Is That All You've Got, Mr. President? | CNSnews.com

good point indeed, Boud.

Boudicea
Probably be more of a big deal if people could actually afford to be buying a home. See Runner #3. Knowing this admin they put in a surcharge and then they will give a tax credit or refund.

If you had any idea of what they've done to the FHA financing fees over the last year and a half you'd realize that NOBODY is going to be able to afford an FHA loan soon.

President Obama said that the price of electricity would skyrocket, when coal fired plants were shut down. It's happening.

The price of electricity is jacking up the price of food, housing, and everthing else.

The price of electricity is jacking up the price of food, housing, and everthing else.

That is pure Bull @!$%#. Here in MO land electricity prices have been cut and we have almost entirely coal fired plants.

The price of electricity is jacking up the price of food, housing, and everthing else.

President Obama: "The cost of electricity will skyrocket".

I do not care what your silly links say that is NOT happening in MO land a RED state.

Jack, did you miss the -first- part of the comment you quoted from which said:

President Obama said that the price of electricity would skyrocket, when coal fired plants were shut down.

so you respond with:

Here in MO land electricity prices have been cut and we have almost entirely coal fired plants.

So, since you still have almost entirely coal fired plants your plants have not been shut down. Therefore, the statement made by WW as I quoted above obviously doesn't apply to you in your state. When your coal fired plants are shut down and you are primarily electric...then tell us if electricity prices sky rocket or not. Until then, it doesn't apply to you in your state so your rebuttal doesn't apply to what WW stated.

Until then, it doesn't apply to you in your state so your rebuttal doesn't apply to what WW stated.

His link name Oregon which is predominantly hydro power and in the link

The plants, which are in Cleveland, Ashtabula, Oregon and Eastlake in Ohio, Adrian, Pa. and Williamsport, Md., will be retired by Sept. 1. They have generated about 10 percent of the electricity produced by FirstEnergy over the last three years, the company said.

These plants are money losers to start with.

This company is only in it for the profit which is why public utilities should be public and not for profit.

Being that this is just math, and there are only so many federal spending dollars, where do you think the money is coming from?

Because the tax cut does not blow a hole in the trust fund

If nothing changes the fund will be able to pay out full benefits until 2037 and then it will still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits. That is all if nothing at all changes.

We, like all businesses and households, borrow when we need to make large purchases. Do we have a large debt, yes we do, is it earning a large interest, yes it is, is it one of the most reliable and heavily purchased bonds on the planet- why yes it is, and you know why, because we have the means to pay it down. Does spending need to be cut, yes it does, but what spending? The tax cuts were supposed to be temporary, and were specifically designed to prevent paying off the debt - they need to expire, that said, would it be harmful to the economy if those at the top end had their cuts expire first? Nope, they are the least likely to actually spend that money in any meaningful way. however the tax cuts for the rest go directly back into the economy and drive job creation. So if we need to choose there, it seems pretty simple, unless you are a republican.

Should we cut military spending- yes- we have finally gotten out of Iraq and working toward getting out of Afghanistan, time to go back to 2001 levels at the very least.

Do the massively profitable oil and coal companies really need hundreds of billions in subsidies? - Nope. Let's split that, half to the debt have re-invested into renewable sources, infrastructure and technology that will actually make us energy independent.

Does it make any sense at all to pay farmers to not grow food or to grwo corn that cannot be eaten? - No. Time to legalize hemp and use that highly versatile plant for all we already know how to make from it and discover some new ones. Also, long past time for the legalization of marijuana on the same schedule as alcohol for regulation.

Blow up medicare part D, buy prescriptions that provide the highest quality for the lowest price available - free market!

Roll Medicare, medicaid and all state medical plans into a national, not-for-profit public option, using a progressive schedule to the medicare tax. Everybody has basic health insurance, all preventative or emergency treatment at no out of pocket, if you want expanded coverage, you pay a premium through the plan or find your own private coverage for it. No unpaid bills and a focus on preventative care drives down health care costs.

Increase the retirement age by 2 months every year for the next 24 years. Add means testing for payouts. Expand the social security tax to the first $1million dollars in earnings and add .1% tax for the funds on capital gains.

Encourage states to pass laws regarding the maintenance of foreclosed properties. The lien holder must maintain the property or pay the difference in lost property values.

We are going to have to build our way out of the trough.

That's not what I asked. I asked where is the money being diverted from. There is a specific answer.

Sebbydad,

Good points. The problem with the House and Senate, and to some extent the executive office is hashing the solution out.

This of course is not easy, and requires "work".

We have in this country, many super-computers we could leverage to model out the solution that benefits us all, but the Republicans appear more concerned about the most wealthy, and the corporate wealth they are so beholden to.

This is not just a Federal problem, but a State problem, as you correctly indicated by encouraging states to pass laws regarding the maintenance of foreclosed properties. And that's just one of them.

But due to the lack of intellect of many of the state's governors, we the people might just have to rise and start occupying more and more of the states' capitals until we are heard.

This is not a left or right issue. This is our country for Christ's Sake that we are destroying by doing nothing.

you might want to talk to your local oil company, since the President has no say in oil

He sure as hell can influence it greatly, but just screwed his country out of 20 thousand jobs, friendly Canadian oil, cheaper fuel prices, billions in refining revenues and less dependents on his communist cronies. All the while, endangering our sea's by forcing the crude to be shipped to China...nice. My horse has more sense than this.

He sure can make a difference, but NO.....he once again bowed down to his environazi donors and his absurd green machine. He just cost America a brighter future, all by himself. But he and Michelle sure do throw a great party.

Sebbydad - Great analysis of where we are and where we need to go. Needless to say, the Tea Party types in Congress will be choking on their tricorner hats rather than cooperate though. Vote 'em all out and let them find something useful to do for once in their lives.

Obama 2012

FreedomRanger

you might want to talk to your local oil company, since the President has no say in oil

He sure as hell can influence it greatly, but just screwed his country out of 20 thousand jobs, friendly Canadian oil, cheaper fuel prices,

You left out filthy fuels, inflated the number of potential jobs, imply that the oil is for good ol' U.S. of A., and that it would be used to swell the bellies of the Fat Cats. But, never let reality get in the way of hyperbole!

20 Thousand Jobs?

Complete and utter BULL$HIT!

A few thousand TEMPORARY JOBS building the pipeline and a few hundred permanent jobs maintaining it at most.

And most of the fuel will go to China, while most of the money goes to Canada.

