're at minus 10 degrees does it take more energy to get back up to zero degrees than if you were at minus 20 degrees. A simply anagology to our economic solution without all the other obstructions involved in this mess.

If giving businesses lower taxes creates jobs, why aren't there any jobs, considering that businesses have been paying lower taxes all this time?

The fact is, rather than bowing to corporate power and continuing to give corporations MORE power and control over our economy and government, why don't we put them back in their place? The FACT is, America is the world's largest economy. Sure, our economy might suck right now, but it's still the largest and most demanding economy out there. And we're letting corporations control us? WE have the control. If we refuse to pander to corporations, they will fall in line, because the FACT is, they can't afford to lose the business the American economy provides. Imagine losing a customer as large us the entire USA. That's a giant slap in the face - maybe a wake up call? If we take a hard line with businesses, maybe it will force the issue of change, and stop them from manipulating our government and our lives for the sake of PROFIT. Taking away the demand cuts into their profits, which takes away their power. Do you really think corporations (and I am talking large corporations, multinationals, not small American businesses) will not make some concessions to get back in the game here in the US? And if not, wouldn't that maybe just help small businesses have a better chance anyway, which may help more Americans than some multinational outsourcer in the first place?

And where is the freaking Iraqi oil that was supposed to lower gas prices by flooding the energy market with more supply against the demand? We're arguing over drilling for oil here in the US, which doesn't amount to a fraction of the oil sources in Iraq. Our oil sources are in the middle of an ocean ecosystem that could be destroyed by a mistake (*cough* deregulation *cough*), whereas a lot of Iraqi oil fields are in the middle of nowhere, in the middle of sand, with a lot less environmental damage at stake.

George Hayduke Sr -- true patriot..... your post 2.81 is garbage... you have to get beyond Bush and look around you today... are we better off than we were 3 years ago, at the end of Bush's term?

Woulda coulda shoulda hypotheticals... we were better off during Clinton, and we would be better off now if Al Gore won in 2000 as he should have. How about if McCain/Palin had won in 2008? OMG what a mess we would be in now! And since the 2010 mid-term and the overwhelming GOP/TP majority in the House and about 50/50 in the Senate -- Where are the jobs promised, and what have Teapublicans done to deserve reelection?

No, we are far worse off today... and 90% rests in obama's performance, or lack thereof!

That's just an outright lie. Look at jobs data, the GDP, the stock market, etc. Just sayin' something (repeatedly, or more loudly) doesn't make it so.

american-2051576 -- More fallacsious argumentation from you -- Please see above response + Supply-side voodoo economics that started during Reagan of deregulation, trickle down tax cuts for the rich, corporate welfare, and now the Race to the Bottom etc. is what has destroyed our economy.

Turn off FOX Noise and Hate Radio, do the homework and independent thinking or please don't vote. Voting is not just a privilage, it is a responsibility.

Always bugs me that candidates like Romney tell us they are Christians yet stand up there day after day telling lie after lie. Romney, Gingrich, Santorum know they are lying when they make false claims about President Obama but they do it anyway as if their claims of devout faith exempt political campaigns from truth telling.

I just hope THE FIRST LADY dosent come on TV and say she is proud of AMERICA for the second time in her life .

Uhhhh, Mr. Obama went on MSNBC with Matt Lauderd yesterday morning "complaining" about how his wife was portrayed in a "book".

Maybe Mr. Obama should have stood up for her after her speech in New Hampshire when she said that Mr. Obama's mother was discriminated against by that bank in Hawaii. Wait a minute, Mr. Obama's mother was the FIRST FEMALE to be selected as a Vice-President at that bank.

Well, golly gee. Mrs. Obama should be on the campaign tours with Mr. Obama. Then we could really get down to the truth of EVERYTHING.

Yep, Mr. Obama has his "Laser Beam" focused in the right direction.

@Hillbillygenius

No Jethro, you're not a genius. A lot of other things and definitely not a genius.

hillbilly, if you're going to use the quote, use it in context and use it correctly.

Oh, wait. Then it wouldn't support your incorrect theory, would it?

doesn't take a genius to see what this administration is doing to this country along with the help of congress dem/repub , they dont care about you or me let alone this country . they only care about themselves

This bears repeating.., from Chuckt56's quote on page 14:

The Washington Post babbled again today about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush. Amazingly enough, a lot of people swallow this nonsense. So once more, a short civics lesson.

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases. For FY 2009, though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period.

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

WAKE UP, AMERICA, BEFORE ITS TO LATE

alan290 "So once more, a short civics lesson...Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress"

Good point. Let's see how well the economy has worked under Democratic vs Republican control over the last 30 years;

Who's better at running Congress?

Since it's Congress that sets the spending Budgets, sets the Deficits, and passes legislation affecting jobs and the economy (The President cannot spend one penny that has not been authorized by Congress), let's look at the record of Congresses over the last 30 years (Through 2010);

JOBS (39,761,000 Net New Jobs)

Jobs created when Democrats controlled Congress (12 years) = 8,100,000 net new jobs.
Jobs created when Republicans controlled Congress (10 years) = 21,773,000 net new jobs.
Jobs created when Congress was split (8 years) = 9,888,000 net new jobs.

DEFICITS (a) ($7.304 Trillion)

Total Deficits when Democrats controlled Congress (12 years) = $5.022 Trillion.
Total Deficits when Republicans controlled Congress (10 years) = $1.219 Trillion.
Total Deficits when Congress was split (8 years) = $1.063 Trillion.

NATIONAL DEBT ($12.878 Trillion = 93.4% of all the Debt in our History)

Total New Debt when Democrats controlled Congress (12 years) = $7.859 Trillion.
Total New Debt when Republicans controlled Congress (10 years) = $3.238 Trillion.
Total New Debt when Congress was split (8 years) = $1.781 Trillion.

ECONOMIC GROWTH ($11.873 Trillion of GDP growth)

Total Growth (GDP) when Democrats controlled Congress (12 years) = $3.887 Trillion.
Total Growth (GDP) when Republicans controlled Congress (10 years) = $5.623 Trillion.
Total Growth (GDP) when Congress was split (8 years) = $2.363 Trillion.

Draw your own conclusions, but these are undisputed facts from government sources.

(a) Deficits do not equal the increase in the Debt because of the government's 'funny accounting'.

Sources - Democrats controlled Congress from 1987 – 1994, and from 2007 – 2010. Republicans controlled Congress from 1995 – 2000, and from 2003 – 2006. There was a split Congress from 1980 – 1986 and for 2001 & 2002. Links to government data sites are as follows;

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

Deficits - http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals See Table 1.3

National Debt - http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

Why does Mr. Obama always seem to leave out the fact that he has personally ran the debt up another 5 Trillion so far and still climbing??

@Roy,

I for one appreciate your posts and the time you put into actually getting the facts correct.

Thank You.

dano

No "Party" is innocent in the housing crisis that lead to the Great Recession. Many, many dirty hands from both sides of the aisle and Wall Street. In fact, the one thing we can all agree on is that they all were GREEDY idiots!

