Peter, do you think we'd be further ahead right now had Obama not implemented TARP (saved commercial credit industry from collapse), not implemented the Stimulus (2m jobs), not saved the auto manufacturers (500k + jobs) and not given payroll tax cuts to the middle class?

Really?

It took 10 years and WWII to get us out of the great depression. This is the worst set of economic circumstances since then...do you really think it will resolve itself 100% in 3 years?

Hey Peter - even if all those numbers are true, how do you think the unemployment rate got so high? Any clue? You think all that happened the day after President Obama took office? Here's more numbers: the month BEFORE Obama took office, we lost 750,000 jobs. For the past CONTINUOUS 26 months, there has been job growth--jobs added each month. Unemployment rate is less now than when he took office. We can't afford another rightwing nutcase in the White House. OBAMA/BIDEN 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The unemployment rate in Feb 2008 was under 5%. It did not go above 6% until Aug 2008 as the financial crisis hit. Companies dramatically cut back when it became clear we would have a recession caused by the breaking of the housing bubble and when it became clear we would have our first anti-business President EVER when Obama took office. Companies made far bigger cutbacks because of Obama's anti-business, class-warfare agenda.

One of the most important thing to do in a recession is to try and keep corporations and individuals with money to spend doing just that - spending. Obama took the opposite approach and even had CEOs sending out e-mails to their management teams asking them to dial back their personal spending to avoid Obama's rath from the White House podium. Obama's stupid anti-business, anti-weath rhetoric cost millions their jobs.

Peter, I'm not sure how you can honestly call Obama an anti-business president when he did so much to spur the recovery. TARP, Stimulus, auto bailouts, all good for business, not bad.

What Obama initiatives, exactly, would you call anti-business?

TARP came from Paulson and Bush, not Obama. But it was really Bernanke who saved the day. He used a provision in the law that created the Fed, "exigent circumstances", to pump trillions of dollars into the financial system to unfreeze the credit markets. There was, and still is, no theoritical limit to how much they could pump in. Even $100 trillion if they wish. That was when the markets settled down and the expression "You Can't Fight the Fed" was born.

Contrast that economic power with the $800 stimilus spent out over 3 years, about $25 billion per month in a $15 trillion economy - peanuts. Not enough to move the needle much at all. GM and Chrysler went bankrupt. All Obama did was bail out the unions. The real hero was Bernanke, and neither political party.

Peter- You are one of those that no matter what Obama does would not be satisfied.

Are you an angry white man that resents we have an intelligent black president? Perhaps you can't deal with the reality of a diverse world.

I am glad Obama was elected. We would have been on the streets with financial devastation had McCain won. God forbid anything happened to him and we ended up with Palin.

Maritza: Oh no you dint! Conservatives NEVER bring up race. The liberals are obsessed with race. WE DON"T CARE THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA IS BLACK!. Obviously you do though. We don't like his policies. The end!

Peter17 - Except if you want true comparisons you compare this to 1929 thru 1945. That's the comparision you need to make, 2008 was 1929. You do that comparison the numbers look really good.

In case you aren't familar the only time in history the numbers looked this bad was right after 1929. It resulted with GOP leadership in 25% unemployment, and it took 15 years to recover.

Peter - you must be damaging their fragile belief system, as you have been accused of being racist because you have a difference of opinion.

In the early 1980s during that deep, double dip recession where unemployment hit a peak of 10.8% and was above 10% for 10 months, it took only 13 months for Reagan’s policies to get the unemployment rate back under 8% after that peak. This last recession peaked at an unemployment rate of 10.2% in Oct 2009 and was above 10% for only 3 months. As of Apr 2012 we have been above an 8% unemployment rate for 39 months, and unlike Reagan, it is still above 8% some 30 months after the unemployment rate peaked in 2009. So Obamanomics has been unable to accomplish in 30 months what Reaganomics was able to achieve in 13 months.

Peter

Reaganomics? You mean that trickle down stuff? What a joke. We middle classers are still waiting. When Bush took office in 2000 unemployment rate was 4%. When he left 7.6% - an increase of 3.6%. Unemployment in Dec.09 was 10% - 3 yrs. later 8.1%. At least when Reagan was in office, Congress was still willing to work with the President to help the country along. Too bad Obama didn't have the same luxury. He's done a hell of a job considering he mostly did it by himself.

We, and Obama, continue to enjoy low inflation and low interest rates because of Reagan. Both were at double digit levels back in the early 1980s. It seems that some refuse to remember how bad it was back then or refuse to do the research. Think about home loans at 17%. That is what they were. You could get an 8% raise and not keep up with inflation.