Yep, pretty soon repubs will claim the 'Keystone future spill pipeline' is worth a million jobs.

you might want to talk to your local oil company, since the President has no say in oil

He sure as hell can influence it greatly, but just screwed his country out of 20 thousand jobs, friendly Canadian oil, cheaper fuel prices,

Don't forget that this pipeline is being delayed not cancelled. Under Obama domestic oil production has increased enough that we are exporting more than importing for the first time since 1949. So I don't think he is going to stop it from be built until after the election when he won't be able to be punished for it by the environmentalists. Either way a little delay to ensure that another leak like the one in the gulf doesn't happen is probably a good thing. Lots of jobs were lost due to that environmental disaster. The pipeline should be built, but the planning shouldn't be rushed either.

TransCanda (TRP), the company that wants to build the pipeline, says Keystone would create 20,000 "direct" jobs. That includes 13,000 construction jobs and 7,000 jobs making stuff like pump houses and the pipe itself.
It also projects nearly 120,000 "indirect" jobs -- think restaurant workers and hotel employees to support the construction.
TransCanada agrees to re-route Keystone pipeline
TransCanada spokesman Shawn Howard defends the forecast: "If our budgets and work plans were way off, we'd lack credibility with the markets, shippers and others," he said. "Those who dispute the numbers clearly do not have this experience, have not actually done proper studies on this project to support their claims and can only venture guesses."
But TransCanada numbers count each job on a yearly basis. If the pipeline employs 10,000 people working for two years, that's 20,000 jobs by the company's count.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/13/news/economy/keystone_pipeline_jobs/index.htm

http://www.pri.org/stories/business/economist-discusses-jobs-lost-or-delayed-by-denial-of-keystone-xl-pipeline-permit-8033.html

OK, now you give us your highly credible, /sarc, Koz and Media Matters propaganda. Just can't wait.

I personally don't give a @!$%# if it is 100 jobs, they are jobs, friendly oil and with an ally for a change, tho Obama does prefer to do business with Communist dictators, just once, can this fool do it right?.....the point is Barry screwed America, Again.

What a mistake you libs gave us 3 long years ago.

A few thousand TEMPORARY JOBS

Kind of like the "stimulus" then, got it.

FreedomRanger,

This is from YOUR Link:

The U.S. State Department, which must green light the project, forecasts just 5,000 direct U.S. jobs over a two year construction period.

Even according to TransCanada, the amount of permanent jobs created would be only in the hundreds.

"Those are the real numbers," said Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, director of international programs at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "The Republicans have been acting as if this is a national jobs package, and it's not."

--------------------------------------------

mrsrachelm,

At the risk of DESTROYING the environment.

Completely UNLIKE the stimulus, get it?

What a mistake you libs gave us 3 long years ago.

Yeah? Well, don't use up your supply of bitch&kvetch suckers because Barry will be back for his second term starting 01/20/13, and you can bet he'll have my vote.

This pipeline...the whole thing stinks. We can use the Canadian oil to reduce our buys from the Mid East etc? Then why is it being pumped to refineries on the Gulf coast where they already have more oil than they know what to do with? Why isn't it being refined in the Northern Tier which would allow the finished products to be sent eas & west & south & maybe even back north if the Canadians need gas? Maybe it's because the finished product isn't going to stay in the U.S.? Think that's possible??

This pipeline...uh huh, that's what it is all right. We will serve as a conduit from Canada to China & Europe. We take all the environmental risk, somebody else gets the benefit. And those 20,000 jobs - that number is a whole lot of crap. Pretty much like the extra help at WalMart during the Christmas rush - work their butts off today and fire their butts as soon as possible.

Thanks loads guys!!! That's the big Republican jobs effort, right? Got anything else going? Anything???

The finished product is diesel for China. I do not care about enriching Canada at our risk. But I will defer judgement to the states at risk of the assured spills. What say they?

well it would seem as though barry’s good friend warren buffett stands to make a good profit because the keystone was stopped...coincidence ? nah...

http://www.newsroomamerica.com/story/210153.html

http://exposethemedia.com/2012/01/29/soros-railroad-benefits-from-obamas-decision-to-reject-the-keystone-pipeline/

katlin

@ 4.16 - Nice attempt at spin, here is the REAL REASON the pipeline was stopped by President Obama.

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf

This is truth, not spin, Cornell University had nothing to gain.....

well, politico man...I am not so sure. Obama ALWAYS has ulterior motives for everything he does...kind of like this:

George Soros a huge contributor to the Dems banked off the demise of the US financial industry...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023809/Did-George-Soros-win-10-1-return-S-Ps-US-credit-rating-downgrade.html

and Obama has rewarding his cronies in the “alternate energy” debacles:

If Westport reaps the predicted windfall, one of the chief beneficiaries will be George Soros, a major Obama donor and supporter. Soros’s hedge fund holds 3,160,063 company shares (as of its last SEC filing)

http://www.streetinsider.com/Insiders+Blog/Westport+%28WPRT%29+Set+to+Explode+Upon+Passage+of+Nat+Gas+Act+-+Cramer/6571846.html

and his buddy Warren Buffet stands to reap HUGE profits if the Keystone pipeline is not approved:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-23/buffett-s-burlington-northern-among-winners-in-obama-rejection-of-pipeline.html

The finished product is diesel for China.

Yellowdog, what's your source for that? I haven't been able to find that though I have looked. Thanks.

well vol, there is no denying that soros and buffet are getting enriched off the decisions that obam makes and americans are getting the short end of the stick...now why is that ? ..obama’s ulterior motive ? cash into the campaign chest ? follow the money....

Freedomranger- keystone was not a 20000 job pipeline and 3/4 of the oil was already contracted for export. It would have had 0 effect on our oil supply or pricing, at best made for a few thousand temp jobs and a few hundred permanent jobs. There is no forcing the oil to China, they've already bought it. Keystone does not have the best safety record and the pipeline is likely to be built the President just didn't hold himself to the arbitrary deadline that even TransCanada didn't want.- Check your facts before you start name calling.

Runner- I answered that question in my post, I included cuts or other increases in revenue. There are far more than I listed in both areas that need to happen.

No Sebbydad, you gave prescription for where it should come from, and some of it I agree with. However, that's not where it came from, nor where it is scheduled to be deducted from. Actually I'd love to be able to send you to talk to this Administration if it were possible. Your ideas mostly make sense.

On the pipeline issue, I wonder how many thought the about that when roads and bridges were being built. The danger, the environment.

Even if you hate to admit it, Freedomranger has a good point.

Aaaack! should have read:

On the pipeline issue, I wonder how many thought about that when roads and bridges were being built. The danger, the environment.

there is a big difference between bridges and roads and a pipe thousands of miles long running near freshwater sources carrying a toxic chemical sludge. Freedomranger had no point because he had no facts.

Oh gee, you're right. Cars and trucks do not produce emissions, drip oil, crash, burn, leak antifreeze any where near fresh water sources. Of course, of course.

LOL...