The middle class saw their wealth disappear or stolen as most of their wealth was in their only asset, their home. Shame on all those that played along.

Thank you alan290 for pointing out some basic civics for those who dont know. Im not sure why i ever come on these threads, because most of the time its nothing but non sense spewed back and forth.

We can do it: Of course you're correct. Wilson never posts anything original. He speaks and spins republicanism's. An ardent student of "Frank Luntz" is Mr. Wilson, or a pure waste of time for those who contest the worth and validity of "supply side, and/or trickle down economics". Wilsons rope is always greasy enough to just"slide right on by".

To the right-wing riff raff in this thread, please answer the following questions directly (yes or no will do):

1) Do you feel Bush/Cheney deserved a second term?

2) We are still operating under GOP policies of deregulation that caused the Great Recession, and deficits due to Bush tax cuts for the rich at the same time of unpaid wars. The stimulus did help the economy, and health care reform is needed and already creating savings -- we would all love to hear a better idea from the Teapublicans. What hideous things has President Obama done in comparison that he is less deserving of a second term?

Watergate? Iran-Contra affair? Outing a CIA operative, or warrant-less wiretaps, or torture, or a Dept. of Justice misuse of the Patriot Act or dismissing US attorneys based on political affiliation? "Fast & Furious," once again a Bush-era extension of “Operation Wide Receiver” that indicts the ATF and not the White House? Solyndra, once again a loan guarantee that was a multi-year process begun during the Bush Administration?

Heck, even the current candidates -- Sex scandals, ethics violations? How about Tax evasion, ripping off the tax payers to cover pension plans and ripping off Medicare to increase already obscene Bain Capital profits? How can you argue that President Obama is less deserving of a second term than Gingrich or Romney is of any term?

Anyone who believes that giving rich people more money will somehow help anyone but rich people are complete idiots. Anyone who believes "starve the beast" is the answer, and only answer to deficits is lacking basic math skills. Anyone who would destroy Medicare, or worse Social Security to protect tax breaks for the rich are far worse than idiotic--they are borderline treasonous. Anyone who helped put Teapublicans back in power in 2010 was truly delusional, and wanting to do it again in 2012 would be -- Well Dubya said it best: "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

Throw out the Do Nothing obstructionist Teapublican Haters. Obama/Biden - 2012!

"They are all devised to smear President Obama and convince American voters that Romney is not such a bad guy, even with his record of 100,000 layoffs and Swiss bank accounts"

First, Obama "smears" himself. Yes, Romney, Newt, are not the best for this country either. First, to understand why Obama is so bad you need to understand our country, our Constitution.

You need to understand that the Constitutional framers believed that our Rights in the US Constitution are our natural, god given Rights. That the US Constitution was created to define the way our government will operate; serves as a grant of power to, the blueprint for the structure of our federal government. The Constitution only grants our federal government certain, specified, limited powers, and no more; nor can they take for themselves more powers. Doing so is an attack on the USA, an attack on Americans, an Attack on the US Constitution.

Understanding that the Constitution was created to Protect our Rights from those who might serve in our government who would take the natural rights away; this was very important to the framers because they had lived under those types of governments. That the Bill of Rights sets limits on the federal government, making clear it has NO power to infringe on rights we already naturally possess, or to limit traditionally held privileges, such as trial by jury.

Obama, nor congress, nor the senate, nor the judicial branch has the power to extend the Patriot Act. Nor do they have the power for the NDAA, warrantless searches, PIPA, SOFA, and the attacks on our Rights. Obama did not have the power to decide to chair for the UN, etc (add Newt and Romney to the list)

Doing those things means they are: 1) Oath Breakers - impeachable and can/should be prosecuted for.

2) Domestic Enemies of the USA - Domestic enemies pursue legislation, programs against the powers of the US Constitution. They work on destroying and weakening the Rights of the People guaranteed by the Constitution. Plus they create laws, amendments, etc that goes against the restraint on the three branches of our government by the Constitution. Also can be and should be prosecuted for these actions.

3) Waging an attack on America, working to destroy it as a free nation. Prosecutable.

4) No longer meeting the requirements of the office or position they currently occupy. No election is needed, just arrests. Prosecutable. The Oath is required of all three branches, military, law enforcement, and it is required that they enforce it

The three branches of our government, the military, all law enforcement, the heads of the States, all federal employees are required to take an Oath to support and defend the Constitution and not an individual leader, ruler, office, or entity. Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge

We can do it:

I love your name and how very optimistic you are! Thank you for pointing all of this out!

There are many people who would look at those stats and assume that he's correct, it's just good to know there are people out there who are smarter than the manipulators who try to shade facts for their own purposes.

Good for you and the American people, I was starting to lose faith in the intelligence of Americans!

dano-3878024 "@Roy,I for one appreciate your posts and the time you put into actually getting the facts correct.Thank You."

You're welcome.

Mac Forrester " Wilson never posts anything original".

Actually, virtually all of my posts are from my own 'original research' normally using official government sources for the basic data because there's a lot of misinformation floating around (like 'Obama has created millions of jobs since he took office', when the reality is that an additional 2.4 million jobs has been LOST since he took office). It takes a lot of time to accumulate the info, but it's worth it because it drives the liberals crazy when the real facts don't agree with their 'preconceived notions'.

Wait, what? Obama is telling Matt how hard it is to have a family life while in public service? Does he have no idea how hard it is to maintain a family life in the private sector, unemployed, paying taxes to pay him and his family to enjoy 17 vacations and 236 golf games, 11 different shopping trips for Michelle, partying with all kinds of Czars he appoints, that each have staffs of 17 average?

---what is an IDO?

Lies get started in the blogosphere such as "Mr. Obama's mother was the first VP at the bank in Hawaii that supposedly discrminated against her".

His mother was not in banking... that was his grandmother. Secondly, just because she eventually became a VP does not negate the fact that she was "previously" discriminated against.

Have you never heard of the concept of "making whole"?

Wow according to Roy I have a 24 foot penis. Quoting Limbaugh is a little less than factual but I am glad you and your buddy dano are proud of you.

Seriously...this pretty much sums up the mantra and ideology of the progessive liberal movement. I "deserve" a house I can't afford....I "deserve" free education...I "deserve" to ride on the back of those who work for a living....I "deserve" to have free healthcare and force others to pay more for it. Yet they do not see it for what it really is, a system that controls them through entitilements and handouts.

dano-3878024

Why does Mr. Obama always seem to leave out the fact that he has personally ran the debt up another 5 Trillion so far and still climbing??

Why do people like you see everything in black and white? Have you no analytical skills? No powers of deduction? No Rule of Reason? Turn off FOX Noise/Hate Radio air wave pollution, and educate yourself and do some critical thinking!

The debt has continued because GOP/Bush policies have continued thanks to Teapublicans in congress who have used blackmail and hostage-taking to keep these policies in place. Deficits have increased because we are still spending on things like wars while taking in too little revenue thanks to loopholes for the rich and corporations.

