E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Is bad economic news coming on Friday?... Obama talks about the economy in Racine, WI at 2:15 pm ET… It's been a VERY busy week for the president and his team… But little news comes out of the Kagan/Petraeus hearings… Why we (and you) should have little confidence in many state polls… Is there too much fuss over Bill Clinton's backing of Andrew Romanoff (Clinton ISN'T going to campaign or raise money for him)… Angle and Kirk meet the press… TV ads go up on energy/climate change… California's Senate and gubernatorial contests are competitive, it appears… And Biden stumps for Lee Fisher in OH.
From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Ali Weinberg
*** Another crisis coming? Forced having to deal with numerous crises over the last couple of months -- the BP spill, the shaky economic situation in Europe, and Gen. Stanley McChrystal's explosive comments to Rolling Stone -- the Obama White House may very well have another (and even bigger) crisis on its hands: the U.S. economy. Both Wall Street and Washington appear to be bracing for a poor jobs report on Friday, after five-consecutive months of job growth. And that, of course, raises the stakes of President Obama's 2:15 pm ET town-hall meeting on the economy in Racine, WI today. How does Obama talk his way out of this if the economy has the look and feel of something akin to a double dip or even stagnation?
*** Obama's kitchen-sink week: One other thing worth noting is how this has been a kitchen-sink week for the president. In addition to the economy, here are/have been the other issues on the president's plate this week: finishing up financial reform (trickier than it looked last week), Kagan (smooth sailing so far), Petraeus and Afghanistan (even smoother sailing), immigration (he gives a speech on the issue tomorrow to placate reform advocates, but don't expect new policy ideas), energy/climate change (meeting yesterday with senators MIGHT have created a road map on the carbon issue), the oil spill (no news), the Russian spies (weirder by the day), and Middle East peace (his meeting yesterday with Saudi Arabia's Abdullah). But guess what… it's still all about the economy.
*** When no news is bad news: As for yesterday's Senate hearings on Elena Kagan (for the Supreme Court) and David Petraeus (for the top commander in Afghanistan), the biggest news may very well have been that there was so little news. When the ranking member of Senate Judiciary Committee -- Jeff Sessions -- is devoting his questions to Harvard's military policy, and not Kagan's views on the law and the Constitution, then Republicans really do raise the appearance that this whole exercise is to score political points and raise money for interest groups, not truly vet a lifetime appointment to the court. In addition, it took just one day for the Senate Armed Services Committee to approve of Petraeus' nomination (by voice vote), but it did so without truly having a debate over the administration's Afghanistan policy. Was that good for democracy, good for the republic? May have been good politics for now for the White House, but given the problems with the war right now, perhaps a debate about the strategy wouldn't have been a bad thing?
*** Fuzzy math: In political circles, the biggest story yesterday may very well have been the news that Daily Kos is suing its former pollster, Research 2000, for allegedly fabricating its numbers. Despite the merits of the suit, the story is a reminder how little confidence we have in many state polls -- and how problematic that makes it in trying to get a handle on individual midterm races. We have tremendous confidence in our national NBC/WSJ poll, conducted by Dem pollster Peter Hart and GOP pollster Bill McInturff, which we think is the best in the business. But some of the state polling we see are robo-polls (conducted by an automated voice rather than a live person), which NBC doesn't report as a policy. Here's a little secret: Good polls are expensive to do, and if you're seeing a particular organization doing a slew of polls, you've got to ask: (1) how reliable are those numbers, or (2) where is the money coming from to conduct those polls? Nowadays, on the state level, we trust the polling we're getting from campaigns and state parties (although not necessarily those polls that are made public) more than the numbers we see from some non political polling organizations.
*** Our policy to you on state polling: One policy we're going to institute ourselves to make sure you have an idea of everything that we know is this: When we report a public poll on the state level, it will be because we think those numbers are reflecting what we know is going on in the race. We'll let you know if a pollster has a good reputation in that state, has a good track record (because a good pollster in one state doesn't mean they know the nuances of another).
*** Overserved? Just askin,' but if the extent of Bill Clinton's support for Andrew Romanoff is an email -- the former president WON'T be campaigning or fundraising for him -- then isn't the Bill Clinton-vs.-the White House storyline a bit overblown regarding Clinton's endorsement (via email) of Romanoff yesterday? Yet the real Clinton action/comment that probably should raise eyebrows is his discussion of Obama and race at the Fortune/Time/CNN global forum in South Africa.
*** Angle meets the press: In her first sit-down with a non-conservative news outlet since winning the GOP nomination earlier this month, Nevada GOP Senate nominee Sharron Angle spoke at length with state political reporter Jon Ralston. In the interview, the Las Vegas Sun recounts, Angle backed away a bit from her call to phase out Social Security (saying instead she supports private/personal accounts, a la what George W. Bush proposed in 2005), as well as her statement about resorting to 2nd Amendment remedies ("I admit it was a little strong to say"). But she stuck to her views that unemployment benefits shouldn't be extended; that nuclear waste should be stored in Nevada's Yucca Mountain; and that the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision equated the government getting involved in abortion.
*** 'I wasn't thinking': Also meeting the press yesterday was embattled Illinois GOP Senate nominee Mark Kirk. Here's NBC Chicago's write-up of yesterday's presser: "On the point of most interest -- why he embellished his record and why he was avoiding the media -- Kirk said he would make himself more available to the media, and apologized several times. 'I was overbooked last week,' Kirk said, by way of explaining why he wasn't available. As for his embellishments -- 10 at last count -- Kirk said the 'scrutiny was appropriate' and that he 'wasn't thinking' when he misstated his record." The day after that press conference, Kirk's campaign is going up with two new TV ads -- one accusing opponent Alexi Giannoulias for having a top aide who was a longtime BP lobbyist, and another blasting Giannoulias over his family's bank ("Alexi Giannoulias, trust him with your money?" it concludes).
*** Here come the TV ads on energy: Today, a liberal-leaning coalition consisting of SEIU, VoteVets, League of Conservation Voters, and the Sierra Club says it's launching the first TV ads of an $11 million campaign on energy/climate change legislation. The initial $2 million buy, an SEIU source tells us, will praise Dem Sens. Harry Reid and Claire McCaskill, and target Dem Sen. Ben Nelson and GOP Sens. Richard Burr and Mike Johanns for not supporting energy/climate change legislation. Here is the ad praising McCaskill, and one whacking Burr.
*** More midterm news: In California, a Reuters/Ipsos poll of registered state voters shows Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) at 45% and challenger Carly Fiorina at 41%, while it also finds Jerry Brown (D) leading Meg Whitman (R) by six points (45%-39%) in the state's gubernatorial race. These numbers reflect private polling we're familiar with in this state. In Ohio, Vice President Biden stumps for Senate nominee Lee Fisher at 1:00 pm ET; the Ohio GOP counters the visit with this Web video… Also in Ohio, a new Quinnipiac poll has Fisher (D) at 42% and Rob Portman (R) at 40%; Obama's approval rating in the state is 45%-49%. Again, this poll reflects similar private polls we're familiar with. Bottom line: This has been a margin-of-error race for quite some time, and nothing has happened in the last month to really change that.
Countdown to AL run-off: 13 days
Countdown to GA primary: 20 days
Countdown to OK primary: 27 days
Countdown to KS and MO primaries: 34 days
Countdown to CO and CT primaries: 41 days
Countdown to Election Day 2010: 125 days
Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter.
Leave a Comment:
A Process Now Broken:
With regard to selecting a justice on the Supreme Court, the framers of the Constitution got it just right. The President is to nominate a candidate to be approved with the advice and consent of the Senate. Two branches of the government are involved in the selection of a member of the third branch.
In the early days the Senate would ask difficult legal questions of the nominee to learn their view of the Constitution and their interpretation of the law. The process worked reasonably well until Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Bork as a Supreme Court justice. Previously Reagan picked Anthony Scalia and the Democrats would not tolerate two conservatives so they rejected the Bork nomination.
While not a political scholar, I believe that the Bork rejection forever changed how Supreme Court justices are determined. Subsequent to the Bork defeat, Supreme Court nominees no longer answered substantive questions. Nominees would duck questions saying they could not answer that because a similar case may come before them. Or they would give “cute” answers like Chief Justice Roberts’, “I just call balls and strikes.” Hence we now have Alito, Thomas, Roberts, and Sotomayor. (I include Sotomayor as she also avoided answering those tough questions.)
Senators realized they would not get clear answers and they began “grandstanding” in front of their constituents back home. We saw a lot of that yesterday with Senator Sessions.
