E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSTampa Bay Times: “I was a stranger and you invited me in. Evangelicals nationwide are turning their Bibles to Matthew 25:35 and praying that Congress is listening to those words — part of a highly-coordinated effort to spur progress on the long unresolved and contentious issue of immigration. Faith leaders and their congregations have become an unlikely but powerful ally to reform advocates, framing the question over what to do with 11 million unauthorized residents as one of moral compassion, and tapping into influence among Republicans to soften opposition to a pathway to citizenship.”
“Some of the nation's most prominent Republican governors have moved to embrace a key feature of President Obama's healthcare law, providing a significant boost to the administration and highlighting a fissure inside the GOP on an emerging campaign issue. At stake is the goal of expanding health insurance under the Medicaid program, one of two main ways the law is to provide coverage to those who lack it,” The Los Angeles Times writes. “The opposition governors say that despite the federal promise to pay the full cost of expansion for the first three years and 90% thereafter, the change eventually could lead to unsustainable costs. But the unified strategy has begun to crack in recent days. This week, GOP Govs. John Kasich of Ohio and Rick Snyder of Michigan announced they would support the expansion, bringing the number of Republicans in favor of it to six.”
Leave a Comment:
Secure the borders then we can talk but not until then.
Agreed. I guess that means they won't be talking though.
Unfortunately you are probably right but being from a border state I must "Keep hope alive!"
The Republicans should just stick to two simple messages and keep repeating them;
1 - The skyrocketing Debt will be devastating to the future of our children.
2 - The massive increases in the money supply to fund the Deficits will result in massive Inflation, high Interest Rates, and more Unemployment.
These are simple messages that even the 'low information voters' will understand, and there is no doubt that we will have to deal with these problems in the near future.
Obama's own 2013 Budget projections show that the National Debt will increase from $9.986 Trillion at the end of fiscal 2008 to $20.392 Trillion at the end of 2016 (Obama's last year) - but President's budget projections are notoriously 'optimistic' - it will likely be closer to $25 Trillion in 2016. The Interest cost alone will be devastating.
The Chinese are no longer buying our Debt - in fact, they have quietly 'cashed in' about $200 Billion of their loans to us over the last year (they know inflation is coming), and the Federal Reserve has had to replace that money by effectively 'printing new money' - along with about $1 Trillion in new money to finance the Deficit. The money supply (M1) has increased from about $1.4 Trillion in 2009 to about $2.5 Trillion now. Every responsible economist will tell you that this is highly "INFLATIONARY" - ala the 14% Inflation and 18% Interest Rates under Jimmy Carter in 1980.
All of the 'hype' about the Republicans needing to court the Hispanic over the immigration issue is misguided.
In 2008, McCain strongly courted the Hispanic vote - even proposing his own version of 'comprehensive immigration reform', and got only 31% of the Hispanic vote. In 2012, Romney did NOT overtly seek the Hispanic vote, and got 27% of the Hispanics vote - THAT'S NOT MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE. In fact, it only resulted in about a 700,000 vote difference against Romney - that's only about one half of 1% of the vote.
Hispanics are far more interested in the same things as other Americans - JOBS, and on that issue, Obama has been a huge FAILURE, but the media keeps hiding the truth - which is as follows, according to the official government Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS.gov);
Average number of people working in 2008 (including job losses at end of year) = 136,794,000.
Average number of people working in 2012 = 133,254,000 That's a LOSS of more than 3.5 million jobs after 4 long years - something that the media has been careful NOT to report.
Roy, the unimployment rate is down from when he took office. Maybe it isn't as low as we all would like but with the Republicans in Congress obstructing jobs bills proposed by the President and the Democrats that is doing pretty good. That said I would like to know just what YOU think the President of the United States can do single handedly to create millions of jobs instantly. The POTUS cannot spend a dime without Congressional approval. He can't hire his cabinet, ambassadors or other aides without advise and consent of the Senate. Last I heard the Senate was part of the Congress.
I don't know where you live but where I live the stimulus money, shovel ready programs, have gone well. They put people to work and in Silicon Valley, California they have nearly recovered fully to pre-dot come bubble levels and growing. The stock market has had more bull days than bear days too. That should show you that people have confidence in what is happening in America.