AK Sabin -- NO, the handouts have been to the richest 2% and corporations you fool. Have you ever heard of plutocracy? Do you think the ever increasing gap between rich and poor, with more people falling below middle class to poor is a hoax?

To add insult to injury, the Teapublicans have blocked any effort to improve the economy, such as the Jobs Bill. Macro-economics are very different from your simplistic household budget thinking. Ask any business whether it takes money to make money, what the cost of doing business means, what friggin' "capital" means and you might begin to understand that we must invest in our country to recover from the Great Recession.

Obama: I 'get
better as
time goes on'

Unfortunately we don't have that much time left. We tried the feel good spread the wealth approach. Nope, still doesn't work. Never has. I know, I know, these guys are smarter than the last guys who tried it. They'll do it right this time. Same geniuses think they're smarter than the Founders because the Founders didn't know what a cell phone was. What great logic.

I know how you feel on the credibility issue. I feel the same way. Especiall y with the following issues that democrats fail to address:

Where exactly did the Clinton Budget Surplus come from and how with numbers did that affect the national debt?

Do any of you know about how the investigation of Microsoft by the SEC in 2000 affected the dot com boom and how it affected the stock market?

Gramm-Leach-Bliley or Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 (all republican congressment) is blamed for removing banking regulations that could have prevented the housing bubble and the subsequent credit crisis when the bubble collapsed. The original vote was 54–44 which is far short of the vote needed to avoid a presidential veto. Can any of you tell me what deal was made to get President Clinton to sign the bill into law.

Herb Moses became Barney Frank's live in lover somewhere around 1981. Shortly afterward he became director of New Product Initiatives at Fannie Mae. Moses moved out in 1998 shortly after his term at Fannie Mae ended. Can any one tell me why there was no investigation?

Brooksley Born, who chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC],under president Bill Clinton warned him that the derivatives market was opaque and nobody actually what the extent of that market was. She suggested to President Clinton that regulation of that market come under regulation of her commission. Anybody know why that did not happen. BTW, the biggest part of the derivatives market was mortgage backed securities and credit default swaps.

Does anybody know why Franklin Raines did not get any real punishment for cooking the books at Fannie Mae. BTW, if you recognize that name it is probably because he was Bill Clinton's budget director.

Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/interviews/born.html#ixzz1ldBAO4sW

True liberal jackass is more like it! I am tired of everyone trying to blame everything on everyone else! Simple truth all politicians for the last 30 years have royally screwed up this country! Not 1 government officialout of the current group deserves another term or another office! We need to do away with the current political parties because they both suck! To all the bleeding heart libers out there it is the Governments job to run the country, not businesses, and not our personnel lives!

Roy: Providing job stats for the last 24 months only, or in other words, after the Bush recession had bottomed out, is not "cherry picking", it is the most honest way of determining our current President's impact on the country. Economies take time to reverse course.

No honest person could blame Obama for the carnage that occurred during his first year in office.

True patriot???which free loading branch of the govment do you work for...scratch that...collect a check from???

We can do it "And I can see, Mr Roy (Obama hates whitey) Wilson is back"

I never said that 'Obama hates whitey' - Only that his 'Class Warfare' reelection rhetoric has the effect of turning the races against each other by pitting the 'poor' (many of whom are minorities) against the 'rich' (most of whom are caricatured as 'greedy and selfish' and mostly white 'fat cats on Wall Street').

Perhaps that's not 'Politically Correct' to say, but if you think about it, and what Obama keeps repeating about 'The rich don't pay their fair share' (a), and 'I want to redistribute wealth' to the poor, my 'opinion' is that Obama is setting race relations back, not making them better. Demonizing the very people who are responsible for creating most of the jobs in this country may be good politics, but it's bad policy.

Usually, someone calls me 'racist' at this point, until I mention that my wife is Black, and my 5 beautiful children are 'diverse'.

(a) - Interestingly, the top 10% of Americans pay a significantly higher percentage of taxes than similarly 'rich' people in the rest of the developed world. For example, the top 10% pay 45.1% of all taxes (70% of Income Taxes) in this country, vs only 28.0% in France and 31.2% in Germany.

TruePatriot-445959,

I'll take a crack at answering your questions.

Understand: I'm a Republican but not an Obama "hater". I didn't hate him when he came into office and I don't hate him now. I disagree with him and don't like the direction this country has taken, but he's my president and I respect him as such.

Now on to the questions:

1. Did I think Bush / Cheney deserved a second term? No...and their performance had nothing to do with that. No one "deserves" the presidency. Whether someone gets to that vaulted office depends on the American people.

2. What has Obama done that is any worse than Bush or Cheney (or any other Republican)? Again, that's a judgement call. Many folks are experiencing what could be called "buyers remorse", in that the "change" they were promised still eludes us. If Obama is voted out of office in November, it won't be because he did anything "worse" than any other president...it will hinge on how people feel about him and the abilities he's demonstrated.

Now, if you'll permit me, a question for you:

If voters in 2008 could peer into the future and see how America is faring up today, do you believe Barack Obama would be our president?

A general and fairly loaded question, to be sure...but one I think will have merit in the next election.

Thank you for your opinions...I do respect them.

On Gingrich concentrating his campaign in the South,

does that include Virginia and Missouri with their 102 delegates, combined......

oh,

um,

yeah,............

OOOPS x 2 !!! : D

Way to ask the tough questions Matt Lauer! haha

Oh Tea Party...

Their big battle of spending and raising the debt ceiling has been one of the major contributers to uncertainty in our economy. They talk about fiscal responsibility, and than focus solely on discretionary spending, like NPR and WIC got us into debt. They eliminate anything that might actually work like cutting defense spending, ending war, or tax/trade reform. In fact, they want to lower taxes and go back to war, like that was a winning combination. They talk about deregulation in vague terms, and than discount that the repeal of Glass-Stegal was what got us into this mess. They boast about "limited government" than try to invade woman's bodies, gay people's bedrooms, Muslim's mosques, and God help you if you're hispanic or poor. You might as well sign your civil rights away. And they only seem to believe in science when they have to fly somewhere, otherwise, forget it.

The number one reason Obama should ge reelected is the Tea Party. What a freaking mess.

Obama's simply a man. A man with a realy shi($%* job, during a really sh(%*$ period of history. A man, a father, a husband, and an American, who's doing the best he can, all things considered.

rjj1208 "No honest person could blame Obama for the carnage that occurred during his first year in office."

It depends on what 'carnage' you're talking about. The 'Great Recession' ended only 5 months after Obama took office, and normally we see significant economic/jobs growth in a recovery (which is now almost 3 years old), but because of Obama's anti-business, anti-growth policies and 'moratoriums', we not only do not have a normal recovery, but we have massive new debt of about $5 Trillion which our children and grandchildren will struggle with for their entire lives.