So how did the system break down? We could play the “blame game” and accuse Reagan for picking two ultraconservatives, or we could blame the Democrats for rejecting Bork. I believe the process broke down because ideology was placed before the well being of the country. Now we have a court that is very ideologically divided. This is what happens when we DON’T put country first.
Great analysis Ron . . . I would add that one of the great drawbacks of our vaunted "two party" system is that it forces everything to be broken down into right or left, and in life, most issues fall somewhere in between.
I often wonder how folks become so invested on one ideology in the first place. We all must remember that ideology is human created and therefore not perfect.
We all must stop letting our "ideals" interfere with our common sense if this country has any chance to prosper, and not just exist.
I agree that the process is broken down, Ron, but Bork played a role in his own demise with his intellectual arrogance and just plain stupid answers. He spoke of the intellectual challenges he would enjoy rather than the honor to serve and to bring justice to all.
Ron Good Morning,
What you state is true, the Bork nomination was a game changer. But Bork himself was a grandstander, thinking he had the job in the bag, only to tank it with his own pompous performance. He was insufferable and the Democrats called him on it by rejecting him. It never changed him, he never learned that he caused his own problem..... it is a republican trait, called entitlement resulting in detrimental overreaching.
Would SCOTUS be less ideologically divided if Bork had gotten through the process?
Steeler Fan: I completely agree. I just couldn't figure out a way to say it in my comments. You said if very well. Thanks.
Bork had no problem with restaurants refusing service to blacks! Was that "mainstream"? Bork was to be resisted at all costs!
Elena Kagan could walk into these hearings fall-down drunk and make more sense than Jug-ear Jefferson Davis Sessions!
You are correct about when things turned bad here in the US. Reagan changed the way we looked at ourselves and each other. It is also the time that the Moral Majority found its' footing.
Too young to remember much of Bork appointment but....I have to say the 24 hour news cycle, real news being replaced by punditry and commentary, and the abundance of radio talking heads have to have something to do with it as well. Not only is our highest Court ideologically divided, so is our country....and most of it is pure BS.
Oil industry cleanup organization swamped by BP spill
For the past two decades, companies that produce and transport oil have channeled tens of millions of dollars a year into an organization they set up to provide cleanup equipment and personnel if a catastrophic offshore spill were ever to hit the United States.
"If this happened again, should we already have in place 20,000 people and 1,000 boats?" Benz asked. "You can't build a firehouse that big and have it make any reasonable economic sense. You need to prevent the fire in the first place."
"There is no asset MSRC has that is designed to collect oil 5,000 feet under the seas," said Brett G. Drewry, chief executive of the industry-backed organization that funds MSRC.
That fact did not stop BP and other companies from citing MSRC, alone or alongside for-profit cleanup companies, as their first responder for massive spills. Oil companies, Congress and regulators point to MSRC as evidence of lessons learned from Valdez. Suckling said safeguarding the coasts should not be left to private industry.
Okay who’s zooming who in all this mess? One fellow says that the only way to deal with the fire is to prevent it in the first place. Well I guess that would mean some kind of regulation and oversight wouldn’t it. Yet when we try to get everybody to step back a little bit and take a hard look at what started the fire we have a bunch of people and the court telling us that we just can’t do that it will cause irreparable harm to the industry. OOOOkay but then we have the industry telling us that they just don’t have the industry assets in place to deal with this and it wouldn’t make economic sense for them to build a firehouse that big. OOOOkay then who is supposed to build the firehouse. That would be the government I suppose. Now which government entity should we look to for this firehouse? I guess if you go with the State’s right folks that would be the State and local governments that are profiting from the oil leases and activity. OOOOkay Gov. Jindal where’s your firehouse? But but but we should be able to rely on the Federal government to deploy its assets to fill the gap. OOOkay in other words you want me to pay my federal taxes to build you a firehouse this big but you don’t want the government involved in making the rules to prevent the fire in the first place. And then you want to say that it’s all everybody else’s fault because the firehouse is not putting out the fire to your satisfaction. OOOOkay just who’s zoomin’ who.
Excellent, IR. You've said it all. The attitude of private sector business is: "Leave me alone until I get into trouble, then save me from myself, and it's your fault if you can't."
IR,
Don't you wonder why the media can't ask any of these Republican, states rights governors these questions instead of going down to the Gulf and parroting their talking points hook, line, and sinker?
I mean I have heard of trying to have your cake and eat it too, but these folks want the cake, the bakery, and the flour factory! ;o)
IR....great post...voted
Well put. No responsibility but all the profits.
I love it!! Right on IR.
My thanks to all. I forgot to add a few good thoughts and little prayer for the folks down the in south Texas and Mexico. Please forgive us a little for being glad that Alex isn't coming any farther north but that doesn't mean that we don't care about you.
Spot on IR; capitalize the gains and socialize the losses. I'm an accountant and up until recently did financial statement auditing primarily in the financial institutions industry; when the poop hit the fan with this economic crisis you should have seen the lobbying and pressing and crying these banks did to try to get the accounting rules changed. They thought it was completely unfair to have to show unrealized losses on their investments; of course, they did want to show the unrealized gains.
Think Progress:
On MSNBC’s Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough made a damning accusation against House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), with whom he used to work in the House of Representatives. Scarborough said that the rap on Boehner amongst people who know him best is that he’s lazy:
Politico’s co-founder and executive director Jim VandeHei, doing his best to defend Boehner from Scarborough’s accusations, first tried to dodge the discussion but then said, “Well, a lot of those bars are fundraisers for Republicans, his people might say.”
Scarborough retorted that his accusation about Boehner’s work ethic “comes from every Republican I talk to on the Hill.” VandeHei, again defending Boehner, said that’s “not the biggest knock” on him and added that he didn’t know if John Boehner is a hard worker.
Growing exasperated, Scaborough scolded VandeHei: “How can you not know if he’s a hard worker! You work for Politico, you guys say you’re the smartest guys on the planet. You’re the young guns that get all these spreads, that you own Washington. You hear from people more than I hear from people. What do they tell you about John Boehner’s work ethic!?” VandeHei responded that while he has heard that concern, it is “not the knock I hear most frequently.” After Scarborough called Boehner “lazy,” VandeHei responded that he’s “not necessarily lazy,” but rather, he doesn’t have “fresh ideas” and a “vision.”
Not only is Boehner apparently “lazy” and lacking in a “work ethic,” but he’s also disconnected. Yesterday, the House Republican leader compared the financial crisis to an “ant” that Democrats are trying to solve with a “nuclear weapon” in the form a financial regulatory reform bill. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that comment demonstrated “how out of touch” Boehner is.
__________
I have to say that I'm shocked by this interaction between Joe Scarborough and Politico. Politico I'm not surprised, but Joe Scarborough saying what I had always assumed to be the "real" John Boehner. I just never thought Joe would say this. Never.
__________
It's going to be a real tough campaign up here for one of the House seats. It's where my campaign donations are going and the seat I'll be volunteering for. I hope all Democratic supporters here pick a House campaign that you think may be in trouble and volunteer for it during the Fall campaign. We can't let this guy Boehner overtake Nancy Pelosi's Speaker seat.
We just can't.
I understand that Boehner is also a good golfer--which takes a lot of time on the course to achieve. Maybe the tan is real? A surprise to see Joe S. take on any Republican.
Good Morning Pat,
I saw that piece, while not a fan of Scarborough's, it was great to hear say that. I am inclined to believe it, as my perception of Boehner has always been he is not being too bright, but it could be that he is lazy doing just enough to get by resulting in poor performance which is OK with me. Methinks the spends too much time working on his tan on the golf course and then resting up in the bars.
Thanks for posting this....voted
Only people that believe they still have a lot to learn work hard.
We have all worked with / for people that believe they are smarter or know more than everyone else. These people never work hard.
He spent over $17,000 on golf last year, probably more on his tan. He says how much he enjoys a good red wine and a few cigs to relax.
Pat,
Do you not think there are lazy Democrats on the hill also? Scarborough is not your typical Conservative either. He has a few bones to pick. I take what he says with a grain of salt.
Why do you people waste your hard earned money on politicians? Spend time with your family as opposed to time on political campaigns.
Me personally, I will vote but I refuse to spend one penney or give up any of my time on a political campaign. I'm in Texas so we already know locally who the winner will be.
If Pelosi was so great, they would not be in trouble. that is a reality you have to face.
Thanks Pat!
I actually caught that exchange live on my ride into the office this morning…
Confirmed what I already believed about Boner and the booze…
You're welcome Feisty. I just never thought Joe would say this. I'm guessing he wants the Republicans to take over the House, but he would prefer someone other than Boehner as Speaker? He may want Cantor, who I believe is a friend of Joe's.