@ Runner99

Oh gee, you're right. Cars and trucks do not produce emissions, drip oil, crash, burn, leak antifreeze any where near fresh water sources. Of course, of course.

It may help to approach this topic with a degree of intellectual honesty. I can't imagine that anyone would say that examples such as the ones you gave are equivalent to an oil source carrying thousands of gallons of oil directly flowing into a fresh water source.

Any maybe you need to think about why small bits of environmental damage every day that goes unchecked is even more threatening than a large project with safety systems built in.

@ Runner99

Any maybe you need to think about why small bits of environmental damage every day that goes unchecked is even more threatening than a large project with safety systems built in.

And those considerations are constantly discussed... and for what it's worth, one particular party is constantly railing on about how the Federal Government shouldn't be involved in such discussions. In fact, some potential leaders of that particular party have suggested eliminating the EPA entirely. It goes along with the whole "too many regulations hurt business" meme. So it's disingenous to act as if none of those considerations are ever floated, especially considering the backlash that any cap and trade proposal receives.

But, that's really not relevant to the conversation that's being had now. Trying to misdirect a conservation by throwing out a false hypothetical isn't going to work ;) There doesn't appear to be any evidence whatsoever that the building of a new highway, and the subsequent "oil leaks and antifreeze leaks" that occurred thereafter, ever contaminated a fresh water source. If there is evidence of that, one party has tried several differnt times to address emissions and pollution in general, and several members of the other party refuse to even acknowledge that man has anything to do with it. So, if you want to get pissed off about pollution in general, direct your anger in the right place.

actually, those aspects are taken into account for new roads and bridges and are regulated in a variety of ways, from the manufacture of the vehicle to air quality standards. You are being dishonest by the comparison though, you are saying we shouldn't require coal fire plants to reduce pollution because people smoke cigarettes.

My point being this, accidents do happen. Imagine if the offshore drilling were allowed on shore. How fast could that disaster been contained? Here we have the private sector wanting to invest into jobs creation. Do we stop the advancement of all things because of a potential (hypothetical) problem, or do we advance with the knowledge that every single thing we do has risks. Do we stop burying electrical lines, or stringing them across roads? Should we still be traveling with horse and buggy? Trains and train tracks and trucks carry tons of toxic materials, should we stop transporting that?

This Country needs jobs.

@ Runner99

To further both Sebbydad's and my point, here's a list of 191 bills that the 112th Congress House of Representatives have voted "no" on..... a house dominated by a Republican majority link

So how does that equate to jobs?

Keystone is not dead, the only thing the President did was do not follow the arbitrary timeline set by the GOP. The pipeline will still happen, after the risk assessment is complete and precautions taken. Is it worth a few hundred jobs? It isn't a hypothetical problem, sooner or later that pipe will leak, it is a certainty, the record of such leaks is documented and safety record from the oil industry is less than spotless. The pipeline is not some jobs or manufacturing bonanza that is going to turn things around.

@ Runner99

So how does that equate to jobs?

How does what equate to jobs? You didn't mention jobs, you said this:

On the pipeline issue, I wonder how many thought about that when roads and bridges were being built. The danger, the environment.

What I listed for you was hundreds of bills just during this Congress which were focused on environmental considerations. You seemed to imply that environmental concerns were only floated in regarded to the Keystone pipeline, but not for things such as "emissions, oil leaks, antifreeze leaks" etc that may accompany road and bridge construction - what I linked you to was proof that your implication was baseless.

I'm sorry if I was unclear. This thread was kinda of a hodge podge of conversations starting with payroll tax moratorium then the the pipeline and jobs. Many apologies for the confusion.

My implication was not baseless. Jobs and the pipeline go hand in hand as do regulation or lack thereof. It was all related topic in a round about sort of conversation.

In fact, I think I'll go take a Motrin.

@ 4.16 - Nice attempt at spin, here is the REAL REASON the pipeline was stopped by President Obama.

Any amount of investment in a private free enterprise project will create jobs. President Obama never has and probably never will participate in a private free enterprise project. Dan Rather doesn't think he could sell watermelons on a roadside stand.

The Cornell study is questionable. They talk about the possibly of even losing jobs. The name of the game is risk. Some win, some lose. Guaranteed you won't win, if you don't try.

Keystone is not dead, the only thing the President did was do not follow the arbitrary timeline set by the GOP.

Yes...in an agreement he made with them back during the talks of the fall...and he, the , had the state department announce it. Additionally, Obama has kicked it down the road until after the election...just like the debt ceiling -2013....and I go back to this:

" spineless wimp"

Sources here:

As the State Department made clear last month, the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted (OH, YOU MEAN THE ONE YOU AGREED TO, MR. PRESIDENT??)on by congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment,” Obama said in a prepared statement Wednesday.

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/204899-keystone-announcement

Good Lord, they have been studying it for YEARS now...

and this:

The big news of the day, aside from the idiot rally finally being back on full bore (Congress in session), is that the Obama administration finally pushed Canada's hand in telling it to sell its crude to China instead of the US, which we are confident it will gladly do.

"Bidness is Bidness"(shrugs)...Enjoy the oil, China... too bad we keep shooting ourselves in the foot(finally found a link, yellowdog)..Oh and the big winner in this is his buddy Warren Buffet who will reap HUGE profits if the Keystone pipeline is not approved:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-23/buffett-s-burlington-northern-among-winners-in-obama-rejection-of-pipeline.html

If the committee's recommendations—which must be voted on before December 23, 2011—are approved, Obama can raise the debt ceiling by another $1.5 trillion, effectively raising it through the 2012 election season.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06/whats-happening-debt-ceiling-explained

Anybody with half a brain can see right through the empty suit.

vol fan in chatt, tnCongratulations.

Not to mention the Keystone pipeline BS.

It was OK to spend billions on a war that was not necessary , but the hell with the American people.

concerned...hate to break the news to you...but fighting wars IS one of the enumerated powers of the federal government. Flood relief is not. sounds harsh...but that's the way it is. I don't have a personal objection to it as long as it is in the form of a Federal loan to the state(s) involved. But the money has to come from somewhere. I don't want to pay to rebuild your house and I don't expect you to pay for mine.

Regards,

Mike

concerned...hate to break the news to you...but fighting wars IS one of the enumerated powers of the federal government. Flood relief is not. sounds harsh...but that's the way it is.

Being enumerated the authority to fight a war doesn't recuse someone from the responsibility of effectively determining whether we should or not.

I don't want to pay to rebuild your house and I don't expect you to pay for mine.

All of the most successful communities operate this way. "Divided we stand" is our national motto. Right?

Mike,

here is the problem with that "every man is an island" argument. How well Concerned is doing, does actually have a direct effect on how well you are going to be doing.