Patriot you blame Reps constantly. Bills are passed in the congress. Dems have had the Senate since the 2006 elections. Hellooooo, its 2012.

And they have had the House all but one year since the 2006 elections, but its the R's fault? Really?

No one person deserves anything--

It must be earned.

Voting is an American Privilege.

Shartorius "Now, if you'll permit me, a question for you: If voters in 2008 could peer into the future and see how America is faring up today, do you believe Barack Obama would be our president?"

Good question. A poll was conducted of people about a year ago and it indicated that only about 80% of the people that voted for Obama in 2008 would do so again, which means that Obama would only get about 43% of the vote if there was an election 'redo', vs the 53% that he actually got.

I doubt that Obama's results have improved much since then.

My personal election model for the 2012 elections estimates Obama would get only about 42% of the vote (if held today) - principally because of a 6% drop in people who self-identify as Democrats, a significant drop in support from Independents and perhaps a small drop in Hispanic support, and an estimated 3% drop in likely voters among the young (under 30) as they return to their normal voting pattern.

In the 2008 elections, the total difference in the popular vote for Obama can be accounted for by high school dropouts (63% voted for Obama) and young inexperienced voters (66% voted for Obama) who are now disenchanted with Obama and will likely return to more normal voting patterns in 2012. When combined with the dramatic swing in Independent voters against Obama in current polls, and fewer self-identified Democrats, it looks quite bleak for Obama's reelection chances, and since Obama's only chance is to run a very negative campaign of distraction, it will likely dampen turnout even further, which will likely hurt the Democrats in Congressional races as well.
With 23 Democratic Senate seats up for election in 2012 (vs only 10 for Republicans), all the Republicans need is to win a net of 4, and in 2010 the Republicans won a net of 7 out of 19 previously Democratic held seats.

Patriot you generically state republican policies, exactly what policies and what do you contend those policies are doing to harm us?

They boast about "limited government" than try to invade woman's bodies, gay people's bedrooms, Muslim's mosques, and God help you if you're hispanic or poor. You might as well sign your civil rights away. And they only seem to believe in science when they have to fly somewhere, otherwise, forget it.

You have an argument with gay peoples right to marriage perhaps, but the rest of this is buttbutter.

To make a pun on a famous movie quote "show me (and millions of Americans) the jobs" Where are they, what do they pay, how many out of work people are there for each opening????? I am sure that many of us would be willing to relocate for work, however, if you can't sell the home you live in because nobody can buy one....how do you afford to relocate and pay for the home you have as well as somewhere to live in the area of the new job???? Most of us have been stripped of everything we have earned, saved, put aside, and because many of us worked and saved, we aren't eligible for any of the help that the billions of dollars of stimulus money was supposed to provide.

Oh, so there haven't been TP politicians trying to ban abortion, drug test poor people, bomb Iran, supporting the NYPD in their "surveillance" of Muslims, denying global warming, attempting to get creationism in schoolbooks or passing anti-anything looking Mexican, legislation????

Now we can debate our positions on those all we want, what we can't debate is that those extend the government's power and deny science, they don't limit it.

@ Roy Wilson #3.9: You loaning 'em or selling 'em? They're typical of so many, "greased line" republican posts all over the net. Usually some grammer variations, but always the same bend to the warp. The warp being your use and interpretations of the presented bullsh^t. Dogs sometimes howl at the moon. Doesn't mean dogs either hate, fear, or wish to hump the moon.

Sarah

If you insist on bringing up the repeal of Glass-Steagal than I have to bring up what happened when it was repealed. Why can't you liberals deal with this?

I know how you feel on the credibility issue. I feel the same way. Especiall y with the following issues that democrats fail to address:

Where exactly did the Clinton Budget Surplus come from and how with numbers did that affect the national debt?

Do any of you know about how the investigation of Microsoft by the SEC in 2000 affected the dot com boom and how it affected the stock market?

Gramm-Leach-Bliley or Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 (all republican congressment) is blamed for removing banking regulations that could have prevented the housing bubble and the subsequent credit crisis when the bubble collapsed. The original vote was 54–44 in the Senate which is far short of the vote needed to avoid a presidential veto. Can any of you tell me what deal was made to get President Clinton to sign the bill into law.

Herb Moses became Barney Frank's live in lover somewhere around 1981. Shortly afterward he became director of New Product Initiatives at Fannie Mae. Moses moved out in 1998 shortly after his term at Fannie Mae ended. Can any one tell me why there was no investigation?

Brooksley Born, who chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC],under president Bill Clinton warned him that the derivatives market was opaque and nobody actually what the extent of that market was. She suggested to President Clinton that regulation of that market come under regulation of her commission. Anybody know why that did not happen. BTW, the biggest part of the derivatives market was mortgage backed securities and credit default swaps.

Does anybody know why Franklin Raines did not get any real punishment for cooking the books at Fannie Mae. BTW, if you recognize that name it is probably because he was Bill Clinton's budget director.

Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/interviews/born.html#ixzz1ldBAO4sW

Oh, so there haven't been TP politicians trying to ban abortion, drug test poor people, bomb Iran, supporting the NYPD in their "surveillance" of Muslims, or passing anti-anything looking Mexican, legislation????

O'bama has deported more Mexicans than Bush did...ist that one of your lovely liberal talking points? Yes they try to ban abortion...something I am not personally interested in, but they will never succeed. Just as Libs will not succeed in banning gasoline. These are positions to shore up their bases. Bomb Iran falls under the umbrella of either party.

It isn't what position they hold on those things, Korn, it's that they hold the opposite position of what they claim to.

If your base wants to ban abortion, than don't claim to be about limiting government.

Rick,

Clinton has admitted deregulation was a mistake, and I'm not partisan. I don't care who is in power, deregulation of Wall St is stupid. The whole thing is shady, and driven by the SCOTUS decision that claimed money equaled speech. Both parties are bought and sold.

Furthermore, I'm not interested in doing your research for you. Reenstate Glass-Stegall, overturn Valeo and Citizen's United, and get money out of politics. That's my position.

Stay on topic. The issue here is the hypocrasy. The TP is the one who runs around shouting about "fiscal responsibility". It isn't fiscally responsible to deregulate accross the board, discount revenue, ignore trade, denfense spending, and war, and focus only on discretionary spending.

People should consider that fact that the general election campaign has not yet begun. Romney, if he wins his party's nomination, will be under scrutiny on things such as tax policy, budgets and his ideas on SS and Medicare. He supports vouchers for medicare -- his tax policies certainly favors the wealthy, raises taxes on some at the lower end and does nothing to clean the mess up.... as in tax reforms. Seniors will turn from him most certainly. I'm a long way from being a senior but I remember what happened when Paul Ryan first presented his plan; even Republicans shelved it.

All I can say is that you RWNJ's better get fitted for those great big "L's" you're going to be wearing on your foreheads.

If your base wants to ban abortion, than don't claim to be about limiting government.