Pure speculation on my part.
I always thought Boehner looked like he had a hang over every time he speaks. Probably one of those guys who gets his courage out of a bottle.
This is ironic, isn't it? Scarborough is the Republican partisan and VandeHei is supposed to be an objective and impartial journalist. But it's VandeHei acting like a partisan Republican defending his leader and Scarborough being the critic. Of course, anyone who's read anything written by VandeHei knows he's really a partisan Republican who only pretends to be an impartial journalist.
Gingerbread Mamma, good morning to you as well. I occasionally go on Ohio websites and there is definitely an undercurrent of criticisms directed at Boehner for the reasons you point out. It looks to be an interesting race, something I wouldn't have fathomed just a few months ago. But I've decided to stay out of races which aren't in my state. I don't think voters appreciate out of staters poking into their campaigns. I know I wouldn't like it. Scott Brown and Blanche Lincoln's campaigns were real eye openers for me.
Said on another post this a.m., I hate "tit for tat". but, I can't let it pass that some here are condemning Boehner for playing golf. The President has played golf seven times since the oil spill began. So, why is one person's golf evil and the other's isn't? Beyond that, what does playing golf have to do with either of the ability of either of them to govern?
You are kidding? right Dirt? Lots of people play golf myself included and it is great way to unwind. However, if you take off your blinders, and look a this reasonably, there is nothing wrong with either the President or Boehner playing golf just dont make it a second job.
It is well known around DC that Boehner spends a lot of time on the golf course and it shows in his work...he is disconnected and I hope he stays that way.
InTheMiddle
If Pelosi was so great, they would not be in trouble. that is a reality you have to face.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Pelosi has to deal with an inept, self involved White House.... The Gang that can't shoot straight
You'll never hear anybody call Nancy Lazy or self involved..... She's on the job... If we could get the White House to do the same.........
The Democrats had a 60 seat majority in the Senate, and the OBAMA Admin BLEW IT, They accomplished so little.... 60 seats and a compromised HCR, NO Finaicial Reform, Banks STILL Too Big to Fail, No Clean up in the MMS (WHAT WERE THEY DOING ?) (Can't appoint honest or competent people to MMS ???)
Don't mention Nancy Pelosi and the Boner in the same breath......
Obama is a REAL Disappointment.... All Promise, few results
Carter, Clinton, Obama Can Democrats really lead ???
But don't you think that the interview with Boehner - was like a gift to the democrats?
1. Has the government done enough on the BP spill - Boehner - they over reacted.
2. Do you support the moratorium of drilling - Boehner - No. But what we need is 6 months without drilling to find out what happened. HELLO?
3. And of course the ant and nuclear bomb analogy too.
Clearly these remarks indicate that he is not engaged - not paying attention.
I think the Democrats should use the video portions of the interview for some good ads!
Elise, SF
Don't forget raising the age for Social Security,...that has Republican WINNER written ALL over it! ha
Good point Clara. Especially when you have to raise the Social Security age in order to pay for a perpetual war against an idea..."terrorism"
After all, how much work does it take to show up with a drunken hangover and vote NO on everything?? Must be really really exhausting if ye ask me....NOT!!
Great post IR. Well said! Voted.
I wanted to bring something to your attention pertaining to the conversation we had on yesterday.
Go down a few posts and read ERIC's post. This is what I was referring to as an example of a post that will put people in the F'u mode.
He wears it as a badge of honor to scribe the little grade-school names. Do you really think he would say some of that drivel face to face?
ITM,
I have not seen it, but I can say I have seen some of Eric's posts in the past and (I myself as well) have posted some things I am not always as proud of as I would like to be. I try not to let the naysayers and those that have nothing more to offer than blather get to me, but once in a while, you just have to fight back.
Thanks a heap, InTheMiddle, you just caused me to do something I NEVER do-read one of Eric's posts.
By the way, did you know that if it is too over the top you can flag it? I don't exactly know what happens when you do, but I assume it goes back to the author.
Actually, the new format makes it easier to ignore anything he writes. Saves my nerves.
In the Middle ~ I can appreciate your not liking Eric's comments; he's what I would call an "acquired taste." His posts are not always easy to read, but they are usually substantively rich, although I wouldn't want a steady diet of just that. I am wondering, however, why you didn't put your post under Eric's, if it was really your intention to highlight it. Or is this what you call confronting him "face to face"?
Anna,
I was speaking to Disgusted. He knows what I was talking about, I used Eric's post as an example.
As for me confronting Eric; I've done it several times but the ....... will never get into a conversation with me. I don't think he would like to see me actually face-face, he probably would only come up to my groin area. It would be more like face to .........I'll let you fill it in.
Now, now ITM... Let's not let Eric's posting knock you off the wagon. We been doing pretty good the last couple of days. I don't want to see you backslide after all this progress. :)
ITM ~ Man to manhood? Now THAT's funny.
Anna Molly-
Eric's posts are "substantively rich"...?
"...usually..."?
Really?
Honestly?
I'm crestfallen.
You're a lot smarter than that.
And, a lot smarter than Eric.
Way smarter.
Really?
Speaking of bad ecomomic news, and the opening Dow numbers this morning, I wonder if that screwball woman, Sharon Angle, in Nevada still thinks privatization of SS is the way to go? Ain't she a peach (pit)??
Drive-by ~ Making us all work until we're 102 is just part of God's plan. Shame on you for questioning why God wants you to slave till you die and live in an ever-more-violent, -polluted, and -corrupt world.
Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. Bad economic news means that people's 401Ks and pensions will suffer, and those are the primary sources of incomes people will depend on when they retire. And you're talking about a hypothetical situation of some small portion of a persons Social Security being voluntarily privatized. Also, lets not forget why the economy is heading for a double-dip recession, it's because of the economic policies of Barak H. Obama and his friends in Congress. Think it's bad now? Wait until the Bush tax cuts expire. Wait until the new taxes for ObamaCare kick in to high gear. Wait until the cost to maintain interest payments on the debt keeps rising. Taking money out of hard working peoples pocket to feed a bloated government isn't going to help anyone. And anyone under 55 depending Social Security to be there when they retire better think again. That program is like the rest of the Obama and the Democrats Keynesian economics ideas, dead on arrival. Obama can fly around the country all he wants talking up the economy, it doesn't matter, it still stinks, and the people know it.
In The Middle, thanks for your post. No question there are lazy Democrats. But I'm talking about the Speaker of the House position and we can't screw around with that. There is so so much work to be done.
Best of luck with the hurricane. I can remember a time when we used to look forward to hurricanes. Not anymore. Not after what I saw after the devastation that came out of Hurrican Andrew in FL.
JoAnnaSmith:
Let's not forget that the current economic situation is the result of Republican obstructionism. Paul Krugman warned soon after the stimulus bill was passed that it was not big enough to sustain a recovery. He said it "filled him with despair." But the small stimulus package was all that the Democrats could get through Congress at the time, thanks to Republicans and conservative Democrats. Progressives were hoping that Krugman was just being a Gloomy Gus, but it turns out, unfortunately, that he was right.
And of course, lets not forget that the policies that got us into the current economic mess were those imposed during G. W. Bush's eight disastrous years in office.
JoAnna Smith
The economic mess began in Oct. 2008 When people like me and my husband lost part of our retirement investsments. Which we will never recover. John Boehner callled it an "ant". He forgot Oct. 2008 was a month before the election. Guess you have,too. This TRUE AMERICAN and my spouse are still hurting financially. We are GRATEFUL for the tax brake we got from President Obama last April. Unless, you live in another country YOU got a tax break, too.
Bull. Somewhere along the line, Democrats thought they were responsible for nothing. In fact, the lagging economy is created and owned by the Democrats.
Small!? You have got to be kidding. It was the largest "Stimulus" spending bill of all time. And it failed. It failed because the money went to pay off all the state government who couldn't meet payroll for their public workers. It created no jobs. It created no kick to the economy. And now we are back where we started, with one exception, now we get to pay for the "Stimulus" the Democrats wasted.
Bush and the Republicans never got everything they wanted, so I guess in Liberal-Land that means they can blame the Democrats for the failed economy, but yet, they don't. That seems to be only the childish antics of the Democrats. The Democrats own the coming second dip of the recession. No blaming this one on Bush.
The conversation is about the lagging economy. It's interesting that you are so grateful to the Democrats who parcel out little crumbs for you to feed on during the poor economy, but the Democrats are the ones that have done nothing to improve the economy. You lost your investments? Everyone did, a least a part of them. Do you think Obama and the Democrats are doing things to help businesses, and in turn your stock portfolio, to succeed? Businesses don't think so. They are struggling to make a profit. Enjoy your "huge" tax break, it's going to have to be all you have until the Republicans fix the messes the Democrats have created.