By your thinking the top 10 states that receive more federal dollars than they pay in taxes should be allowed to go bankrupt or their citizens required to do without anything they cannot scrabble for themselves.

In order that would be:

Oklahoma

Louisiana

South Dakota

Mississippi

South Carolina

Tennessee

California

Michigan

Pennsylvania

Alabama

So tell me, if these states cold not afford loans for the federal dollars they use to prob up 40-50% of their state budgets, should they all be allowed to fail? Where do you think the populations of those states will go? The things those states produce, who will be picking those processes up?

Insuring that Florida quickly recovers from hurricane season, that Kansas recovers from Tornadoes and that things like the BP spill get dealt with are National priorities.

Sebbydad - Your list would be more impressive and telling, if you put a D or R next to each state's power base. Just saying.

I didn't want it to be a partisan thing, the only three D's are Michigan, Pennsylvania and California.

Your funny....

no manufacturing jobs, because the corporations the people of this country built need to move their jobs overseas to escape the reasonable conditions in this country

US Corporate tax rates lead the world at about 40%.

An inconvenient truth.

"Leftists do not plant trees of affluence, they only know how to dispense the fruit". Dennis Prager

Bull@!$%#. The MAXIMUM corporate tax rate is 39% but most corporations are going to be taxed at 35% according to the Tax Policy Center. However, Wolf, you left out the little nugget about EFFECTIVE average corporate tax rate is around 30% according to the American Enterprise Institute. Aditionally, according to CNN Money, 280 companies in the Fortune 500 paid only 18.5% on average. AND 30 of those paid ZERO.

I'm not necessarily against lowering the corporate tax rate but that should mean ZERO deductions, ZERO subsidies, and ZERO congressional influence.

"Leftists do not plant trees of affluence, they only know how to dispense the fruit". Dennis Prager

I would add that they would also know how to pick the tree bare and then complain that the tree needs to be chopped down because it is being selfish by not producing enough fruit..

@ wolfbilly

So we print more money, which decreases the value of the dollar, and in turn increases the cost of living.

No kidding. Perhaps if we could reverse the last 30 years of trickle down policy fallacies, we wouldn't have such a MASSIVE chunk of the nation's wealth tied up in the interest accruing accounts of a few thousand people.

So that we can give working people enough money to about pay their union dues.

90% of people in this country aren't part of a union - respectfully, what the hell are you talking about?

So, your children and grandchildren will be in debt to them even more, to pay someone's union dues

Again, union dues.... really?

And you realize we're talking about extending payroll tax cuts, right? Meaning, tax cuts on earnings through employment.... are you saying that only people in Unions will benefit from this? Considering nearly 90% of the American workforce isn't unionized, that's a pretty tough argument to make. Quite frankly, given that statistic, it's also a pretty absurd point to focus on.

While at the same time the cost of things like groceries and gasoline, electricity, and everything else goes ballistic.

And yet, business in this country is seeing RECORD profit. So, WHY would businesses need to raise the prices of things???? And, WHY are we continuing to subsidize "business" when they are making record profits?? Why are we continuing to talk about needing to flood "business" with resources when they are making record profit??

Seems to me that common sense is irrelevant when playing the "politics" game. How about preserving our country for our children instead.

Yeah, how about that......

Stop using hyperbole and start actually posting a fact or two. For crikey sake, stop blaming unions for the woes of the nations, they didn't bankrupt anything and make up less than 12% of the workforce. Throwing the 'children' in there is just trying to make an emotional appeal.

Rising gasoline prices...rising prices..

ever heard of something called "Oil Speculation"?

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/search/?q=oil+speculation&go=Search&access=p&as_dt=i&as_epq=&as_eq=&as_lq=&as_occt=any&as_oq=&as_q=&as_sitesearch=&client=sanders&sntsp=0&filter=0&getfields=title&lr=&num=15&numgm=3&oe=UTF8&output=xml&partialfields=&proxycustom=&proxyreload=0&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&requiredfields=&site=sanders&sitesearch=&sort=date%3AD%3AS%3Ad1&start=0&ud=1

90% of people in this country aren't part of a union - respectfully, what the hell are you talking about?

Unions are a problem in Wisconsin.

22 states had right to work laws. Indiana will probably become number 23.

Teacher unions are a problem.

President Obama caters to unions.

@ Wolf wolfman

Unions are a problem in Wisconsin.

22 states had right to work laws. Indiana will probably become number 23.

Teacher unions are a problem.

President Obama caters to unions.

You can arbitrarily state that unions are a problem all you'd like, it still doesn't change the fact that nearly 90% of the American workforce isn't unionized.

You can arbitrarily state

When 23 states pass right to work laws, it isn't arbitrary.

@ Wolf

When 23 states pass right to work laws, it isn't arbitrary.

All 50 states could have the law but if the law only applies to 12% of the workforce, then it is arbitrary to act as if that 12% is having a disproportionately huge impact when it isn't.

12% is having a disproportionately huge impact when it isn't.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/01/scott-walker-recall-tea-party

There will be a battle in Wisconsin over union activities, having nationwide implications.

@ Wolf Wolfman

There will be a battle in Wisconsin over union activities, having nationwide implications.

Great..... but the workforce is still only 12% union. So, when somebody says that payroll tax cut extensions are going to be used for people to 'pay their union dues', do you not agree that singling out unions is pretty ridiculous?

Articles like this are not about facts, they are about insecure conservatives vomiting well scripted volleys of hate at the President and Democrats in Congress all over each other in the vain hope that doing so will shield them form the unpleasant reality that exposes their ignorant and repulsive political views.

Soval-1219303 Astute comment.

I usually just say that they spouting some @!$%#ed up @!$%# because thats the way they are.

You were blocked because the Republican dumb@!$%#s in Congress tried to attach what amounted to a poison pill. Send a clean bill and see what would happen. Why can't you guys tell the whole @!$%#ing truth?! Sheesh.

The country isn't in any danger. Those honest, unemployed people you seem so concerned about, the GOP calls them lazy and freeloaders and things that all social programs - that they rely on for survival should be ended. We need to start building. The problem is that we had 8 years of MASSIVE spending and were left with literally nothing to show for it, even worse we lost some of the ground we had gained in the 90's.

I believe our country could be in danger. The massive spending is escalating. I don't believe in spending oneself to prosperity. If my financial situation was in dire straits, I would first cut spending and pay down my debts. This would help prevent catastrophe to my family. I agree that labeling people, or ridiculing them will not produce a positive result. I didn't encourage elimination of any legal program to aid the less fortunate. We need business and manufacturing to return to prosperity, not by government intervention, but rather by less government rules and regulations, and a return to Constitutional government. It comes down to survival of the fittest. This model made the US the greatest nation on the face of the earth. And will work still. I will not demean you personally, and I will respect your right to your point of view and opinion. Thank you for considering mine.

wolfbilly, Do you consider you and yours 'the fittest'?