Your base wants to confiscate peoples earnings. One party is for more fiscal freedom, while the other wants more social freedom. Neither one is for complete freedom

The tea partiers don't want to deregulate everything. Just how much is needed is a question that has no right answer. Some is needed but how much do you do before you start stiflling the economy and killing business and jobs. A got a good friend in banking (smaller one) that tells me dodd frank goes too far.

I don't look at abortion as a government issue and im a pro life guy. This argument will always be there and for things like rape there are no good answers.

Sarah when you say "discount revenue", i assume that is a buzzword for raising taxes to make it sound better? That doesn't always bring in more revenue

Money in politics drives the system we have today i will agree. Until they get it out politicians will pay off donors, who pay off politicians, who pay off donors, who pay off politicians.

Svenolafson -- ...We tried the feel good spread the wealth approach. Nope, still doesn't work...

Listen before you speak, or in this case read before you post (please refer to my post #3.16). When did we try the "spread the wealth approach?" Was that before or after the wars were ended (NOT), or the Bush tax cuts expired (NOT), or the Affordable Health Care that doesn't go into full effect until 2012?

What we've been trying for the last 30-40 years, in the most extreme form since 2003 under Bush/Cheney, is the "trickle-down" theory ("theory" being a kind word for it). What we have learned is that by giving tax breaks to rich people, only the rich get richer--no one else gets richer. What we have learned is the richest 1% are not "job creators" and why giving tax breaks to the rich has not resulted in job creation.

Shartorius -- If voters in 2008 could peer into the future and see how America is faring up today, do you believe Barack Obama would be our president?

Yes. At first there was disappointment among the left-wing over things like the wars continuing, no single-payer health care system (in my case a mandate to purchase insurance from for-profit middlemen, and delivered by the private sector without more cost-savings efforts), etc.

Then the 2010 mid-terms happened, and we saw extreme far-right overreach to destroy unions (to destroy support for Dems), focus on fundalmentalist wedge issues like abortion/women's rights, to suppress the vote, and anything except job creation as was promised.

We must also keep in mind the right-leaning SCOTUS ruling on Citizens United, and other important appointments from the the Consumer Protection Agency to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (PBGC) -- the PBGC that is actually holding American Airline's feet to the fire for trying to dump pension plans as a part of bankruptcy when in fact they have the funds to keep their obligation to their employees -- And guess who American Airlines hired to help with this scam? Romney's Bain Capital.

We all know any Democrat would be better than any Republican in regard to appointments and protection of our rights (i.e., Main Street versus Wall Street). Additional questions for the right-wing:

1) Do you like the Citizen's United ruling?

2) Why are you against the Consumer Protection Agency, Dodd-Frank, and other measures to prevent "too big to fail" bail-outs by tax payers in the future? Would you support reinstatement of Glass-Steagall?

3) What kind of appointments do you believe Romney ("corporations are people") would make to the SCOTUS and agencies like the PBGC, or any GOP candidate, and how would this be a good thing?

4) Do you feel it is fair for the richest 1% (like Romney) to pay an effective tax rate of 14% compared to the tax rate you pay? Likewise, GE paying zero taxes (+ subsidies), or on average corporations only paying 9% in taxes?

The list could go on, but for now just explain why conservatives seem blind to the above, and/or never show outrage about deficits, etc. under a Republican administration, only during a Dem in the White House?

I would argue that much of the 'pain' that is still being felt is the direct result of State Governance. Sarah, many of the points you elicit were done at the state level.

Not to mention that PUBLIC jobs have seen consistent cuts while private sector has shown growth. Where the Obama Administration has had unfettered opportunity to LEAD,...there have been unqualified successes. Where the GNOP has managed to obstruct or diminish,...we see smaller gains.

That's just my Sunny Outlook from the Midwest Cheap Seats. My personal situation has improved significantly under this President and I certainly believe he 'DESERVES' my vote again.

PS. It would seem that some above actually BELIEVE (even now) that Gidget and the Geezer were VIABLE options in 2008 and that somehow they had a magic wand that President Obama hasn't asked politely enough to borrow? McCain stated he KNEW how to get Osama; but we all know THAT was a lie. There is NO WAY that rational people believe Romney or Gingrich have any actual ABILITY to do anything different to change the outcomes. And the repeated tripe that the Obama Administration has been the most ANTI business is just more false rhetoric. Many small businesses were polled and stated that NOTHING Obama has done has negatively impacted their business. They specifically say the regulation ISN'T the problem.

I realize it doesn't fit the narrative:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/01/122865/regulations-taxes-arent-killing.html

SEANTXS, scubasw, et al, your ad hominem attacks with no substance says it all. ROY WILSON-336103and others are well-known trolls that I never feed -- Please go back to Drudge, WorldNetDaily. NewsMax or what have you, and don't let the door hit ya in the arse on your way out.

BigATC

Patriot you blame Reps constantly. Bills are passed in the congress. Dems have had the Senate since the 2006 elections. Hellooooo, its 2012.

And they have had the House all but one year since the 2006 elections, but its the R's fault? Really?

Holy cow, how many times do we have to see this huge crock of crap?

The Dems had only a narrow majority after 2006, so just stop with that one. The Dems had a super majority starting in 2008, but only for about nine months. As of 2010 the Teapublicans gained one of the biggest majorities in the House, and it became about50/50 in the Senate with record GOP/TP filibusters, blocks, holds and every kind of shenanigan including hostage-taking (the debt ceiling debacle that resulted in the downgrade of our credit rating).

In Pelosi's first term they passed over 300 bills, many of which were significant. Please tell us what the idiot Teapublicans in the House have accomplished under Boehner/Cantor since 2010? When we ask "where are the jobs?" we are asking the Teapublican majority in congress and in states like Wisconsin this question. Have they NO accountability? WTF?

No -- YOU (and your ilk) -- Seriously?

BigATC,

I like what you have to say. By discount revenue, I don't mean simply raise taxes. I mean make taxes work for the American citizens, not just multinational corporations.

Simply raising taxes won't work, although it will bring debt to GDP under 50%. We need to incentivize American manufacturing and penalize those that exploit our rigged trade policies. Right now, they get all these breaks to "create jobs" but there's no regulations or reasons to create jobs here. Why not go to China where they can get cheap labor. In addition, not taxing capital gains, especially when that is someones only income, isn't awarding hard work, it's awarding wealth.

Then they cry about deregulation killing jobs, but regulation creates standards. Why are they attempting to race China back to the Gilded Age, instead of forcing China into the 21st century? And with the complete lack of transparency, how on earth do we know that their cries for environmental deregulation don't stem from back ally deals and campaign donations???

Clara,

Good post. I feel that the war cry of "States Rights" is akin to a child telling its parents, "You're not the boss of me!" I'm also terrified, that the agenda we've seen at the state level will seep into the Federal level.

Correction to post #3.51 above. The Affordable Health Care Act does not go into full effect until 2014 (not 2012 -- sorry about the typo).

Hm, obama should have been a comedian.

Sarah -- I'm with you --- Reinstate Glass-Steagall and breakup those investment behemoths.