"Bush and the Republicans never got everything they wanted, so I guess in Liberal-Land that means they can blame the Democrats for the failed economy, but yet, they don't. That seems to be only the childish antics of the Democrats. The Democrats own the coming second dip of the recession. No blaming this one on Bush."
Wow, JoAnnaSmith, you're REALLY in the weeds on this one. http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/06/30/jon_stewart/index.html Conservatives are still blaming JIMMY CARTER for a housing crash that happened nearly 30 years after he left office!!!
Since the federal government gave a huge amount of money to the states isn't it the state responsibility to use those funds for there citizens? At what point or the states responsible for there inability to govern?
In California, a Reuters/Ipsos poll of registered state voters shows Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) at 45% and challenger Carly Fiorina at 41%, while it also finds Jerry Brown (D) leading Meg Whitman (R) by six points (45%-39%) in the state’s gubernatorial race
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Brown wants 10 debates with MegABucks. Be sure she'll dodge debates as much as possible... of of MegaBucks 'events' have been staged with phony, hand picked audicences.... MegaBucks, the Artificial candidate
Jerry Brown will clean her clock
It also looks like Gonad the Barbarian will withdraw his $11Billion Hand out to Corporate Agriculture... His water bill was designed to hand over California's water to big Agriculture, and then make Taxpayers pay for it
NO SALE
After months and months of losing jobs, I don't think that "stagnation" is as much of a bad deal as is being portrayed. . . I mean it's kind of like trying to lose weight . . . If you have a month where you don't gain any weight but you didn't lose any either . . . that is not so bad.
Is it really realistic to expect the economy to just steam ahead forward like a made for TV movie? I mean, the oil spill has had a tremendous effect on the economy, striking at the height of tourist season and rippling in lots of unexpected ways.
A "bad" economic report should be analyzed IN CONTEXT and put IN PERSPECTIVE - not simply viewed in political terms.
P.S. You mean to tell me that polls aren't perfect? I can't BELIEVE IT? Who would have thunk there could be any problem at all with trying to take the views of 500 folks and stretch them to cover the entire U.S.? I mean, what could possibly go wrong? lol
What a hoot that Boxer and Brown are leading the two Wicked Witches of California despite them puring in tens of millions of their own unearned money. After wasting over $90 million of her own EBay Porn Queen money Old Nag Twitwoman trails Jerry Brown by 6 percentage points. It won't matter how much money this fool who will soon be separated from her money pours into her losing campaign Californians still admire Jerry Brown. Barbara Boxer is going to trash Knarly Carly Phony Fiorina because we dopn't like overpaid receptionists who trashed our local company Hewlett Packard by dropping it's stock price by almost half.
Good luck to anyone in South Texas (and northern Mexico) today. Hurricane Alex is bearing down on the area. Hopefully it won't intensify further. Be safe down there.
I feel bad saying this, but I hope that the system makes landfall as far south as possible (never want to wish a hurricane upon anyone). But, the further it comes to the north, the greater the impact it would have on the oil spill. Already, the wave action is complicating the cleanup efforts.
Supreme Court: It has always been my philosophy that as long as a Supreme Court nominee is not extremely right or extremely left (maybe the further 10% of each) and the nominee is qualified to be a judge, than they should be confirmed. I've said it before and I'll say it again. We got our you know whats kicked in 2006 and 2008 and elections have consequences. If we don't like it, get out there and get some Republicans elected. Put your energy there instead of whining and complaining.
State polls: Just my two cents guys, but it seems that the two national organizations that do the most state polling are Rasmussen and Quinnipiac. It seems to me that Rasmussen tends to bias to the right while Quinnipiac tends to bias to the left. You could almost average the two and get a decent feel for the state of play.
Have a good Wednesday all!
I was happy to hear that Rachel Maddow will be traveling to Afghanistan next week. I know this war has become so unpopular with so many, so I will be anxious to hear what Rachel learns when she is over there. Having pundits, reporters and bloggers slam this war isn't enough reason for me to be against it. I would really like to hear from people who are actually over there which hopefully will give me, at least, a better idea of the pros and cons for staying or leaving.
I don't imagine any responsible US President would leave right now, as much as we would like him to. So I'm definitely anxious for Rachel's reporting.
I only hope that the Afhans don't stone Rachel to death as she setps out of the plane for being an out lesbian. Despite all we are doing there, that country is still in the stone ages regarding gay rights.
Rachel and Keith are the onlytwo news people worth listening to. I also look forward to her impressions and comments on Afghanistan.
Have you seen the disgusting new ad by Teahadist Paliban Terrorist Pamela Gorman from arizona? Any coward, criminal or moron can pull the trigger and shoot a gun. It's obvious from her Teahadist Paliban Terrorist Training video that her hero is Osama bin Laden, look how she worked so hard to emulate his al-Qaeda terrorist training video replete with religious fanatics shooting guns. This corrupt conservative christian has shown she has no qualifications to be an actual House Representative so she has to resort to emulating her hero Osama bin Laden.
I guess gun videos are cowardly conservative christian's foreplay, bet the cowardly conservative christian men get all hot and bothered and lathered up after watching this conservative christian coward shooting off her guns. Bet old Crash Dummy McCain gets all hot and bothered after seeing this disgusting video and goes and chomps down on his Viagra before going to find his husband stealing tramp Cindy.
Did you see the massive schnoz on Pinhead Pam? Her nose is as big as Mount Rushmore, a wonder she hasn't carved Ronny Raygunz's face on it yet. Gruesome Gorman could make a career out of being a Jimmy Durante impersonator with a nose that massive. No wonder she goes for the front face shot so her massive nose doesn't stick out of the frame.
Just Say No to Teahadist Paliban Terrorist Pamela "The Nose" Gorman!
Dumb
A couple of days ago in this forum, I had a brief exchange with a couple of the right wing posters about race - specifically in regards to one of them observing that Barack Obama received 94% of the black vote during the last election and asserting that the only reason he could imagine such a thing happening is a sort of inherent racism that caused them to vote en masse for one of their own. I and others pointed out that this sort of spread among black voters is in fact commonplace in most presidential elections. Dukakis, Kerry, and Gore all received approximately 90% of the black vote.
In fact, the one presidential candidate to receive less than 90% was Clinton, who has been hailed as the 'first black president.'
At any rate, for quite some time now, black voters have been almost uniformly opposed to the Republican party. It occasionally occurs to the right wing, as it did with President Bush just prior to the Democratic Convention of 2004, to wonder why this could possibly be when, at least in their eyes, conservative ideas would help black people so much more than liberal ideas do. Usually the refrain from the right goes something like, "Since the civil rights era, what has the Democratic party actually done for you?"
Which may or may not be a valid issue. You see, with black people the point is never really up for conversation.
Why?
Well, because of completely and utterly tone deaf moments from the right wing like the ones that have been occurring during the Kagan hearings over the past two days. You see, whether it is your intention or not to do so, when you attack a iconic figure of the civil rights era, a hero to black people, who has been dead for 17 years and is not exactly around to defend himself anymore, and you do it in a setting in which what you'll actually get in return for attacking him is... ummm... hazy and indeterminate at best... the people to whom he is a hero are likely to regard you with some hostility in the aftermath.
Attacking Thurgood Marshall as a judicial activist for no apparent reason other than to perhaps delay the confirmation of Elena Kagan is dumb. Let me repeat that. It is dumb. It is not dumb because of the inherent truth or untruth of it. I happen to think in addition to being dumb, it also is false, but like I said, the veracity of it is beside the point. It is dumb because unless your goal is to remain at 6% of the black vote forever, attacking a hero of engaged black voters for the sake of delaying the confirmation of a white woman for a day or two accomplishes nothing more than increasing the already existing hostility of black people toward your party.
As a middle of the road Democrat, I am perfectly fine with all of this of course. I would just like to bookmark this particular post for those occasions when a surly right winger asks in somewhat petulant fashion why the black people never vote for them and ascribe it to some inherent racism found only among the black people because they never vote for Republican candidates.
No, it is not because they are racist.
It is because you are dumb.
Well, being devil's advocate--it could be that they have decided that they are never going to crack the 90% barrier and instead they play to their base, who is happy to hear racist remarks. Of course, they can't admit that so the Republicans instead call black voters racist, which also appeals to the Republican base.
Michael: Very well said. In a few years the same may be said regarding the Latino poplulation. With immigration, the Republicans will likely throw them under the bus...Which is also DUMB.