The trouble these days is that people want instant gratification on everything and when things aren't instant they look for someone to blame. Good things come to those who wait. So be patient, my friend, enjoy life and don't get your knickers in a twist. Somehow that just isn't very comfortable.
baldeagle11 "Roy, the unimployment rate is down from when he took office....The POTUS cannot spend a dime without Congressional approval."
Wrong. The Unemployment Rate for Bush's last full month in office (December 2008) was 7.3%.
It is now 7.9%.
Nice try though - I suspect the Unemployment Rate will be above Bush's last full month in office for every one of Obama's 8 years in office. Time will tell.
As for the Deficits and spending, Obama had full control of Congress for his first two years, but let's accept your 'premise' that it's Congress, not the President that is responsible for the Budget spending (and Deficits) - let's look at the results for Democratic and Republican Congresses;
Who's REALLY best for economic growth, and who's better at job creation and controlling Deficits?
Since I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican (I didn't vote for Bush or McCain), I decided to try to find the answer to that question. I started with the premise that it's Congress that sets the Budget each year and determines the level of spending in any given year and the laws/policies that affect revenues, deficits and job creation (As President Obama recently said to Congress “It's not MY job to pass a Budget”). The President is not allowed to spend a penny that has not been authorized by Congress. Congress also is the branch that is able to pass any legislation that might affect economic growth and job creation – The President can only sign it, or veto it. The analysis covers a relatively long time period (31 continuous years) so short term fluctuations are negated.
So let's take a look at the results for who controlled Congress over the last 31 years (1981-2011) (15.5 Congresses of 2 years each, during which time the Democrats had control for 12 years, the Republicans for 10 years, and there was a 'split' of the House and Senate for 9 years. The results, when looking at average growth rates for the economy, average debt increase, the average unemployment rate and the number of jobs created by political party are interesting. Here they are, for better or worse.
ECONOMIC GROWTH RATE (Average per year)
Democrats = 3.73% per year
Republicans = 5.56% per year
Split Control = 6.28% per year
TOTAL DEBT INCREASE ($13,892 Billion or $13.892 Trillion – 94% of total Debt)
Democrats = $7,601 Billion ($633 Billion per year) = 55% of the Debt
Republicans = $3,238 Billion ($324 Billion per year) = 23% of the Debt
Split Control = $3,052 Billion ($339 Billion per year) = 22% of the Debt
TOTAL NUMBER OF NET JOBS CREATED (40,630,000)
Democrats = 8,605,000 (717,000 jobs per year) = 21% of Jobs Created
Republicans = 23,239,000 (2,324,000 jobs per year) = 57% of Jobs Created
Split Control = 8,786,000 (976,000 jobs per year) = 22% of Jobs Created
AVERAGE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
Democrats = 6.61% per year
Republicans = 4.96% per year
Split Control = 7.56% per year
I'll let you draw your own conclusions as to which party is best for economic/job growth and controlling debt, but these are the FACTS from official government sources over a fairly long period of time - 31 years – not a few 'cherry picked dates' to develop a 'spin'.
Sources;
Economic Growth Rate – Obama White House Historical Tables (2012 Budget)
Deficits and Debt – Obama White House Historical Tables (2012 Budget)
Jobs Created – Official Government Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS.gov)
Unemployment Rate – Official Government Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS.gov)
Do you really want to be that dishonest Roy, unemployment hadn't bottomed out yet, matter of fact nothing had bottomed out yet, from the Bush recession and you want to blame Obama for what Bush did or didn't do. Shame on you.
Republicans: Immigration, health care...
Is that an oxytrion?
Hey Roy... Do you suppose the effects of successful legislation and related spending approvals are immediate?... The way you've arranged your data does...
Think man! Think!
You missed the greatest, most obvious, and most variable variable of all in your scientific analysis.
Nice try though.
Ozzie, Do you have that cost estimate pulled together for the full securing of the border and ongoing maintenence?
How far will the fence go into the sky? Will we have a band of permanent darkness along the bottom edge of our border states because of it? New Polar Bear habitat maybe?
How far will the fence extend out into the seas on either side? Will we be able to drill oil from it to cover some of the costs?
And finally... How far will a dullard go to avoid taking any REASONABLE steps??
Derf Derf! I'm a republican't... We can't work on immigration until you give us our unicorn!!... And we also think that broadcasting that level of ignorance around doesn't make us look stupid...