True -- Thanks for posting on the PBGC and AA. Many companies have abused the system. Glad to hear they are challenging AA. I fear many other companies are trying to do the same.

Clara -- Keep kicking butt girl!!

Kornfed,

How exactly do we want to "confiscate people's earnings"??? Through taxes? Okay, I'll make you a deal. Don't pay taxes, if you don't want to. But than you can't be protected by our emergency responders or our military. You don't get to drive on our roads or go to our schools. You don't get to use a single thing taxes pay for. You also don't get any consideration in government or to petition for a redress of your grievances. And, most importantly, you don't get to b*($*$ about spending or talk about fiscal responsibility.

Your wording alone wreaks of petulance. Life is pay to play, you get what you pay for, and you owe for what you get.

Dodd frank you mentioned now has almost 5000 pages in the federal registry. The banking regulators don't make rules now its a consumer protection advisory board with one director having power. They have total rulemaking authority. Compliance costs are skyrocketing. My banker friend told me they never had a full time compliance officer at his smaller bank but they have no choice now.

Federal reserve now capping interchange rates at less than half what they were. About to make their debit card programs worthless.

Regulators making them classify loans (i.e. downgrade) to loans that are salvegable. Downgrades make them have to hold more reserves thus not putting their money to work.

These are a few i remember my friend railing against hurting his small bank.

Patriot its not crap. You keep asking me what have the R's done (with one house) but you excuse the dems for not having a big enough majority with having both.

To start with they actually passed a budget 45 days into office. Something the dems failed to do for years with both houses. Wonder why they never even submitted a budget Patriot?

The last budget brought up in the senate was BO's last year as reid wouldn't even bring up the house one. You remember that vote? Don't remember exactly but Obamas budget was so bad it didn't get even one dem vote. Lost like 95-0.

There are lots of bills on Reid's desk he wont bring up. Wont open for discussion, ammendmants or votes. Why is that? He has majority and can make any ammendmant he wants but refuses to open hardly any. Why is that Patriot?

And why do you blame one side or the other for hostage taking? Both sides stood their ground then compromised. Its not the R's fault for the downgrade. The number was put out how many trillion had to be cut, i think 3 Trillion over 10 yrs. Reps passed a bill with 6 trillion which would have avoided the downgrade. And barely got a copromise of a little over 1 Trillion. I'm not surprised we got downgraded.

BigATC,

Dodd-Frank is an atrocity because big money interests and Wall St. have bought off the politicians that wrote it. It's effectively stripped of most of it's necessary functions. It should be basic, capital requirements and a limit on leverage, transparency, fiduciary duties on the part of lenders, and single interest banks. Done.

I don't think the argument is so much about big government versus little government. It should be about efficient government. Too small, and it's powerless. Too big, and it's inflexible. It needs to meet the interests of the people in the most efficient way. If that means growing it in places, great. If it means shrinking it in others, fantastic. Reallocate the resources to focus on the specific problems.

It's not about spend less or spend more. It's about spend smart. It's not tax less or tax more. It's about tax smart.

But efficiency and smart spending/taxing is in conflict with big money interests, there is the root of the problem.

You libbies just don't get it, about the only thing you can force to happen is leaving the country and you succeeded, the jobs are gone. The wealth is right behind them.

We have had a negative balance of trade almost every year since lbj.

Sarah to bring our debt to gdp (somehere arounrd 17 trillion now i think) we would have to shave 6 or 7 trillion off the debt and we only took in 2.2 trillion total last year i think. After the defit money of 1.2 trillion at the end off the summer, the prez just requested DEFICIT money of another 1.1 trillion. Not 1.1 total but to borrow an extra 1.1 trillion.

Tax revenue, whether raising or lowering whoever wins that argument, won't even begin to touch our deficit spending. With last years receipts the "millionaire tax" might get you 50 billion. So then a 1.45 trillion deficit instead of 1.5 trillion. Then what? The Bush era was spending about 2.5 Trillion per year on govt. Now we are spending 3.7 Trillion per year. If that doesn't just smack someone in the face that we are spending too much well ......

I also think we have just about dug ourselves into such a debt hole i don't think it will matter much who takes the reigns next year.

@Rick-312779 #3.44: NAFTA. Rest of your stuff is just uncooked buds.

Big ATC: You are to be commended. From your numerous posts, anyone can easily see you have an unusually firm grasp on all things fantastic and imaginary.

Sarah, you make a lot of financial sense. However ... don't know if you have worked for the federal govt, i have 21 years in the Corps of Engineers, DOD and the FAA. Any idea of smart spending in our federal govt is out the window. I could sit with you for an afternoon telling you story after story of the HUGE amounts of waste. It's so bad we constantly make jokes about it. The main one "if it makes sense, it aint gonna happen" is an almost daily quote.

You are 100% right big money interests get what they want. Best example, the biggest money guys on the hill (GE) basically wrote their own tax law for the "green initiative" which combined with a few other goodies got them to zero taxes.

I see it from both sides as i have had (still do some) businesses i run. Including home building with a partner and saw the train wreck coming with a banker in 2004. The people they were qualifying was rediculous. No idea it would have hit as hard as it did.

It is nice to have a conversation with someone that doesn't call people names. LOL

Correct Mac, you should see the color of the sky in my world, it's not blue it's all rosie :-)

Sarah-3043284 #3.60: You said it quite well. Lucent, insightful, and very true. Toward that end though, we must have people in power who won't continue to tell us the "cob is still corn" after they have shelled it. Regards

Kornfed,

How exactly do we want to "confiscate people's earnings"??? Through taxes? Okay, I'll make you a deal. Don't pay taxes, if you don't want to. But than you can't be protected by our emergency responders or our military. You don't get to drive on our roads or go to our schools. You don't get to use a single thing taxes pay for. You also don't get any consideration in government or to petition for a redress of your grievances. And, most importantly, you don't get to b*($*$ about spending or talk about fiscal responsibility

Kindof a get what you pay for kind of thing? I LOVE IT!!! If you pay no taxes, no government service. I think we have just found common ground!

Clint Eastwood for President 2012!

@Roy Willson

GDP growth is measured as a rate not in dollars.

For your debt/deficit comparisons to make sense they need to be done as an average % of GDP over those years specified.

Your jobs numbers are much to do about nothing. Yes politicians use them all the time but there are much better metrics to use that are more meaningful.

Not to mention your arguments are completely invalid. Many years of mistakes or achievements are needed to have large impacts on the economy, one party taking control from another is not enough to put this country into recession.

BigATC,

I know it isn't the "in" thing to have a conversation without name calling, but my mama taught me better than that, and I'm still a little afraid of her.

Perhaps I'm still a big young (though I swear not as young as I look) and haven't become a complete cynic yet, but I think this can, and eventually will, be fixed. I have a plan...

1. A 28th Amendment banning money in politics and overturning Valeo and Citizen's.

2. Reinstate Glass-Stegall.

3. Penalize corporations that utilize China's human rights violations, equalize tariff rates, get rid of their "Most Favored Nation" status and stop the currency manipulation.