I'm reminded of the very sad fact that Republicans seem to have forgotten how to pass laws.

The National Defence Authorization Act 2012 is a law, which I wish the Republicans had not voted for.

Yeah, there was no deficit at all before Obama got into office, let the GOP keep telling you that.

BIG GOVERNMENT = BIG PROBLEMS

Yeah...you be sure and tell that to the folks being serviced by the "Tennessee Valley Authority".

Over $700 Million in PROFITS last year alone (from a 100% United States Government owned Corporation no less!)

Make sure you get your sneakers on because you might find yourself running from an angry mob, son.

MJ - Probably will be running from people who can no longer afford to buy food - wanting mine.

Greece is the model for this government.

Dollar is losing value everyday now - 5.00 bread soon and 10.00 gas.......

Sebbydad - I did not say I was for or against ANY party - by the way raised this years deficit to 1.4 trillion ......

Dollar is losing value everyday now

No...it isn't. The Dollar's value has increased (increased, not decreased) in relation to the Euro and the British Pound (which are the only other currency's in our same league).

And BTW, in Tennessee, every time politicians have tried to score cheap political points by championing the TVA's privatization, they've been defeated at the polls in sizable numbers.

Comparing the dollar to other failed manipulated currencies is incorrect. Compare the dollar to the countries who are not running enormous deficits. Try the Swiss franc or the krona. Countries where the governments are not going to devalue their way out of debt.

If you think the dollar is stronger - look at your grocery bill, or rental prices. The so-called inflation index does not include the things people use everyday i.e. food & energy.

As far as Tennessee, it is only one state - I am talking about a whole country.

Compare the dollar to the countries who are not running enormous deficits

The problem is that you're purposely ignoring currency's that people OUTSIDE those countries trade in specifically to back a failed analogy.

No one cares about the Swiss Franc or the Krona because before they can be used to buy anything they must be turned in U.S. Dollars, Euros, or British Pounds.

Countries where the governments are not going to devalue their way out of debt.

Of course not...they'll just convert them to Dollars/Euros/Pounds and watch their currency holdings "magically" grow (i.e. -- they'll simply depend on us "devaluing" our way out of debt :) )

If you think the dollar is stronger - look at your grocery bill, or rental prices

That's a meaningless comparison in a vacuum because it ignores the ten million other things that make stuff cost more over time (such as higher energy bills, etc.) The "inflation index" might not include food & energy, but how much it costs to get stuff to your grocery store does.

For that matter, it leaves out the occasional market correction for things like commodities (that can happen no matter what other factors are involved).

As far as Tennessee, it is only one state

And a perfect example of a 100% SUCCESSFUL United States Government Corporation. Government isn't the bad guy, son...those in control of government are too blame for its successes or failures.

You can't just declare anything the Government does to be s$%t because you don't happen to like who's in charge (as the Government is all far more than any one person).

I'm going to go our on a limb and make the guess that you're a member of the Ron Paul Fan Club aren't you?

If you are going to label me - then right back at you - you must be one of those paid liberal posters.

I do not hold to any party. Registered independent for 20+ years now.

If you want to counter your Tennessee - I give you Kalifornia - spend tons and get nothing in return for you tax dollars. i.e. Solyndara 1/2 a BILLION down the tubes FROM government.

As far as not caring about the franc or the krona - right now trading partners around the world are setting up trading oil and commodities using a "basket" of currencies - moving AWAY from the U.S. dollar. -

In addition, if you like the way the government is taking away from the poor and retired with devaluation, I would guess you are nowhere near retirement or needing the interest income to live on. So sad how many are hurt by the treasury's endless printing......

If you want to counter your Tennessee - I give you Kalifornia - spend tons and get nothing in return for you tax dollars

Well, California is a state, not a corporation. Second of all California pays about $5 in Federal Tax for every $1 in Federal Subsidy...so again it's a failed analogy.

Solyndara 1/2 a BILLION down the tubes FROM government

aka: $500 Million, or barely 2/3s what the TVA put's in the Government's coffers. Once again...a failed analogy.

As far as not caring about the franc or the krona - right now trading partners around the world are setting up trading oil and commodities using a "basket" of currencies - moving AWAY from the U.S. dollar. -

Currency Baskets have existed for decades. They've always been a "me too" for rainy days, not a plan of escape.

There are only three currency's in the World today with the reach to be a reserve currency.

1) The United States dollar, 2) The Euro, 3) The Chinese Yuan and 4) the British Pound.

Right now the Dollar is the current default world currency and has been since WWII.

Now before WWII, the British Pound was pretty much what could have been called a reserve currency (though the entire idea of a "reserve currency" really didn't exist at the time, aside from text books), and it lost that status in most quarters because of the Economic Decline of Great Britain during and after the war (to "receding of the Empire" that followed decolonization, etc.)

The problem with the Euro is that the Europeans -- quite frankly -- can't find a hooker in a whorehouse to quote my Grandpa. Much like the Republicans in the United States, the European Nations with money always want to be everyone's friends when they need customers, but suddenly want to stop spending when THEY are asked pay the tab.

Meaning that when times are great, the European Union is one happy family. When times aren't so great, Germany, France, and Great Britain start making themselves scarce when it comes time to help their weaker neighbors.

Now the reason we don't have this problem in the United States (using my example earlier, with California) because when states like Texas, Arkansas, Alabama, etc. need a perpetual handout, the Federal Government has all the authority via the Constitution to do it with tax dollars from state's like California, New York (state's with positive cash flow, etc.) regardless of whether anyone likes it.

Tough times sometimes call for tough decisions, etc.

Because of that, the United States almost always rides out touch economic times better than Europe because the Federal Government can always "shift ballast" to which every part of the country is in danger of sinking.

I've left out the Yuan because of the Chinese direct and unashamed "finger on the scales" approach to manipulating their currency. They make no bones about it because they have no interest in seeing the Yuan do anything but continue helping them ship cheap exports.

Coincidentally that's why the Chinese buy T-Bills like they're going out of style. Point of fact, EVERY T-Bill auction is standing room only...hardly any lack of demand.

What you're left with is the realization that the Dollar isn't going anywhere AND that's exactly how everyone likes it.

If you are going to label me - then right back at you

Now I know you're a Ron Paul type because only one who's been called out would get so defensive over something that is in no way an insult.

Registered independent for 20+ years now

"independent" in my experience = embarrassed Republican. Not saying you are, just telling my experiences.

In addition, if you like the way the government is taking away from the poor and retired with devaluation, I would guess you are nowhere near retirement or needing the interest income to live on. So sad how many are hurt by the treasury's endless printing......