The republicans have proven time and again that they do not need the "Black vote" to win. The Dems, however, cannot win without it. This is a result of crafting themselves into the party of grievances and victimhood. "Vote for us and we'll single YOUR group out for special treatment". This is why so many Obama voters (regardless of their victim status and their standing in the hierchy of designated victim groups) said they would vote for him because he will "do a lot for us" and "give us a lot."
The dirty little secret is that in the 2000 and 04 elections, many more blacks voted repub than they had in previous years. The Obama hysteria put the brakes on that (hopefully only for the time being). As more and more Blacks move up into the middle classes, they begin to wonder "why shouldn't I keep more of my paycheck...." and "do I really want my 14 yr old daughter to have an abortion without my knowing about it....." , and so forth. The Dems need a new minority, underclass voting block. Hence their desire to make citizens out of illegal aliens.
Yes, Chuck,
That is why the percentage of black voters for Gore and Kerry was higher than it was in either election for Clinton. You know... because so many more black voters were voting Republican.
Can someone please inform me, a black voter, what great things are going to happen for me by voting for either party?
I think that the concept that "black folks" vote for Democrats because we are getting something for the vote is pretty ridiculous. Can someone please direct me where to go to get all these great "payoffs" from Democrats for my vote? Clearly, I have been overlooked in the past.
What do poor whites in Appalachia get for their Republican vote? What do middle class white voters get for their Republican vote?
The simple fact is, folks tend to gravitate towards groups that they feel comfortable with and folks that are comfortable with them.
Folks questioning whether I have the ability to figure out who to vote for without their help is not a great start.
Michael T and Nashville - The reason I became a democrat was because of Mario Cuomo's 1984 Democratic convention key note address. He speaks of some of the differences between Dems and Republicans. You tube it. The speech stills inspires me, more so even than Barack's great 2004 keynote.
To go along with your posts, the Democrats find thier support among all people including African americans and Latinos because Dems at least try to help all the people. For the most part they don't draft legislation that secludes and separates people. Nor do they ascribe to the ideas of the good of the party over the good of the people.
Mario Cuomo - 1984 Democratic convention keynote address.
"We democrats believe that we can make it all the way with the whole family intact, and we have more than once. Ever since Franklin Roosevelt lifted himself from his wheelchair to lift this nation from its knees -- wagon train after wagon train -- to new frontiers of education, housing, peace; the whole family aboard, constantly reaching out to extend and enlarge that family; lifting them up into the wagon on the way; blacks and Hispanics, and people of every ethnic group, and native Americans -- all those struggling to build their families and claim some small share of America. For nearly 50 years we carried them all to new levels of comfort, and security, and dignity, even affluence."
What do the top ten cities with the highest poverty rate all have in common?
Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961; (49 yrs) - Mayor just sentenced to prison for corruption and sex scandal.
Dem Governor for 8 yrs, #1 state for unemployment through Q1 of 2010.
Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1954; (56 yrs)
Cincinnati, OH (3rd)...since 1984; (26yrs)
Cleveland, OH (4th)...since 1989; (21 yrs)
Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor;
St. Louis, MO (6th)....since 1949; (61 yrs)
El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor;
Milwaukee, WI (8th)...since 1908; (102 yrs)
Philadelphia, PA (9th)...since 1952; (58 yrs)
Newark, NJ(10th)...since 1907. (103 yrs)
Einstein once said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same
thing over and over again and expecting different results."
It is the disadvantaged who habitually elect Democrats --- yet are
still disadvantaged.
Paul,
I was going to share a thought with you, but then I realized that if you think what you posted is an example of "cause" and "effect" there really is no point.
Are you going bother to give credit to the original author of that or just claim it as your own? Normally, I don't talk much about plagiarism on the internet, but that is straight off of Weiburg's web page word for word, including the quote from Einstein. At least he named Glen Beck as his source for the data.
In response, the ten richest cities in America also have Democratic mayors. The correlation isn't very strong if you look at all of the data together, instead of only the part that supports Beck's premise.
Cheat - Lie & Steal the great right wing way!
Thanks for pointing that out Michael!
Nashville,
If neither party helps then why do our people vote in a block for Democrats? Yes I call it monolithic when 95% of one race votes one way. There is a reason this is going on and no one is really looking at it deep enough. It is easy to say the Republican party is racist. Maybe it's just the loudest voices that are being heard. I know just as many racist Democrats.
IMO I think blacks are taken for granted by the Democrats because they know that vote is guaranteed and it has not been proven otherwise.
I agree as more blacks move to upper middle-class, they somehow become Republican.
I will say this as a blackman; the black base the Democrat party will never lose is the ones that is dependent upon the government. This is just fine with Democrat politicians because it was intended to be this way. I know some don't want to accept this reality but it is true.
IntheMiddle:
It is curious how many conservatives don't consider no bid government contracts and cozy relationships with government agencies that are supposed to be regulating you as being "dependent on the government".
Why is that?
That is a great point Nash. It is because those that are benefiting from the largesse of these backroom and "country club" deals do not see it as a problem. They get theirs and EFF us.
Aah yes…..I state the facts but omit the author. You omit the facts but the author is obvious…you. The cities listed below do not even come close to the same partisan history as the Top Ten poverty cities, so not only is your statement not true, there is no comparison. A true comparison would be you attempting to dispute facts or banging your head against a wall….same same.
Strongest Economies
Little Rock Ar
Billings Montana
Sioux Falls, IA
Salt Lake City, UT
Tulsa Ok
Oklahoma City OK
Anchorage Ak
Virginia Beach Va
Raleigh NC
Arlington VA
Richest Cities
San Jose
Anchorage
San Francisco
Virginia Beach
San Diego
Anaheim
Raleigh
Seattle
Washington DC
Honolulu
It is not my responsibility to respond to plagiarized crap in any depth. It is pointless, because I am not responding to you. I would be responding to someone who isn't even here and is not listening.
It is, however, your responsibility not to post plagiarized crap if you expect to have any sort of conversation with me. Develop original thoughts and respond to the topic at hand. If not, then accept that you are nothing but the led.
Response to Paul, most of the cities on your first list are all victims of manufacturing flight. Those jobs went to other countries or to the southern states. That's why the southern Senators were happy to let GMC and Chrysler go bankrupt. In the South, they have all the non-union foreign auto companies. They sold out the american companies for a dollar less in wages. Why do Southern Senators hate Americans?
David, your comments support the whole point. i.e. cities with decades of democratic control that are not business friendly resulting in the companies leaving and the people left with nothing. I know it can be very difficult to see a company making profit, but thats the way it works. The democratic idealoogy / agenda is nice and all but it just doesn't work in real life.
You're all about the conspiracy theories, aren't you?
More and more I am finding Republicans in general to be about the conspiracy theories rather than having anthing of substance. It's worse than the 911 conspiracy wackos.
I know the housing market is dead as a door nail right now. After the tax credit ran out, it's been D-E-A-D.
The republicans will not allow this president any leverage to fix the economy because it is their plan to continue pain and suffering so as to have a republican leader eventually be in charge of a recovery. This has been obvious from the start of Obama's term. The democrats must use reconciliation with gusto to get things done while they can.
Scary Sharry Angle just can't keep her arrogant ignorant mouth shut and she's the best thing to happen for us Democrats this election cycle. Her saying that the sane and proper Roe vs Wade decision to allow women the right to choose an abortion is government sticking it's nose into abortion is just another evangelical christian lunatic fringer lie. When the federal government banned abortions that was the federal government sticking it's nose into the abortion game, now the federal government has it's nose out of the abortion issue. It's Scary Sharry Angle who wants to overturn Roe vs Wade in order for the federal government to once again stick it's nose in the abortion issue. Look at how many clueless red states have stuck their state government noses into the abortion issue trying to limit the choices pregnant women have if they want an abortion.
Scary Sharry Angle supports killing pregnant women who need an abortion in order to save their lives, talk about a death panel for pregnant women. She also supports rape and incest by saying those are part of her false god's plan for people and women who get pregnant these ways should never have an abortion.
Scary Sharry Angle wants to destroy Social Security and Medicare make no mistake about it. Her new euphemism of "personalizing" SS is nothing but a rehash of Clueless George Wrong Bush's privatizing SS so that the rich and greedy can steal from the retirement of all old people who really need it. Rest assured that come November the repugnant ones are going to rue letting all of their crazy maladjusted tea bagging facist racist neo-nazi white supremacist skeletons out of their Pandora's Box closet.
Scary Sharry Angle Says Rape and Incest are Best!