Peter, the current low interest rates and inflation have ZERO to do with anything that happened 30 years ago.

Really a pretty silly statement.

What do you think that our economy would look like if 10 year and 30 year treasuries were at 10% or more instead of just 2% and 3%?? We have a total national debt of almost $16 trillion. An additional 7% of interest on U.S. treasuries would increase the interest on the national debt an additional $1.1 trillion per year. That is just the ADDITIONAL interest, and that is about the total amount of revenue the IRS collects every year in individual federal income tax. Our economic system would collapse under that scenario.

Peter, what exactly did Reagan do to lower interest rates and keep them so low for over 30 years now?

After Reagan took office we were just coming out of a recession, but interest rates and inflation were extremely high. Volker was at the Fed. Volker told Reagan what would be needed, and that was dramatically increasing interest rates furthur. Both men must have known that it would throw the country back into a double-dip recession, but Reagan backed Volker preferring to take the risk of short term pain to get long term gain. Unemployment rates skyrocketed and remained about 10% for almost a year. We had a very deep recession, but it worked. That is why we are able to enjoy low interest rates and low inflation today. Credit should also be given to the Fed over the last 30 years for keeping a pretty tight reign on inflation and interest rates.

I'm not sure that any politician today from either party would take that kind of action knowing how many people would suffer as a result. That is why we have such a huge debt problem to deal with, plus Medicare and Medicaid that cannot be maintained without total restructuring. Few are willing to make the tough decisions.

Funny,

Bush had eight years to fix all of this.

There actually was no real budget surplus under Clinton. The national debt has increased evey year since 1957 when Eisenhower was in the White House. Budget gimmicks have been used by EVERY recent President to make their budgets look better, but they are an illusion. Budget gimmicks and off-budget spending do not make for a real balanced federal budget.

Bush did not have 8 years to "fix" things. Bush got unemployment rates down to 4.6%, but then Pelosi and Reid took control of Congress in Jan 2007, with Obama in the Senate, and that is when the economy began to falter.

Peter like a good party child, you forgot about the dotcom bubble, the housing bubble and the bad housing fiance bubble. Some how you GOP types forgoet everything, unlike the elephant that you use for symbolic reasons.

Peter, exactly what did Pelosi and democrat Congress do that created the world-wide recession?

Be specific.

Mark Thomas-371822

I don't know if you can blame Pelosi for all of this but it was definitely democrats.

First Arthur Leavitt of the SEC allowed Citi Corp and The Travelers Group to Merge in 1998 which was in violation of Glass-Steagal.

Then the democrats forced the amendment of a beefed up version of CRA to Gramm-Leach-Bliley that was passed to legalize that merger.

Then Bill Clinton ignored the warnings of Brooksley Born and instead took the advice of his Council of Economic advisers and prevented regulation of the derivatives market.

Then Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schummer and the Congressional Black caucus fought all attempts to bring the offending institutions under regulation. Not only that but demonized any attempt at regulation as racist.

Then the democrat controlled congress dumped around 5 trillion in toxic paper on the market in late 2007.

Would you like to see if I can come up with some more? If you would like I can provide you with links but so far you liberals have chosen to ignore them.

Actually the recession of 2000 was caused by the Supreme Court's decision to steal the election away from Gore. Wall Street and the Banking community knew Bush was a moron and clamped down on lending. Then Bush decided rathe than to coninue paying down the debt, he would cut taxes, then 9-11 happened on Bush's watch, no tax money coming in and then he decides to try to steal Iraq's oil, two unfunded wars, + Medicare Part D and lack of oversight of the theives on Wall Street, and viola! financial collapse. them republican sure am smart.

RUBIO the liar.

Not to mention his personal use of his Repub Amercian Express card.

Even I as a mere mortal know you don't do that!

Stupid

Let's cut the crap. ask Romney if he really believes that the Native Americans are the lost tribes of Isreal, that Joseph Smith actually received the word of God in the form of the Book Of Mormon. if he answers yes to any of those questions, he is not fit to be President of the U.S.

Then for any republican candidate, ask them if they really believe that God created the earth in 7 days, and if we are all just products of the incest between Adam's sons and daughters, and if so, is that sin? Ask them if they truly believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old. If they answer in the affirmative, then you have one of the original Salem Witch hunters, and a decendant of the people who persecuted Galileo for proving the earth wasn't the center of the universe.

Funny, the same could have been said for Barack Obama 6 years ago. Just sayin'.