Interest sole determination is the current speed of the economy. When the economy accelerates, Interest goes up. When it slows, interest goes down. Regardless of how many people choose to tie themselves to it, it's always an anchored boat with very little correlation to anything else.

i.e.-- It's not my job to pay higher car/house loan interest just so the bank can pay more for CDs folks.

Your words - "Coincidentally that's why the Chinese buy T-Bills like they're going out of style. Point of fact, EVERY T-Bill auction is standing room only...hardly any lack of demand"

In August 2008, before America's massive bank bailouts and stimulus packages, the Chinese held $573.7billion of U.S. debt, CNSNews reports.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394315/China-unloads-97-cent-short-term-U-S-Treasury-debt-owns-1-2TRILLION-American-deficit.html#ixzz1l4sUzmlq
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394315/China-unloads-97-cent-short-term-U-S-Treasury-debt-owns-1-2TRILLION-American-deficit.html#ixzz1l4sPyvWq

So much for that theory, I have to get back to work. - this is FUN though.........

Tell me what actually happened by March 2011 :)

The problem with posting years old articles speaking about then-future occurrences that are now in the past is that it's quite easy to see the line of completely failed predictions.

No different than claims in the 50s that we'd have flying cars by the year 2000.

p.s.-- The "Daily Mail" is, essentially, the British Version of the National Enquirer. Not exactly where I'd be looking if attempting to forecast future economics :)

Gee...you're right...this is fun.

Did not know 2011 was "years old" - but I can do this all night............

"The Treasury's International Capital (TICS) data shows that foreigners sold a net $26bn on long-term Treasuries in November. This rebounded somewhat to plus $15bn in December, but China, Russia, and other big reserve powers have continued dumping their holdings of US agency mortgage bonds."

"Mrs Clinton's plea for Beijing to keep buying US bonds comes in sharp contrast to comments during the presidential primaries when she said Chinese ownership of US government debt had become a threat to national security."

"Separately, Dagong Global Credit Rating Co. on Wednesday lowered its rating on U.S. sovereign debt to A from A-plus, with a negative outlook, saying the debt ceiling increase won't change the fact that the U.S. national debt is growing faster than the overall economy and fiscal revenue."

"An A rating from Dagong puts the U.S. on par with Russia, South Africa, and Estonia, below A-plus-rated the U.K., Malaysia and Belgium and above A-minus-rated Israel, Brazil and Italy."

Yep, I am having a great time.

Yeah...you be sure and tell that to the folks being serviced by the "Tennessee Valley Authority".

Greece had to privatize their government operated electricity company, or fore go loans. Government should not be in the electricity business, or any government sponsored enterprise.

We can learn from others.

Greece had to privatize their government operated electricity company, or fore go loans

aka: They had to bow to the demands of the European Union.

Government should not be in the electricity business, or any government sponsored enterprise

Government should do whatever its citizenry want. The citizens of Tennessee LIKE their dependable, secure source of electricity and right-wing politicians have ZERO business telling them what they should and shouldn't like.

@ wolfbilly

I agree and also wish we could do just that. But we can't reverse the problems all political administrations have bequeathed to us.

Yes, we can. But, it's going to take a decent chunk of the country taking the time to actually understand the nation's challenges, and not cling to empty hyperbole such as blaming unions.

What we must do is quit spending money we don't have.

Or, we should quit acting as if this equation only has one side to it. You can't find an objective economist who doesn't acknowledge that both spending decreases and revenue increases are necessary.

Sorry! Could be to pay your club dues or whatever else you prefer. I think you can get the idea.

No, I don't know what you're referring to. What 'clubs' are middle class Americans using payroll tax cuts to pay for??

No I'm not saying that. It's not about Unions (see previous comment). It's about spending money that we don't have.

You mentioned unions twice specifically - I'm not sure what other conclusion you'd expect people to draw.

And again, "spending money we don't have" is in part a response to a terribly top heavy system. We wouldn't have to spend so much if we weren't pouring so much into a top heavy system that doesn't distribute accordingly. And then there's military spending........

I went shopping for groceries today. Where I live prices are rising with the associated cost of being in business. I have personal knowledge of small business owners who are struggling to survive.

But here's the problem - all of the "job creator" policies that one particular party's espousing aren't helpful to small businesses.... only corporations. I agree, small businesses are struggling mightily. But again, it's because of a top down system which requires the nation to pour money into areas that it shouldn't have to.

I made no mention regarding subsidizing business. I have no problem your personal beliefs regarding business. I believe we need success in business and manufacturing to return our country to stability.

I believe the same. But, it goes beyond that. Again, the "business" sector is sitting on record profits right now.... I'm not sure how much more "success" business needs before they can start helping return our country to stability. You'd think with all of that cash on hand, businesses would have found a way to pay middle class people what they're worth....... consider this:

(1) Middle Class worker productivity in the United States has steadily increased over the years link

(2) Not surprisingly, over the same general time frame, American businesses saw record profit link

(3) Yet, Middle Class wages shrank link

I'm not sure how anyone could look at those converging treadlines and not come to one conclusion: that American businesses are paying middle class workers less and less in order to pocket more and more. And, even more appalling is that this is happening while American workers are more productive than ever.

Perhaps all of this spending wouldn't be necessary if American businessses were paying Middle Class workers what they deserved? ("deserved" being relative of course, but can be pretty specifically defined by historical precedent in this case - there's no logical reason why productivity and profits should be up, but compensation down)

Anecdotal evidence of a local business in your hometown doesn't cancel out the comprehensive facts of the matter.

Hmmm... I use the html <strike> tags, but Newsvine doesn't pick it up; is there an additional tag I need to use?

Fie.

At least he admitted under President Obama the ECONOMY IS GROWING, which is more than anyone can say about the previous administration....

Um...you might need to look at some charts. The economy was growing until 2008 when the bottom fell out thanks, in PART, to the overinflated housing market.



 2000...... 131,785         110,995          24,649             599           6,787          17,263
 2001...... 131,826         110,708          23,873             606           6,826          16,441
 2002...... 130,341         108,828          22,557             583           6,716          15,259
 2003...... 129,999         108,416          21,816             572           6,735          14,510
 2004...... 131,435         109,814          21,882             591           6,976          14,315
 2005...... 133,703         111,899          22,190             628           7,336          14,226
 2006...... 136,086         114,113          22,531             684           7,691          14,155
 2007...... 137,598         115,380          22,233             724           7,630          13,879
 2008...... 136,790         114,281          21,334             767           7,162          13,406
 2009...... 130,807         108,252          18,557             694           6,016          11,847

 2010...... 129,818         107,337          17,755             705           5,526          11,524
 2011(p)... 131,159         109,080          18,037             787           5,526          11,723

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

vol fan in chatt, tn

@24.1- Never advocated the President is perfect but he is NOT the failure those on the right continue to try to proclaim...