FR says Friday's jobs report might be a downer, so maybe these thoughts will be relevant. Yesterday someone around here was moaning about 'trickle down' economics being a fraud, when the reality is more like an economy powered by spending that 'bubbles up.' Others on the board have made the same basic argument from time to time. According to this view, folks at the top (i.e. rich folks) don't really help the majority that much when they spend their money. Instead, it's the spending by the larger number of folks at the bottom that makes our economic engine run. As a corollary to that argument, tax policies that benefit the rich are inappropriate because the additional dollars that flow into rich people's pockets would not be helping overall economic activity to any meaningful extent. Let's see if I can set these folks straight.
When Joe Shmo punches in at the plant in the morning to begin his workday, where did that plant come from? Did it just bubble up from the ground like water from a hot spring? Did folks at the bottom of the economic food chain somehow make that plant appear? Or did the tooth fairy just leave it there on her way to the mall?
None of the above, that plant was built with the financing provided by the savers in our society. Lots of those savers are just average middle class folks like many of us who put a few bucks in the bank whenever we can. But lots of other savers are those who have more abundant resources left over after they pay their bills, i.e. rich folks. After rich folks buy their 2nd yacht or their 3rd Porsche or their 4th penthouse condo (all of which stimulates the economy, by the way) and just can't think of anything else to buy, what do you think they do with their excess funds?
One thing they don't do is stick their money under a mattress. Nope, they invest it. Investing might mean putting their dollars in a bank or buying stock or bonds in a company or buying municipal bonds or even getting together with other rich folks to pool their cash to maybe build a manufacturing plant somewhere. Whatever, what they effectively do is provide a source of capital that is ultimately used by some entrepreneur somewhere to fund an idea that eventually provides jobs for people. So Joe Schmo goes to the plant, bends some metal and is compensated every two weeks for his efforts. But his opportunity to bend that metal and get paid for doing so was enabled by the folks who built the plant in the first place.
That, ladies and gents, is trickle down economics. It's not a fraud, it's not sinister, it's not some smoke and mirrors rhetoric used to allegedly mislead poor Joe into voting against his own self interests. To the contrary, it's basic economics, it's how the world works. Once Joe Shmo is drawing his steady paycheck, then his spending can 'bubble up' and contribute to overall economic activity. But absent a government that just gives Joe some money every two weeks, there is a need for private enterprise to create a framework where Joe trades his value added labor for the paycheck that provides him with the dollars he spends.
Private enterprise finances that framework with savings, savings provided in no small part by rich folks who have an abundance of excess funds to invest. And the relationship of this dynamic to tax policy is clear: raising taxes on the rich would reduce the funds they have available to support capital formation. With smaller pools of capital available for investment, maybe the next plant doesn't get built. Then Joe's buds can't find work, there is no 'bubble up' to fuel the economy, and overall economic activity is dampened. Our current economic situation is already fragile, there's already too many of Joe Shmo's buds who can't find work. Raising taxes on the rich at this time would just make a bad situation worse. That's why if the Democrats in charge of the government insist on raising taxes on the rich, they should wait until our economic recovery is on a firmer footing.
Bill,
I accidentally voted for your post! DOH!
lol
Actually, it was very well written! :o)
Simple question:
How come the Bush tax cuts didn't create jobs?
Bill, you are certifiably insane.
As many, many of the learned posters on FR already know: It's govt. spending programs that build plants and create jobs. Obama's Porkulus plan is only failing because it didn't spend enough to be successful.
Maybe those rich investors could build you an insane asylum to live in and create a few nurse and psychiatric attendant jobs. LOL!!!
Well Nash, one good turn deserves another so I voted for you :)
After 9/11 the economy moved into recession. Part of George Bush's argument supporting tax cuts was that those cuts were needed to stimulate economic activity. The tax cuts worked and unemployment decreased from 6.3% in 2003 to 4.5% in July of 2007.
When folks criticize Bush's alleged failure to create jobs, they need to look at the big picture. In the early part of his presidency, the economy entered recession. In the later years of his presidency, we had the economic meltdown. Both of these events, particularly the latter, had a dampening effect on employment. So if the metric you use to measure job creation is the difference between jobs in 2000 and jobs in 2008, he's going to look bad. But if you consider the intervening events, in particular the modest recovery from the 2001 recession, then he looks better. I'm not saying Bush presided over a job creating machine. But I am saying his performance was a bit better than the left gives him credit for.
And then there's this thought for another day. My view is that the economy has never really recovered from the technology bubble in the late 1990's and 2000. A bubble that was fueled in large part by a Fed that kept interest rates too low for too long. Remember all that Y2K hysteria? The Fed was pumping money into the system at that time to guard against the end of the world caused by uncooperative computers. And where did a lot of that money go? Check out stock charts from that period, check out the way the Nasdaq soared from late 1999 until it crashed in 2000. Economists would call this an 'imbalance' where resources were going to places that were relatively unproductive. We seemed to be recovering from that episode more or less OK, but then the economy took another step back after 9/11. Then the Fed again kept interest rates too low for too long, and where did that money go? Into housing to support that bubble, which burst and pushed the economy two steps backward. So Clinton, Bush, Obama, whoever; there have been some sweeping forces affecting the economy that none of those folks could control.
The Bush tax cuts DID create jobs, Nash -- for illegal aliens.
Bill, what happens when Joe Schmo no longer punches in because his boss got a tax credit to move the factory overseas, his new job pays a lot less so he has nothing left to put into his 401k plan, no one seems to care because the rich folks are making more money than ever, thanks to tax cuts that exceeded Joe's by far, his legislator would like to help but money is speech, after all, and his boss contributes a lot more of it?
THAT is the reality for Joe and large swaths of working America.
John - I understand your perspective. I'm not so sure about all these tax credits that supposedly encourage American companies to move jobs offshore. But I will stipulate this: in today's global economy, capital moves to wherever it can get the best return. If the cost of labor in China is appreciably lower than the cost of similar labor in the U.S., well guess what, some jobs are going to move to China.
In essence, this is the idea of comparative economic advantage between nations: countries that do some things better than other countries will reap economic rewards based on that advantage. In the case of labor costs, countries that have lower labor costs than the U.S. will get more jobs.
The way out of this seeming flow of jobs out of the U.S is for the U.S. to focus its economic activity on the areas where we have a comparative advantage vis a vis other nations. In today's world, that advantage doesn't include much manufacturing. But it does include areas where brainpower is a key resource like software development, biotech, or financial services for example.
So,either we put a heavy emphasis on education so that most folks grow up to work with their brains instead of the brawn of their backs. Or, we erect barriers to engaging in economic activity with countries like China so that we can (artificially) preserve inefficient jobs in the U.S. I know that might sound cold hearted, but that's the economics of the matter. Americans have no god-given or constitutionally guaranteed right to a good job at a fair wage. We as a country and each of as as individuals have to fight for those jobs. And the only way we can win is to be smarter than the next guy.
I'm sure you don't mean it quite this harshly Bill, but the net effect of what you've stated is that it's rough being disadvantaged, but not my problem. I say this because I agree with you on education, but Conservative forces are also waging war against our educational system. The TX Board of Education working to make sure that the schools aren't overly burdened with pesky facts. AL gubernatorial candidates sparring over who believes in science less. Talking heads increasingly making the case that public education, the rock upon which we built our success, should be abolished. So a larger and larger portion of the population falls farther and farther behind until we become an also-ran among nations.
Bill - there have been "authors" of trickle down economic theory that have said it does not work. Stop living in 1980. It was a good theory, it was worth a try but ultimately provided short term benefits at the expense of the long term picture.
To Feisty--I was traveling last week so I must have missed the news--Lawrence O'Donnell is getting a show on MSNBC? Can you fill me in?
You heard right Steeler Fan - our guy Larry O' is FINALLY getting his own show... he'll follow Rachel Maddow.
I haven't heard when it's suppose to start... anyone got details?
Now if we could just get rid of Gotcha Gregory...lol
See--your patience is at least partially rewarded! He will be great, I'm sure. How about Larry King stepping down in part because of losing ratings to Rachel Maddow (as well as Beck). Sure will miss Mr. King's hard-hitting interviews!
On the economy-ADP is already out with the June jobs number, and it is bad, folks. It looks like 13,000 private sector jobs were added-far short of the projected 120,000 to 150,000.
More proof that Keynes was wrong, is wrong, and always will be wrong.
I see we're now vilifying Boehner. I guess the idea of painting the republicans as attacking a little Italian grandmother didn't work. This will fail, as well.
Daily Kos suing R2k for inaccuracy is ridiculous. R2k is up front about how they do their weighting-Daily Kos should have paid more attention to what they were getting for their money. I do not agree with their theory that the only way to weight is to the turn out at the last presidential election, but they were perfectly up front about it. As an aside, given their weighting, I would be really interested in their doing a national on Obama. THOSE results would be telling.