The truth is in the numbers, not opinions.

After the end of the 2001 recession Clinton left for Bush to deal with, from 2002 to 2007, the last year before the financial meltdown, the real economy expanded by $1.77 trillion, or 15.2%. Jobs increased by 7.77 million, the unemployment rate dropped to 4.6%, business investment surged 38%, and personal net worth soared 56%. I would say that is a pretty good result. Of course, in Jan 2007, Pelosi and Reid, with Obama in the Senate, took control of the Congress, and that is when the economy started to falter.

Peter, exactly what did Pelosi and democrat congress do that created the world-wide recession?

Specifically, not atmospherics or rhetoric.

Well Peter that depends on where you get your truth from doesnt it??? I have NEVER seen those statistics... What agency did you get them from??? Or did you get them from Glen Beck or sean Hannity????

Try looking on government websites - that is where the data is. You won't find it on move on dot org.

On January 26, 2005, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (S.190) was first introduced in the Senate by Sen. Chuck Hagel (Republican). The Senate legislation was an effort to reform the existing GSE regulatory structure in light of the recent accounting problems and questionable management actions leading to considerable income restatements by the GSE's. After being reported favorably by the Senate's Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in July 2005, the bill was never considered by the full Senate for a vote. Sen. John McCain's decision to become a cosponsor of S.190 almost a year later in 2006 was the last action taken regarding Sen. Hagel's bill in spite of developments since clearing the Senate Committee. Sen. McCain pointed out that Fannie Mae's regulator reported that profits were "illusions deliberately and systematically created by the company's senior management" in his floor statement giving support to S.190. Fearing that mortgages would no longer be available to people who were unable to pay them back, Democrats refused to allow the bill to be considered and eventually killed the legislation after they took control of Congress in Jan 2007. Congress was well aware of the housing bubble, and Reid and Pelosi refused all attempts to deal with it. "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts.

Peter, you make vague claims but never provide any substantiation, such as how Pelosi caused the world-wide recession and how Reagan reduced free-market interest rates and inflation and kept them so low for 30 years.

Why is that. Are you keeping it a secret or are your claims nothing more than rhetoric?

I don't believe I said that Pelosi caused a world-wide recession. That was done by politicians from both political parties, financial institutions that took on too much risk, regulators who fell asleep at the switch, and individual borrowers who overextended themselves. But the warning signs were there, and both Pelosi and Reid refused to take action that might have lessened the impact of the breaking of the housing bubble. They also porked up the federal budget far beyond what was need in a period when unemployment stood at just 4.6% in order to funnel money to their special interest groups.

I don't know if you can blame Pelosi for all of this but it was definitely democrats.

First Arthur Leavitt of the SEC allowed Citi Corp and The Travelers Group to Merge in 1998 which was in violation of Glass-Steagal.

Then the democrats forced the amendment of a beefed up version of CRA to Gramm-Leach-Bliley that was passed to legalize that merger.

Then Bill Clinton ignored the warnings of Brooksley Born and instead took the advice of his Council of Economic advisers and prevented regulation of the derivatives market.

Then Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schummer and the Congressional Black caucus fought all attempts to bring the offending institutions under regulation. Not only that but demonized any attempt at regulation as racist.

Then the democrat controlled congress dumped around 5 trillion in toxic paper on the market in late 2007.

Would you like to see if I can come up with some more? If you would like I can provide you with links but so far you liberals have chosen to ignore them.

Glad to see you have it figured out. You have changed my mind.

Where is Romney's birth certificate? If his mother was a Mexican, is he really a legal citizen? Why did he change his name to Mittens? Why did Mittens say he worked his way through college when in fact his father paid for it? Why won't he release his tax returns? Why did he claim capital gains income at Bain when he himself didn't actually invest any of his own money?

Bottom line, what is Willard Romney hiding?

I want to see Mitt Romoney's birth certificate and his tax returns. (I think Mitt's an anchor baby!)

Someone just asked Mittbot how much he paid in International taxes and he said he didn't know. Whatadouche!

Sorry guys I am not a whack job birther.

I ask BHO for his grades in college and law school, not a birth certificate. I want to be able to properly vet all the candidates fully and properly this time around.

The only negative thing you can say about Mitt is that he has money, and shame on anyone to marginalize someone based on their success.

Why do you need to see his grades?

Does his grade in, say, English literature mean anything to you?

BTW, one negative thing you can say about Mitt is that he paid capital gains tax on what was actually ordinary income. Based on his accumulated wealth, I'd say he owes the US goverment around $20m.