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2009/03/art1abs.htm

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

This is in plain english, all you have to do is read, the President has had success and failures but he is not a total failure. Here are other links for reference:

http://3chicspolitico.com/president-obamas-accomplishments/

http://www.peoplesworld.org/professor-lists-obama-accomplishments-over-244-and-growing/

At least he admitted under President Obama the ECONOMY IS GROWING, which is more than anyone can say about the previous administration....

really really-- in 2006 business was booming, unemployment less than 5 %, housing doing quite well--then democrats were elected into congress and the downfall began... yah-look how well they have done .record deficit, record spending, record unemployment, and record bankruptcies and foreclosures, yah good times under the dems alright...please, please give me the last administration cause this one sure as hell has brought us only downward..and the only thing going up is prices ..

katlin

#24.3- Another nice try at spin. In 1941-1945 business was also booming, what does 2006 have to do with anything? Nothing. But I understand why you chose that year, That is the Best you got. Things fell apart in 2007-2008.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2009/03/art1abs.htm

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123215327787492291.html

Who was President in 2006-2008, we both know democrats were in charge during WWII.

what does 2006 have to do with anything? Nothing. But I understand why you chose that year, That is the Best you got. Things fell apart in 2007-2008.

of coarse things fell apart in 07-08, that was my point, in 06 dems were elected to congress. pelosi was speaker remember...she took full advantage of the big military plane to fly her friends and family around in inc. the stocked bar at taxpayer expense....spending started to spiral out of control..the dems blocked any attempts by bush to cut back on the excesses of fannie and freddie..and the rest is history..we had a great downward spriral that is the result of the dem congress not bush...

dems got us where we are today and they will continue the spending and downward spiral until we stop them, it is why repubs were elected in 2010, to stop the obama agenda of freefall spending..obstruct if you will, and it will continue until the end of 2012..

Things fell apart in 2007-2008.

Nope not until late summer, fall of 2008...look at the chart again...the key number is the first column.

katlin

@ 24.5 - If you are saying all that happend in 2006 and 2007 I invite you to produce credible proof of it. Posting an accusation without attempting to substantiate it doesn't amount to much.

vol fan in chatt, tn

@24.6 - Did you look at the first link I posted in 24.4? Reposting it hear and highligting entire paragraph. The entire report is available for download as a .pdf, link is provided.

"CPS data show that the labor market weakness that began during the second half of 2007 worsened during 2008 as the U.S. economy entered a recession; unemployment rose sharply, both employment and the employment-population ratio declined, and median weekly earnings grew at about the same rate as inflation in 2008."

It's pretty direct, can't see how you missed it or fail to understand.

really really-- in 2006 business was booming, unemployment less than 5 %, housing doing quite well--then democrats were elected into congress and the downfall began...

This statement is amazing.......

Let's revisit some recent American History - say, 1993. The moment the Administration before George W. Bush's took office, deficits began shrinking. This occurred across both Republican and Democrat controlled Congresses link The policies put into place in 1993 which significantly changed the nation's economic focus were policies which were absolutely lambasted by Republicans in Congress at the time (as the link I just pasted very clearly points out). Yet, those same policies became the cornerstone of nearly a decade of deficit reductions and economic prosperity, to the point where the nation was actually running balanced budgets year after year.

Then, the election of George W. Bush. The moment Bush instituted his brand of economic policies, the deficit began to rise again. To say that "business was booming" under Bush is quite an interesting premise - if you'll notice, when business "boomed" in 2006, GDP growth never actually reached the point where it had been when Bush originally took office. The losses which immediately occurred upon Bush enacting his policies were never made up for by the "boom" that followed. http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=gdp+growth

Also noteworthy: spending under Bush was pretty consistent in regard to a % of the GDP as it was under Clinton. The difference though was that revenues fell under Bush by about 300 Billion a year in his first 5 years link

What happened in 2007-2008 was inevitable based on what happened from 2001-2006. The nation's viability had already been crippled, and the objective data very directly supports that notion.

Also noteworthy: the 2007-2008 Republican minority in Congress set what was then a record for Congressional filibusters link. Tough to blame a Democratic Congress when Republicans during that time frame went to literally historic levels of obstruction to keep the Democrats from actually sending anything to the President.

This whole time I thought the economy started to fail because of all the money we were spending in Iraq, while we were collecting less in tax revenue in addition to the housing market bottoming out.

Turns out - it was because Pelosi flew in a plane with a stocked bar.

Thanks for the insight Katlin.

Turns out - it was because Pelosi flew in a plane with a stocked bar.

NO, but it does state a mind set that they preach sacrifices to the rest of us but continue to take full advantage of the taxpayers and continue to live like kings off of us........they [politicans] set themselves apart from the rest of us, thinking they are “entitled” to our hard earned funds to live better than the rest of us....that is what bothers me so much about democrats, just like they shoved obamacare down our throats but it is not a plan that pelosi or her like minded dems will accept for themselves...they are hypocrites of the highest order..

First of all, your example with Pelosi was found to be completely false. After this ridiculous story came out, it was later found that not only was it BS, but that Pelosi's spending was right in line with her Republican predecessor.

Your statement was actually pretty spot on until you ruined it by singling out Democrats. If you think this is a partisan issue, then you have a lot to learn.

If you think this is a partisan issue, then you have a lot to learn.

not entirely a partisan issue but I find dems are experts at it and more blatant...pelsoi and obama are the best examples of hypocrisy I have seen yet.....if they want to preach sacrifices and austerity they better start with themselves but haven’t seen it yet..

I could not disagree more. I think Republicans are far bigger hypocrites, although that does not make it ok for Dems either.

Bachmann is probably the best example I've seen so far. She speaks out against Government spending while accepting $250K in Gov subsidies. That's pretty outrageous.

As far as Obama is concerned - he paid over 25% of his income in federal taxes and donated another 15% to charity. On the other hand, you have someone like Romney, who made more than 10x what Obama made, yet paid less than 15% in taxes.

The facts just don't agree with your opinions.

if they want to preach sacrifices and austerity they better start with themselves but haven’t seen it yet..

katlin Um, they aren't preaching. Just advocating to raise taxes on themselves, which they would vote to do and President Obama would sign into law immediately. He can't do that without congress. You should probably try to study up on how the government works since you obviously do not know.

Then what's stopping them from paying more? It does not take legislation to do that. They can freely go down to any IRS office and cut a check. Simple, put their money where their mouth is.

At least he admitted under President Obama the ECONOMY IS GROWING, which is more than anyone can say about the previous administration....

The congressional budget office has revised it's figures: Congressional Budget Office reports another $1 trillion deficit

President Obama has not improved the CBO estimates.