I do not understand your complete dismissal of the auto polls, particularly given that the three most mainstream, PPP Polling, (a democratic firm), SurveyUSA, and Rasmussen, had the best results for New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts. You can argue a lot of things, but you cannot dispute the results.
Ah, well, another day, another billion in the hole.
no joe,
You are very good at telling us what and who is wrong . . . so who is right?
I mean, we did it the trickle down way for the previous 8 years, and boy did that turn out great!
No Nashville, we did not do the trickle down thing over the past 8 years, the tax cuts in the early 2000's did help create jobs and investment, the problem was the spending problems the previous admin had, increasing the debt, put a damper on any significant growth. We have put the spending in overdrive now, and with taxes set to go through the roof starting next year nobody with capital is willing to put it on the line to expand business, thus, no real job creation and no real recovery.
NJNB--I'll take a month with any jobs added over the losses we had before. I'll bet the 13,000 people are happy. And let's not forget that new grads are hitting the job market now, too.
Nash-you do remember the unemployment numbers during the Bush years, right? For most of them, we were at full employment levels-actually, below them for a good period.
Here is where you are wrong about trickle down: let's say you want to buy a fridge. You go to an appliance store to make your purchase, so the store gets money, which it uses to pay its employees, who spend that money buying other things. However, before your purchase, the store bought the fridge from the manufacturer; that means, a delivery company was involved in moving it from the plant to the store, which generated money for the economy when the truckdrivers were paid, bought fuel, paid tolls, ate meals at truck stops; the workers in the plant that manufactured it got paid and spent funds, the suppliers of the materials that went into the fridge got paid, paid workers, who spent funds, and on and on.
Now, suppose your taxes got hiked, so you decided that the old fridge would just have to serve for a while longer?
Actually, you are right on one point: in the spring of 2008, seeing a decline coming, Bush authorized 'middle class tax cuts'-sent out in the form of checks to the middle class. This was exactly the wrong thing to do in the face of an economic downturn. See, the middle class has a tendency to save, or to pay down debt, with such funds-which is exactly what happened. (Go to the archives, I believe that you were one of the people arguing that paying down debt was good; it is, in a rational expectations way. However, it was bad for the economy.) The way to stimulate the economy in the face of a downturn is to cut taxes for the poor and the rich. Why? Because the poor will spend it as soon as it comes in the door, and the rich will invest-thus spurring the economy at the top and the bottom.
No politician in his or her right mind would come out and tell this truth; thus, 'across the board' tax cuts.
Now, some of those tools have been lost. The bottom 47% don't PAY any taxes, but instead get welfare in the form of 'refundable tax credits'. You cannot give away any more of the wealth of the top 53% than is already being done. Therefore, the best way to generate growth in the economy at this time is to make the business climate favorable for expansion. That involves tax cuts for businesses to encourage expansion, and a realistic gameplan from the government which removes the uncertainty facing businesses today. Announce that cap and trade is off the table, that tax cuts for R and D are to be made permanent, change the depreciation schedule so that it is more realistic, and, most of all, stop talking as if businesses were the enemies, rather than the employers.
While you're at it, encourage the American people to loosen their wallets. The tax credit for home purchases should not have been allowed to expire. In fact, it should have been expanded to any home purchase. Consumer confidence is down to historically low levels-something has to be done about that, and the upcoming job report is going to-it will make it worse yet.
This president, and this congress, have done just about all they could to take a bad situation and make it worse. Obama was ignored, if not treated with contempt, at the G20. Angela Merckel had some choice words for him, as did Cameron. Sarkozy simply ignores him. It is obvious to them that he knows nothing at all about reviving an economy, other than to rely on theories that have been proven to fail over and over again.
A new congress will take this out of his hands. Hopefully, his feelings will be so lacerated by the rejection of his programs that he will take himself off our hands, and resign. Even clueless Joe will do better.
Va Ind:
But for some reason, alot of Republican Administrations have trouble following their ideology. I mean, with the first George Bush, it was "Read My Lips, No New Taxes" . . . which did not last too long when he faced the realities of the economy.
With the second President Bush, it was tax cuts which were not rescinded as spending increased. Their were huge government bailouts to cover the ponsy scheme that is Wall Street.
So what is with the excuses - does conservative financial idealogy work or not?
If it is so great, why can conservatives never follow it?
Because what looks good on paper doesn't work in the real world?
Maybe its time for the idealogy to be adjusted to reflect reality?
Because, no matter what excuses are made, the fact is that the middle class is always left holding the bag.
no joe:
All of these examples sound so great, but of course, they leave out all the naughty bits:
Corruption, greed, incompetence, and malfeasance.
I love reading these wonderful descriptions of benevolent corporations and wealthy investors using their capital for the greater good . . . makes me wonder how we ever end up in all the ditches we find ourselves in.
I mean, we elect conservatives, they sell us these wonderful stories, and then proceed to rob and plunder at will.
When there is nothing left to take, they turn around and tell us that is our fault for not paying attention.
This is a debate I cannot have with you nojoe. If the history of what has happened over the past 8 years, not to mention the 30 before that doesn't convince you, nothing will.
We all need fantasy in our lives . . . enjoy yours.
Nashville, I agree that many republicans don't follow conservative financial ideology, and I'm not trying to defend them by any means, but, when conservative financial principals are applied they work. You just have to look toward Europe today to get the most recent example. I find it interesting that Europe is now starting to lecture the US about controlling spending.
The US economy has been strong due in large part to providing an environment that is more advantageous to investors than other countries. Lower tax rates increase capital. Capital is investment that creates economic growth. Government spending does not create growth or capital. If we continue on the path we are heading, these investors will move to countries with more favorable environments. Wealth will leave this country and our economy will suffer greatly for it for years to come. Remember, once they leave it is very difficult to get them back.
It does not matter if you are democrat, republican or independent or whatever.. if you want to create security and prosperity you have to control your budget and spending. People understand this with their personal budgets, why can the government get it? You have to create an environment that promotes private sector growth, without it, you have no real revenue for necessary government programs. A strong private sector creates a fiscally strong government, there is no other alternative.
As I said a few days ago, the private sector had a window of opportunity to act late last year and early this year and instead opted for 2-3 decent quarters where they bilked higher 'production' from the employees they didn't happen to lay off during the mass panics of late 2008 to early 2009. They were rewarded for their shortsighted behavior with increases in stock prices, which will now crash and burn again because the conventional wisdom is that we are going into a double dip recession and half the country won't buy anything and the other half of the country CAN'T buy anything.
Of course, the government will be blamed for this because it hasn't lowered taxes that are already historically low, attempted to do something to give the private sector breathing room, (which it utterly failed to take advantage of), and happens to be the opposite party for the free marketeers.
Until the free market stops rewarding behavior that is counterproductive to the society as a whole, (outsourcing jobs, laying off workers, merging companies and selling off parts), then there will always be a disconnect between what is good for a business and what is good for the community that surrounds it. Sometimes squeezing every penny out of 2007 might not be what you want if that contributes to the entire company going under in 2009.
Just food for thought.
VA Ind:
It seems to me that when conservatives are in power, they do whatever they want to benefit themselves, and when they are out of power, they start howling about the deificit.
Europe can't lecture us, because the entire world bought into casino capitalism, and now we are paying the global price.
The private sector was given everything they ever wanted, and proved not to be good stewards . . . happens everytime.
So why do yo believe that "this time" will be different?
I've heard this same tune too many times before - it sounds real good, but the results are always the same - the rich get richer and I get left holding the bag.
Amen, Michael--good thoughts. I have noticed that even people with relatively secure jobs don't feel secure about the economy. No one trusts business to get it right.
NJ, all good except...
We had reasonably full employment, but the wealth all went to the upper 5%, with very little shared to the rest. As a result for the first time EVER the average wage at the pre-recession peak in 2007 was LOWER than the previous peak. The vast majority of Americans LOST GROUND during that time.
I'm with you to a point on the taxes, except that Conservative orthodoxy considers taxes to be a black hole. Government workers also spend money, creating activity in all the ways you described. they even pay part of that money back...in taxes.
Tax cuts to the middle class are bad. Tax cuts to the rich are good. I'll let that one fall on its own merits.
TOTALLY untrue that 47% of don't pay ANY taxes. They don't pay any Federal Income Tax. They're still paying FICA, Social Security, state and local income taxes, gasoline tax, sales tax, property tax should they own a home... Add in the fact that most of the income of the wealthy is taxed preferentially as capital gains and in many cases the top earners pay a LOWER portion of their income as taxes than most of the rest of us.