Johntho
Check the record. First time claims for Unemployment peaked before Obama took office at 957,791, and had dropped by more than 35% from their peak to 620,143 for the week Obama took office, so it was nothing 'magical' that Obama did to 'turn things around'.
chick binder "Hey Roy... Do you suppose the effects of successful legislation and related spending approvals are immediate?"
No, but we should expect that we might see some improvement after 4+ years. As of last month, we still have fewer people working than we did in December 2008 (Bush's last full month in office).
Immediate? No.
After 4+ years? Yes.
Oh, and by the way - How about that Debt, which is now $16.5 Trillion, vs only $9.986 Trillion at the end of fiscal 2008 (according to the Obama White House - see Obama's 2013 Budget - Historical Figures). That's $6.5 Trillion of Deficit spending, with no progress and no end in sight.
Perhaps it's time to stop 'making excuses' for Obama's failures.
Nice try though. lol
chick binder "Republicans: Immigration, health care...Is that an oxytrion?"
No, but the terms 'Progressive' - (formerly Liberal) and 'Progress' certainly are oxymorons.
Interestingly, even the terms 'Liberal' (Classically - freedom from control by a central government) and the modern meaning of a 'Liberal' (Government control of our lives) is also a 'contradiction'.
You guys are like a broken record. Secure the boarders, cut, cut, cut. What are you going to do when Frank Luntz isn't around to give you your buzz words to keep repeating? You're like your fearless leader in the house Boehner, the only line he knows is "we have a spending problem", he's been repeating that line for two years now. It just shows how shallow you two and Boehner are.
Oh you mean like your mantra of "the rich have to pay their fair share" we have heard for at least four years? By the way, what is fair? I have never heard a definition. And what is fair for the 21% (not the full 47% as I know where the rest of them are) who pay nothing and in a lot of cases get back more than they pay in, that use and have the same government supplied things that all of us do? What is their fair share?
How about this Talk, the top 5% own 80% of all the wealth in this country. Fair would be to charge them 80% to live here. Now that is fair isn't it?
So your argument is to go back to the "47% don't pay any taxes" line Talk to the Hand? Like I said, what are you going to post when Frank Lunz isn't around to give you your talking points?
Good Job Johntho, but don't confuse Talk with numbers. He's confuse enough already.
Well that's a starting point Johntho. Unfortunately they don't get 80% of the benefit that the whole country does through those tax dollars. Seems to me when it comes to education, police, fire, infrastructure we all benefit about the same. We can at least work from there. Now, how about the lower 5% of the remaining 20% of the wealth holders. What is their fair share to live here? They have to pay something.
Ahhhh collectivism. Thy name is liberal.
The hell they don't get the benefit, how do you think they amass that kind of fortune? From the blood, sweat and tears of other people, the workers who now only get a pittance. You don't see the difference between a billion and a few thousand, how would I expect you to know about much.
Ah fascism in the name of conservatism.
Talk to the Hand
"Oh you mean like your mantra of "the rich have to pay their fair share" we have heard for at least four years? By the way, what is fair? I have never heard a definition. And what is fair for the 21% (not the full 47% as I know where the rest of them are) who pay nothing and in a lot of cases get back more than they pay in, that use and have the same government supplied things that all of us do? What is their fair share?"
Well TTTH... "Their fair share" as determined by people a LOT more qualified than you, is determined by the tax code that rates them as not having enough for the government to take some of. Pretty simple really, and likely why it escapes you. All of their money flows back into the economy. Saying the Government needs more money and looking down your nose at the poor at the same time is a repugnican trademark. One that deservedly earns them the nickname "repugnants".
Defending the wealthy while being used as their door-mats is also a repugnican trademark. I suppose the rich should pay less of a percentage of their annual take in taxes than you do, right? Cuz they're job creators, right?
Many folks see that the majority of the Country moving away from their way of thinking. For whatever reason they are scared to death of the Progressive movement and they are fighting to deny it.
People are waking up and seeing the light. It is good that these governors, and hopefully others will see what we've known all along.
Those touting themselves as Christians are finally acting like it with Matthew 25:35. This is a very importnant passage and we should live that all the time. The generosity expressed in the passage has been part of American life for centuries and lately the Democrats have been living it. Now if we could get the Republicans to mend their greedy ways (extremists that is) and come around to being generous, kind and more like He who the Gospel of Matthew is all about.