The growth figures and unemployment figures are not good as compared to previous estimates.

Then what's stopping them from paying more? It does not take legislation to do that. They can freely go down to any IRS office and cut a check. Simple, put their money where their mouth is.

Geez, runner, Got any thoughts the republicans didn't tell you? Great talking point but the entire concept is absurd.

I'll let the The Patriotic Millionaires respond to your preposturous suggestion:

"First, we are well aware that making voluntary contributions to reduce the deficit is an option that is open to us. That you seem to think reminding us of this is a constructive contribution to this serious debate indicates that you have missed the point. In our democracy, individual citizens do not get to pick and choose what government spending to pay for. That is an intrinsic part of living in a democracy: you don't get to opt out.

To suggest that we try to tackle this problem by making individual contributions is, frankly, insulting. It is like suggesting to someone expressing a desire to serve their country by bearing arms that they buy a rifle and a plane ticket to Afghanistan. Some problems are too big to be solved except through collective effort and shared sacrifice, and this is one of them." - Patriotic Millionaires

There now, see how ludicrous the suggestion is.

Babina, a few millionaires spouting off about paying more I'm sure does not represent the whole of the class. Their discretionary income is their own to do with, they earned it. If someone is saying they are willing to pay more............let them.

Some problems are too big to be solved except through collective effort and shared sacrifice, and this is one of them."

Great, why don't we put the horse before the cart this time in D.C. not the other way around....and it should start with the b.s. spending spree. I'll tell you, an elite millionaire with a lick of common sense and two brain cells wouldn't want to pay more into a system of waste.

C'mon vol - I know you are familiar with the term lagging indicators. Don't pretend to be dumb just to prove a point.

oh...so you are blaming the "lagging numbers" now on what happened how long ago? This sounds like "It's Bush's fault". Care to explain today's numbers?

Sure. When Obama took office, the U.S. was losing hundreds of thousands of private sector jobs every single month. The housing market had bottomed out. The automotive industry was about to collapse, which would have resulted in more jobs being lost. We were spending billions of dollars trying to nation-build in Iraq. Meanwhile, we were collecting a lower percentage of taxes from those who could most afford to pay them. I assume you have no problem with any of these sentences so far since they are all 100% factual.

Think of the economy has a gigantic snowball rolling down a mountain, getting faster and bigger as it goes. It would be foolish to think that a new President can come in, quickly stop it and then punt it back up the mountain. What has happened is that we have managed to slow it down, eventually stop it from going down at all, and now we are slowly pushing it back up the mountain.

We are now adding hundreds of thousands of private sector jobs every month - not enough, but certainly a complete 180 from where things were. The housing market is showing signs of recovery. The automobile industry is thriving and creating more jobs here in the U.S. We are no longer wasting billions of dollars in Iraq.

While this recovery has been going on, we have also managed to kill Bin Laden. Obama has aggressively gone after Al Queda and has killed many of their top leaders. He has also been tough on immigration. There are more boots on the ground than EVER BEFORE. The immigration numbers for last year were NET ZERO.

The only thing Obama hasn't gotten done yet is to get rid of the tax cuts on the wealthy that continue to add to our debt. He did get politically outmaneuvered with the debt ceiling and he has failed to fix the tax code.

Overall though, there is no denying that today's economy and more importantly, all of the economic signals for the future are MUCH MUCH MUCH better now, than they were when Obama took office.

Look at GM:

The Obama campaign, meanwhile, is planning to put Republicans on the defensive for not supporting the industry.

“While the Republican candidates would have let the American auto industry be liquidated by uniformly opposing the rescue loan, the president made the tough decision to extend the loan in order to save 1.4 million jobs and require a restructuring plan that has led American automakers to produce the cars of the future,” said Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for the campaign.

Selling GM’s 500 million shares at today’s price would mean a loss of about $17 billion. That would create a political fallout that neither GM nor Treasury wants, said Morgan Stanley’s Jonas.

“It would be difficult to stand that big of a taxpayer loss,” Jonas said in a phone interview. “If Treasury were to sell at these prices, it would be a political issue and would tarnish GM’s commercial image. If we were the financial adviser to Treasury, we’d say, ‘Don’t sell.’”

The decision for President Obama was easy. Suck up to unions for votes, screw capitalism.

So, using your attempt at reasoning then...the boost in the economy in the mid of the 2000's was not due to Bush but Clinton. But now you are saying that the downturn of the economy for the last three years was not due to Obama but Bush...wow, do you even see the glaringly faulty reasoning there? Can't have it both ways...

Why don't you respond to what I actually said, instead of putting words in my mouth?

I'll play along for a second though. Bush entered his Presidency with a strong economy and a strong outlook for the future. By the time he left, things were in shambles. I see no reason why he shouldn't get some blame.

Obama then became President when the economy was absolutely horrible and the outlook was as bleak as it's ever been. Three years later, the economy is slowly but steadily improving and the outlook is much brighter for the future.

Obama deserves some credit for that. The biggest complaint would be the fact that it is moving slowly, however I believe it could be sped up if Republicans in Congress were willing to work with the Dems and actually try to help. Instead, Repubs have made it clear that they do not want anything good to happen while Obama is Pres because their number one priority is beating him in 2012. Many of them have actually admitted this. Therefore, I blame the lack of speed on those congressman.

Where is the flaw in my logic exactly?

whino #25.6...Bush was more of a capitalist, President Obama wants to "spread the wealth around". That is the problem. This November the people will choose.

Exactly what is your problem with equal opportunity? Why do you seek an elimination of the middle class. George W. Bush was also interested in spreading the wealth around, from the lower 90% to the upper 10%.

Exactly what is your problem with equal opportunity?

Equality is a Marxist idea. Russia tried it from about 1917 to 1989. It didn't work. There are other examples.

@ Wolf Wolfman

Equality is a Marxist idea

I was unaware that the Declaration of Independence was 'Marxist'.

I was unaware that the Declaration of Independence was 'Marxist'.

Marxists believe in equal opportunity, which the comment expresses.

The Declaration of Independence does not refer to income equality, it does say born equal.

Marxists believe in equal opportunity, which the comment expresses.

As did President Andrew Jackson. As does a LOT of people.

You can't just run around screaming "commie!" every time someone says they don't think little people should be run over, son.

AND, just to push my point a bit further, this "John Birch Society-like" utter obsession with communism (let us not forget, those were the people effectively cut from the Republican Party after alleging Dwight Eisenhower...of all people...was a closet Communist) is precisely why Republicans are finding it so difficult to find large donors.

And regardless of what either party says, the party who raises the most is the party who carries the day.

Simply a matter of being able to get a message -- any message -- out effectively. The more money you have, the louder you can shout.