Might I go one step farther and point out that tax cuts also serve as economic stimulus and your entire case is based on that. The problem is it's also the least effective type of stimulus. http://www.epi.org/analysis_and_opinion/entry/public_investment_far_better_than_tax_cuts/
no shortage of irony that you pounce on additions of jobs (even though small) as a negative,...come on - lighten up,...for six months we've added jobs,...why does that pain you?
PS. Wondered if you caught the poll issues going on - BEWARE THE STATE POLLS, they are not all they seem to be,...
Va Ind, Everything you said in your first response was Bulls#it. First of all, the only reason there was a tax cut was because we HAD a surplus, courtesy of Bill Clinton. There was no spending problem. You can Fuc#ing lie to the ignorant if you want, but you made yourself look like an ass.
Jon Stewart did another great show last night making fun of Fox and Freaks and their Triple Down Moron Sandwich team in the mornings, you know the Crazy Carlson Witch surrounded by the two unwise male morons Loosey Doucey and Cuckoo Kilmead. No wonder it takes all three of them to do a show since all they have is one brain cell each, their brain cell gets lonely.
Stephen Colbert has also done a great job dissing the Fox and Freaks crowd as he showed a Fox and freaks disclaimer regarding these idiotic ancient doomsday apocalypse predictions that always come up bust that says "doomsday predictions are not based on facts or history". He showed that next to Fox and Freaks Blonde Bozo Megyn Kelly saying "Megyn Kelly's reporting is not based upon facts or history".
Fox and Freaks - Liberal's Favorite Comedy Channel!
A lefty liberal website's polls that routinely produced liberal happy-news results are found to be FRAUDULANT??
Say it ain't so. LOL!!!
About time that Liberals target Traitor Ben Nelson as we just don't need conservative trash like him from a red state who sides with the repugnant ones way too much. Great to see the Sierra Club, the SEIU and other good liberal groups put out a new series of ads touting the need for proper climate change and energy reform so we can wean ourselves off our addiction to foreign oil.
Democrats had better not let the good be the enemy of the perfect by wimping out on proper cap and trade legislation. If the repugnant ones want to filibuster cap and trade then the Democrats have to say No Cap and Trade No Drill Baby Drill off our shores and no Nuke Baby Nuke increased nuclear power plants. Time for Democrats to show some backbone by not compromising what we need in Cap and Trade while giving away increased offshore oil drilling and more nuclear power plants. If the repugnant ones want those then they have to give us Cap and Trade. As always the dopes of nope lie about Cap and Trade, it's not a tax and it will create a lot of new jobs.
No Cap and Trade then No Drill Baby Drill and No Nuke Baby Nuke!
Anyone notice that MSNBC's front page has a big blaring headline about how "red tape" is stalling oil spill cleanup efforts? The article makes no mention of the potentially destructive effects of the oil-eating bacteria on the environmnet, or about Bobby Jindal's lack of intiative in approving cleanup activities and his failure to deploy most of the National Guard troops that President Obama authorized him to do.
About a week after the oil spill began, Rush Limbaugh decided that the catastrophe should be portrayed as "Obama's Katrina," and the corporate media (MSNBC and CNN as well as Fox) are all dancing to Limbaugh's tune, which they usually do.
Houston:
Most likely Jindal and those along the LA coast do have some gripes regarding red tape. But the fault does not lie with Obama. The fault would lie with what is known as "the bureaucracy". No matter who is President the bureaucracy has become so big and complex that red tape is a natural condition of the same. A bureacracy, one as large as the federal government, is self-perpetuating. It feeds on itself and must constantly grow in order to supply itself with food. And the bigger it gets the more complex it gets so that the only purpose it has left (because all other objectives are lost in the belly of the beast) is to grow and to eat some more.
I would imagine that several large federal agencies have their hands on each and every single issue facing the folks along the gulf. And each department brings with it its own set of polciies, rules, forms, regulations and requirements etc., that must be met, completed or satisfied before that single issue can be attended to. To expect any President to be knowledgable of and to have the ability to eliminate all the bureaurcratic red tape in every agency in one full swoop is insane.
Everyone here I'm sure is aware of just how difficult and complex it can be to deal with one federal agency. Now imagine a single gulf coast issue being monitored and regulated by the Department's of Interior, Agriculture, Environmental Protection, Coast Guard, Emergency Response, Labor, on and on to be followed closley in all cases by the IRS. Red tape. You bet you there is red tape. And if stretched out from end to end would most likely be able to circumvent the world several times over.
But this is not the fault of Obama or any other person who may be in this office. It is the fault of a bureauracy that has run amok with rules, standards, regualtions and requirements that would make most attorney's heads spin, let alone the average person along the gulf. A bureaucracy that even if left unattended by a vacancy in the Presdiency as well as a vacancy in every single Congressional seat it would still survive without these people and continue to grow and to feed on itself.
CA,
I'm sure there's red tape and bureaucracy at the federal level. How could there not be? But you apparently are unaware of the dubious role the governor of Lousiana has played in this disaster. He's been portrayed in the media as some sort of hero standing up to "big government". But his performance has been less than stellar. See these two articles, which are rare examples of someone in the corporate media stepping on the agreed-upon narrative:
Louisiana Wants U.S. Help, and Its Own Way
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/26/us/politics/26jindal.html
Gulf Coast Governors Leaving National Guard Idle http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/24/eveningnews/main6615414.shtml
Oh Houston, my comments in no way attempt to let Jindal off the hook. Thei guy is a freakin game player, flip flopping all over the place for the purpose of making political points. One example as you know is his initial refusal to take stimulus money for his State and criticizing the plan ,and then showing up at ribbon cutting ceremonies with a big grin on his face holding up a stimulus check that was being used to fund the project. No, my comments in no way are to be considered an excuse for Jindal. A good Governor would stop complaining and if need be getting down and dirty to get things moving and done for their people along the gulf. As Governor, if there were unnecessary red tape I would be doing some a** kicking on my own instead of crying how the feds are not helping. And even if a strugglle to do so at least folks like BP and these federal agencies would know they had been in a damn good fight. The guy is a whimp.
Elena Kagan is making fools out of the dopes of nope who try so hard to lie about her record trying desperately to stop her inevitable confirmation. So far the repugnant ones have landed no knockout punches as she takes their hardballs and bats them out of the ballpark for homeruns. Her excellent sense of humor is winning the hearts and minds of regular Americans and she'll be confirmed easily as many repugnant ones on the confirmation committee are praising her. Looks like Witch McConnell is headed for yet another defeat in the Senate.
Confirm Elena Kagan Now!
did you catch the question from Lindsay Graham?
"Where were you on Christmas Eve?" to which she presumed he was asking about her position on the terrorist plot. And he responded, "No, I literally wondered where you were?" and she came back with, "Like most Jews I was probably eating Chinese food!"
Personally, I thought it was hysterical. He is such a complete dork, what the hell kind of question was that?
LOL Clara... Personally I LOVED her comeback about having to have her hair done more often if they allow cameras in the courtroom to Spector! :0)))
Read in the paper today that help is on the way from 12 foreign countries and world organizations to the Gulf, apparently including ships. So, the rants about Obama and the Jones Act need to stop.
Pat - factcheck.org has a very good piece about this. The Jones Act apparently was not a problem but came out during a Fox and Friends interview with a Republican. Also it indicated that President Obama has accepted foreign help. Read it!
Non partisan web site folks - the best in town for the truth!
What is up with this headline???
Red tape stalls marshes cleanup
This is at the very end of the story, why things are held up.
Cost effectiveness questioned
Researchers concluded “you get more bang for your buck with traditional approaches — skimming, burning, separating the oil from the water physically,” Suydam said. Bioremediation, according to the state’s research, is better to use later, to “polish” the marshes after the initial cleanup is done, he said.
Still, each spill is different. Oil from each spill is unique, and it takes different forms in different places after being acted on by currents, tides and weather.
Patrick Semansky / AP
Airboat pilot Michael Fabian shows the consistency of the oil washing into marsh grass in Barataria Bay, La., on Sunday, June 20, 2010.
Handling the oil in delicate marshlands, which act as a nursery to many wildlife species in the Gulf — is especially complicated.
The first order of business is to prevent the oil from permeating the ground.
“If it hits the plants, they have the potential to grow back,” said John Lopez, director of sustainability at the nonprofit Lake Ponchartrain Basin Foundation. “If it saturates the soil … the plants will die.”
The loss of plant life would in turn accelerate already alarming rate that the marshland is disappearing along the Lousiana coast — estimated at about one football field every 45 minutes, according to Lopez.
Alternative cleanup methods present their own risks to the marsh ecosystem, Suydam, the Texas land office spokesman, conceded.