That in addition to the fact that he'll say just about anything to day to be elected, regardless of what he said yesterday.

I also took great umbrage at him personally insulting Jimmy Carter. Policy insults are one thing, personal insults are another. It's very unbecoming of a presidential candidate.

Glad to see your an accountant. Tim Geitner does not really care about people that pay their taxes on time anyway.

My point is that he brings nothing to the table.

MCritic -

So why the interest in Obama's grades? He's obviously smarter than most running for political office, he can speak off-the-cuff better than ALL candidates could, he was head of the Harvard Law Review - not handed out for fun. So what's the issue?

mobama, you didn't answer. why are you so interested in what he got in Poli-Sci 101?

Yes I do want to see his grades.

Susie Q. He is a very good speaker when the teleprompter does not malfunction. Too bad speech is not a per-cursor for success. And if there is not issue and he is the brilliant guy, then what is their to hide?

nonsense!!! Pure & simple.

Please be serious. Our equity markets reflect the global economy, not the U.S. economy. Fortune 500 Companies now get over 60% of both their revenues and profits in other countries, and those percentages are growing. The big gains being made by these international corporations is overseas. Obama had nothing to do with it, unless you want to give him credit for driving more and more companies to expand overseas due to anti-business policies in this country.

If what you say is true, then why do you love Obama so much? If Obama just carried on the GWB policies that were good for business and runs the common man over, then why would you continue to support him?

Peter, you are funny. All the good things that happen aren't related to Obama and democrats and all the bad things are, even though both are part of a FREE market economy.

First off.... My post had NOTHING to do with me agreeing with or NOT agreeing with Obama's policies... I simply dont understand the nature of your beef saying OBAMA is the cause and why the economy isnt booming!!! WHICH LEGISLATIONS AND REGS ARE SLOWING THE ECONOMY??? That all I want to know... Then tell me WHY they are in place....

Whomever is President must run for a second term based on the reality of what is happening in the country. We can all argue about just how much any President can impact various aspects of the economy, but as a politically adept President said just about 20 years ago when trying to unseat the Republican President running for a second term - "It's the Economy Stupid". When you occupy the top job you will be held accountable.

Sir I am neither a facist or a xenophobe, I am a Libertarian American that recognizes that both the left and the right make it their duty to step all over the constitution. Unfortunately Ron Paul could not get the nomination, so I am left with Mitt, since I have never been able to find a Democrat that believes in the individuals right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Go on and keep on believing what you will, but so mot label me a righty.

Obama has more experience being president than anyone, except Bush I, who is statutorily qualified to be president.

And he got that experience during the worst set of political, economic and international circumstances in almost 100 years.

You don't get that kind of experience lending money to Staples and closing factories.

All that experience and he is still incompetent at the job, an even bigger reason to send him packing in November.

By any objective measure Peter, Obama has done a pretty good job. Not perfect but considering the challenges (not the least of which was and continues to be an opposition party whose #1 goal is to ensure his failure, regarless of the cost to the country).

Employment up, stock market up, one war stopped, one being stopped, commerical credit industry in tact, two of the largest US manufactuers solvent and prospering, international relations largely repaired...not bad for 3 years amidst the worst possible set of circumstances.

Imagine if GOP had helped instead of hindered the nation's progress.

Mark Thomas-371822

I have to assume that you agree that it was not Bush's fault for the financial meltdown since you did not bother to respond to the reasons I posted.

There is a large quantity of the GOP talking about doing away with social security and medicare. If the elderly are to close minded to see through the Republican polices and keep voting for the GOP they deserve have their benefits eliminated.

Romney essentially defended Rush for his comments about the "slut" who dared voice her opinions. He did nothing to support his political strategist who was gay.

The guy has no spine. He blows with the wind.

Mark LOL No spine??? Are you for real? I know Mitt had waffled on some issues. Mainly since he was in a drawn out primary, but lets not go down the spine trail.

Obama promised to close Gitmo (did not happen)

Obama was against Super-PAC money (he has a super-PAC)

Obama promised entitlement reform (where is that?)

Obama vetoed the Keystone pipeline (while taking money from both Big Labor and the environmental lobby)

These are just a few. Before calling the challenger Mitt spineless, lets qualify this to say all politician's mouths write checks that their asses cannot cash.

You work for FOX don't you? If not, you should call and see if they are hiring.

Dude you nailed it! China= dirt cheap labor and no environmental policy.

Is that why the GOP says this isn't Europe?

Caused by hugh cuts! sound familiar, Republicans