4. Regulate (not strip) the labor unions.

5. Cut defense spending in half and end Afghanistan. Audit the DOD and the Fed.

6. Raise the retirement age and means test for entitlement programs.

7. Infrastructure bank, an educational system that isn't funded by property taxes, research and development, and green energy.

8. Repeal the Bush Tax Cuts on the top 5% and raise the capital gains tax rate.

9. End the exemption given to health insurance companies which allows them to not be subject to anti-trust laws. End fee for service.

10. Decriminalize all drugs and tax the hell out of them. Institute the Dream Act.

DD972 "@Roy Willson GDP growth is measured as a rate not in dollars....Not to mention your arguments are completely invalid. Many years of mistakes or achievements are needed to have large impacts on the economy, one party taking control from another is not enough to put this country into recession."

When you talk about growth, you can use either Dollars or percentages - there's no 'magic rule', because even percentages can be skewed by inflation.

Which arguments are 'invalid'? I think 30 years of results is enough to get a pretty clear picture about economic policies?

Political Parties don't cause recessions, but their policies do. With 30 years of evidence, I think it's clear that Democratic policies of more debt, regulations and taxes have resulted in slow growth of the economy, high unemployment and increased debt, while Republican policies of less onerous regulations, taxes and fiscal spending restraint have led to faster economic growth, more jobs, and less debt.

If you want to find out what's REALLY causing our slow economic growth and poor job creation, you might want to learn about the Rahn Curve, which shows that high levels of government spending leads to slow growth, while lower levels of government spending leads to faster economic growth/job creation. Basically, economic growth/job creation is maximized when government spending is about 15% - 25% of GDP, but when government spending is about 60% of GDP, economic growth basically ceases. During the fastest growth periods of American history, government spending was 'ideal', but under Obama it has increased to about 46% - a prescription for slow growth. A link is below;

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2005/03/The-Impact-of-Government-Spending-on-Economic-Growth

PS - The reason that economic growth is slower when government makes up large portions of the economy is very simple - It has to be funded with high taxes, and government is far more inefficient at spending money wisely than private industry is - because the only thing that is important to government is 'social policy', not doing something efficiently.

bedbug007 -- The ad by Eastwood is great, because though he is right-leaning he seems to understand the national security importance of preserving manufacturing in the US, the largest being the auto industry (perhaps an understanding of public policy from his time as Mayor?).

That's right, it is half-time America, and thanks to President Obama we have gotten past the first half. Now we need to reelect President Obama to continue through the second half and hearing our engines roar!

Well, if at first you don't succeed, try try again. Since his first term was so dismal, I guess he's looking to try again in his second term.

Roy Wilson-WHAT THE @!$%#?????????????????????? What the hell do you mean "Democrat" policies of more debt, more regulation, and taxes caused the high debt??? And the Republican policies of less spending, taxes, regulation was a benefit and caused LESS debt???? Are you freaking blind?? You are crazy!!!! It was the entire policy of Reaganomics that screwed up this nation in the first place!!!!!!!!

Let me put it in a way that even a fact-denying right-wing dunce can understand: It was Reagan's Republican policies that led to higher debt. He cut taxes, spent like a drunken sailor on defense budgets, and doubled the debt. The GOP is all about less spending WHEN THEY ARE NOT IN POWER. After Reagan came Bush (raised the debt), and then Clinton. Clinton's economic policies were relatively positive, except for the deregulation, but he turned a deficit into a surplus and the debt grew in the least amount since Reagan. After Clinton came Bush. Now Bush inherited a small recession, but cut taxes twice. Then, after the recession subsided, he declared war on Afghanistan in 2001 and on Iraq in 2003, passed the Medicare Part D, and spent untold billions more, and all without paying for them. He doubled the debt, left the country fiscally vulnerable to the recession, and the recession turned his expected $400 billion deficit for 2009 into one that cost $1.4 trillion (with a "t"). And the deregulation that the conservatives have propagated over the years allowed banks to get too big and the financiers to offer loans to those who could not afford them. And they think that tax cuts for the wealthy will make everything better, even though they have hurt the middle class with declining social services and increased income inequality. And yet you dare to spout right wing BS about how the GOP helped us. Ask the past 30 years of increased debt and deficits, deregulation, trickle-down economics (a form of right-wing class warfare). TO HELL WITH THE GOP!!! Let them wither and die after 2012, for they surely deserve it for the destruction that they have wrought upon this nation. TO HELL WITH TRICKLE-DOWN ECONOMICS!!!!!!!!!!!!! To hell with conservatism, tax cuts, deregulation, and the fascist right!!!!!!!!!!

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

TO HELL WITH THE FASCIST RIGHT

DEMOCRAT CONGRESS 2012

AMERICA 2012

DOWN WITH TRICKLE-DOWN ECONOMICS

CLASS WARFARE MY ASS

Doesn't that sound like a little school boy begging for a second chance????

"I DESERVE A ANOTHER TERM!"

Sounds just like, "GEE I DESERVE A SECOND CHANCE!"

Hey, we gave Dubya a second term and screw this nation some more. I say re-elect Obama, considering the recovering economy (no thanks to you obstructionist GOP jackasses).

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

My, my, and the insults are flying fast and furious. So, think you make a point better and sway more people to your way of thinking by insulting them? Generally, insults are the mark of someone rather insecure or else in need of serious anger management classes. I wonder how much support Obama gets when his supporters are so rude. Engaging in axiomatic logic: Obama supporters insult and denigrate, what does that say about Obama?

did someone mention

Dodd-Frank?

for you: "How Lobbyists Are Undermining Dodd-Frank: A Case Study"

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/95818/dodd-frank-lobbying-cftc

Freshieee "Roy Wilson-WHAT THE @!$%#?????????????????????? What the hell do you mean "Democrat" policies of more debt, more regulation, and taxes caused the high debt??? And the Republican policies of less spending, taxes, regulation was a benefit and caused LESS debt???? Are you freaking blind?? You are crazy!!!!"

I can see that FACTS are not your 'long suit', but check this out. Since the Budgets (and deficits/debt) are set by Congress (not the President), let's check the record for the last 30 years (through 2010);

Total Debt Increases when Democrats controlled Congress (12 years) = $7.600 Trillion.

Total Debt Increases when Republicans controlled Congress (10 years) = $3.328 Trillion.

Total Debt Increases when Congress was split (8 years) = $1.781 Trillion.

Also, there were a record 81,000 pages of new regulations in 2009, along with moratoriums on domestic energy production - when Democrats controlled both the Presidency and Congress. Gee, I wonder if that might have something to do with no economic/jobs growth?

You remind me of the old saying "Don't confuse me with facts, because my mind's already made up".

Gneisenau

Well, if at first you don't succeed, try try again. Since his first term was so dismal, I guess he's looking to try again in his second term.

Everyone has a right to his/her opinion, but not to their own facts. We see this from the right-wing all the time, by just saying something apparently they think it makes it so. Wow. If you can't provide FACTS of what "was so dismal" please stop wasting space and reader's time.

walkingman1 -- And there you are, crying like a little school girl.

mygirl1 -- So by your logic (or lack of it) you're saying other people's actions reflect on you? Seriously?

Roy, go troll somewhere else, or get a job.

@ TruePatriot - LOL you act like the no one from the left ever does that. Get real.

Sorry I didn't feel like I needed to post a essay. I think he is dismal as a president. I don't think he deserves a second term. I think he should be embarrassed to ASK for a second term and finally I think that anyone that wants to vote for him needs their heads examined.

Do you really think the recovery was slow because of regulations??? Current regulations are about the same as during the 1990s, especially after the repeal of Glass-Steagall. And even if regulations are higher now than in the 1990s, there is no proof of them being stifling. Do you even know a thing about economics?? This recession was THE BIGGEST the world has seen since the Great Depression in the 1930s, and it took America at least 5-10 years to make a comeback. Demand fell sharply due to the recession's cost in employment numbers; so naturally demand remained low. The government came in with several stimulus packages (TARP, Obama's stimulus, auto bailout, etc), but even those weren't large enough to plug the massive financial gap, and they unfortunately didn't do a whole lot to save jobs (although the stimulus did save or create 2 million). After the recession officially ended in 2009, job growth slowly crept back up. The reason for that small growth in hiring (and thus in the recovery itself) was mainly uncertainty and lack of demand; many businesses saw little incentive to hire due to lackluster consumption, and were scared of another downturn that could sink them. Until the recovery got stronger, growth was to be very low. And even after the recovery became firm, there were a lot of bumps on the way (Japanese earthquake, Republican credit downgrade, European debt crisis) that shook the tepid growth. It wasn't regulatory burden that slowed the recovery. Nor was it higher taxes (Taxes are the lowest since the 1950s: where are the jobs that the GOP promised that trickle-down economics and deregulation would deliver???). It was lackluster demand and uncertainty.

As for your debt argument, weren't many of the reasons that led to the mountain of the debt Republican-based???? Let's see: tax cuts for the wealth; surely a faulty right-wing concept. Deregulation; favored by conservatives and Big Business (which unfortunately has made inroads in the Democratic Party). Spending money on unnecessary projects like Medicare Part D: passed by GOP and costs over $300 billion; Bush tax cuts (had bipartisan support, but was a mostly conservative concept), which costs us $3.5 trillion every decade; wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (bipartisan, yet unpaid for even with so-called fiscal conservatives manning the CBO and Treasury Dept), which has cost us at least $1.5 trillion in combined costs (about $4 billion total every week for about 8-10 years); and a massive increase in defense spending (it is currently $1 trillion from at least $400 billion in the late 1990s). And it was the DEREGULATION of Wall Street and the housing market (conservative ideas) that destroyed our economy, not to mention draconian cuts to necessary social services to "starve the beast" or shrink government and "make everybody better off." Yeah, Republican ideas are the bomb. Why don't we just overthrow Obama and the Democrats and let the GOP take control and destroy what is left of so-called "equal opportunity" and of the American middle class.

ideology,

Fun post to begin the week.

Knights of Malta are to Knights of Columbus as Harvard is to a technical college. The difference is the cost of initiation and the fancy uniforms.

For those who really want to read the big back story I suggest:

Holy War: The crusades and their impact on today's world. by Karen Armstrong.

Ideology, terrific and fun post. So true. I'll add that according tothe GOPTP deficits do not matter unless a democrat is President.

We of course all remember when those on the right attempted this scenario with Obama when he received the Nobel Prize and thereby was ineligible to be POTUS. Good for the goose is good for the gander.

Actually it was not the Noble Prize. It was that he was Chair for the UN. But he has done so much more against the USA, against Americans, against the US Constitution since then; Things he does NOT have the power to do, but behaves as if he can, as if he is a Dictator or King. The United States has NO Dictator, nor a King; but his actions make him, and his administration all able to be arrested and prosecuted.

Get over it, People, we are NOT a Monarchy, nor are we a Dictatorship. The states gathered to form the Constitution which grants (surrenders) specifically defined powers to the Federal Government. If it was not listed in the US Constitution, the Federal Government doesn't have that power, nor can it give itself that power. The states, the People created an "entity" to serve them as a federal power representing the "United STATES of AMERICA" in areas of a more "NATIONAL" interest and that is all our federal government is, though it is taking powers it cannot have.

When those who are serving in our federal government go against the duties assigned to them by the States, the People thru the US Constitution; those people are Attacking America, Americans, the Constitution.

In the New York Ratifying Convention, Melancton Smith stated: "The state constitutions should be the guardians of our domestic rights and interests, and should be both the support and the check of the federal government."

Gilbert Livingston would add: "I conceive the state governments are necessary as the barrier between the people's liberties and any invasion which may be attempted on them by the general government."

In Federalist Essay No. 26 Alexander Hamilton stated: "The State legislatures, who will always be not only vigilant but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens against encroachments from the federal government…will be ready enough, if anything improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not only be the voice, but if necessary, the arm of their discontent."

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."

Knine ... Do you know what the internet is all about? It is not about to prove our misconceptions. Let me put it simply ... when you arrive at a bus stop named here I am, it is time to change buses.

ideologyspoilstheview, Knine ... Do you know what the internet is all about? It is not about to prove our misconceptions.

Yes I do know what it is about. It is where we go to practice free speech (while we still can), to learn (lots of colleges on the net), to share what we learned, to share what we "think" (such as you with the above statement), it's used to promote views; to educate others when a glaring lack or a deliberate misguided concept was promulgated such as is normally done with mainstream news only being allowed (correct term used here) to put forth or NOT put forth what is actually going on in the USA.

My turn ideaologyspoilstheview. Do you really know what our Constitution is about or are you misguided with ideas that those serving in our government can legally do what they have been doing?

Did you realize that the founding fathers, the framers believed that the Rights listed (and others not listed there) in the US Constitution are our "natural god-given" Rights? That the Constitution was created to define the way our government will operate; that it is a grant of power to, the blueprint for the structure of our federal government. That the Bill of Rights sets limits on our federal government, making clear it has NO power to infringe on rights we already naturally possess, or to limit traditionally held privileges, such as trial by jury. The Constitution only grants our federal government certain, specified, LIMITED powers.

The framers wanted to make sure everyone understood that the Constitution only grants the feds prescribed, specific, enumerated powers; and that our federal government may not exercise any powers not granted by the US Constitution.

The first 8 amendments making up the Bill of Rights specify Rights and privileges the federal government may not in any way abridge (take away). It puts into writing the protections of life liberty and property; plus the specific privileges in the judicial system already accepted in Anglo-American law.

9th Amendment clarifies tthe limiting nature of the Constitution on our fed government: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The 10th Amendment says who has the power: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"